Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Scottish independence

1545557596072

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Geography does not give rise to 'The Bank of England' or 'The Church of England'. These are English establishments.

    Scotland has different laws from England, as evidence by the rituals being run out over the last few days. King Charles has Scottish titles that pass directly to his son, but Prince of Wales does not, and had to be expressly granted. King Charles automatically becomes head of the CoE and automatically defends it. In Scotland he had to give an express declaration for the Church of Scotland as, unlike the CoE, is not the established church.

    The absence of the RAF and navy from Scotland has more to do with penny pinching.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    there are only three navy bases, two in southern England and one in Scotland.

    RAF bases are pretty much all a legacy of WWII where geography was the number one driver.

    im not sure the relevance of the rest of your post. It’s a bit bizarre



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    I don't think you're correct on your statements at all.

    And as said before, no, Scotland, can't use the pound. And things don't get more correct, if you keep repeating them.

    Also why should Scotland continue to use the pound, if they want to leave? ( that's the part which sounds very very much like a Brexiteer )

    I also don't think that there is ever a majority of Scots who would want the Euro, - it's a mismanaged currency which constantly devalues, it's worse than the pound.

    Sturgeon doesn't get more credible if she keeps reiterating that the pound can still be used in an Independent Scotland.

    I would also find it very very hard to believe that the rest of the UK would tolerate the Scotts leaving, but at the same time still retaining citizenship or wanting to retain Briitsh citizenship, with all it's advantages. This would include voting in every federal election in the rest of the UK by absentee ballot for at least another 15 years, this could change every outcome of every election. Same goes for free NHS treatment across the border in England. Sorry, but whatever you say, I simply won't believe that Westminster would ever tolerate that and Sturgeon will certainly not have a clear answer to that as well.

    The debate on the English/Scottish border will be very much one of the border on Northern Ireland to the Republic now. Westminster could easily impose taxes and customs duties, use it as a possible trade war, if Scotland doesn't play along as they want, like continue using the pound, etc.... There is not much Bruxelles could ever do, regarding the English Scottish border.

    Scottish independence is already an argument, before it even happens. That one is certainly for sure.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    As has been said already, the Bank of Scotland can use any currency they wish, and name it whatever, while pegging it to Sterling. The Bank of England have no say in this matter, so I'm not sure why the insistence otherwise. Would appreciate a link that somehow confirms Scotland can't use "pounds", and simply match it to Sterling.

    We ourselves are the obvious precedent and Case Study on a slow decoupling from the Union while asserting legislative independence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,160 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Scottish unionists have been continuously pushing the 'Scotland is not a real country' line, just a mere British region, but I notice King Charles has referred to Scotland as a 'country' and a 'nation' on quite a few occasions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    There is an article on citizenship:

    The subject would even go further, like Scots living in England, their spouses and children, etc...

    As a comparison, when Czechoslovakia spilt up, similar issue, Czechs could not have Slovak citizenship and vice versa. Former Yugoslavia is a similar thing. Croats certainly don't want the Serbs voting in their federal election......



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Or here about financial matters: ( of course that's a Tory paper, so the SNP voters automatically discredit it)

    "An independent Scotland could start off saddled with £180 billion of debt and be forced to borrow £20 billion annually to plug a financial black hole, according to a former economic adviser to the Scottish government.

    Professor John Kay, who served on the Scottish council of economic advisers, warned of the challenges that lie ahead as ministers prepare to publish new papers arguing that Scots would be better off outside the UK"



  • Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭Annascaul


    Scottish independence is just too risky I think. There are more questions and the answers are given by populist politicians. Criticism is always answered by the don't see things too negative kind of talk.

    The currency matter is sure a serious one. Parting ways normally means parting ways, severing ties. Suppose an independent Scotland could theoretically use the British pound, then the Bank of England would set the interest rates, - as it deems it for the rest of the UK. Suppose they raise them to say, 5 or 6% to their needs, but Scotland would need 2% to stimulate lending for their economy. It'll be a constant issue.

    All possible thoughts, which neither Sturgeon or any politician can answer with certainty.

    And then there are fiscal policies of the country, funding if universities and the NHS in Scotland, - I wouldn't trust the SNP on this at all, given their performance.

    Citizenship would also be a grave concern. I suppose it will work on some kind of "habitual residency" thing, - another bureaucracy. How long do you live here or there, or where were you born? Children of those and those criteria are eligible, cut off dates for this and that, depending on birth dates, etc...

    All unpleasant matters.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,561 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Ultimately, whether or not independence is a good idea should be decided by the Scots themselves. As someone who was raised a Unionist, I can sympathise with either side of the debate but what's disgusting is the derision from Westminster towards arguably the most capable politician in the country at the moment.

    Let Scotland decide and have done with it.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Citizenship and money can be answered and have been already on this thread by looking at Ireland.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    One can answer anything it only depends how and not everybody likes the answers.

    The questions are never dangerous, but the answers are.

    I would suspect that they would do some kind of "habitual residency test" on how they would award Scottish citizenship.

    That would mean, that even somebody who feels English but lived in Scotland for professional reasons for say, 15 years or more, would get Scottish citizenship. Place of birth would be another criteria.

    Or if you have clearly Scottish ancestry, but are living in England or Wales for several generation.

    And then there is the problem of the referendum results. Say 52% vote in favour of independence, this would mean roughly 2,5 Million people in Scotland would b become Scottish citizens and quite possibly lose British citizenship against their will. Personally I would never agree to that. A slim majority deciding over my identity, an identity I clearly do not want to have.

    This scenario is not impossible. I only think back, when Newfoundland joined Canada, everybody became Canadian, and British ancestry was later on not recognized.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,401 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    If Sturgeon doesn't have the heart for the independence fight, who does?

    How close to giving up on indyfref2 is she?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    I would suggest the independence fight is driven by hardliners inside the SNP.

    It'll be similar as the Brexit was driven by hardliners in the Conservatives. Cameron didn't want it either, I'd suggest.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    @tinytobe You talk of federal elections - What are they? Are you aware of British or Irish nomenclature? Are you sure you even know where Scotland is?

    People born in Ireland prior to 1948 were entitled to British citizenship. People born in NI have always been entitled to British citizenship - if they wanted it.

    People of Irish nationality are not aliens in Britain, according to the 1948 British Nationality Act. That means they are on a par with British citizens, but they cannot vote for the head of state - but neither can British citizens as we see from recent events but we will leave that there. Otherwise they can vote as any British citizen can, including parliamentary ones.

    The Irish citizens are entitled to access to the NHS on a par with British citizens - unless that has changed recently.

    If Scotland pegged the Scottish Haggis (Scotland's new currency) to the GBP, then obviously they suffer whatever interest set by the Bank of England. If they do not like it, they float. If they wanted, they could peg it to the US$, or the Euro, or the SA Rand. I am sure they could pick the best solution that favours their economy.

    Scottish nationality would be determined by the Scottish Constitution - should they institute one, or by whatever the Scottish Parliament should decide. British nationality is up to the various British Nationality Acts that have been passed over the last 100 or so years. Currently anyone born on NI can be British, Irish, or both. [Of course, the British Home Office have yet to reflect that in British Nationality law, but there you go, never trust them].

    The passing of the Scottish Independents Referendum (should one be allowed to be held) would result in negotiation for divvying out the various financial mess England has found itself to be in. Scotland is quite separate from England as it stands - health, police, railways, general Gov services, etc.

    As for the border between Scotland and England, Hadrian did a good job of delineating it quite a few years ago. There are very few crossing due to geography - a few railway lines, a few motorways, and a few other roads. It is quite remarkable how separate the two countries are. The NI border, on the other hand, has crossings every km or so. The Scottish border is also a lot shorter than the NI border.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Well 5.5 million Scottish people lost EU citizenship on a margin as tight.

    Scotland could just stay in the CTA like Ireland and those people could keep being British and live there just like I did with my Irish passport in the UK.

    Again all this has been done on this thread already.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    The Scottish border is a natural choke point which is probably why it became the natural border when both countries were separate.

    NI was never a national border and wouldn't have been on if both countries were separate and evolved naturally over 100s of years.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The Scottish border, as the crow flies is less than 130 km, and according to my perusal of Google maps has about 24 road crossings, and I think two railway lines.

    One of the cleanest borders you could hope to police.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Your language is as welcoming and educational, as if I was to lecture an Irishman on the advantages of the plantation and what Oliver Cromwell did for the greater good of Ireland.

    And as you said, "born in Ireland prior to", this would be what I've meant by cut off dates.

    Anybody born after, it's their bad luck.

    And who wants citizenship of a country where international contracts and agreements aren't forged yet?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    In 1948, Ireland became a republic. Those born after that date were Irish citizens. But even as Irish citizens, they were given the equivalent of British citizens in Britain.

    You do understand what the means. They were not British citizens in Canada, or Australia, or anywhere else in the British Empire, later to become the British Commonwealth, but were treated for all issues as if they were British citizens in Britain. Incidentally, British citizens enjoy significant benefits in Ireland not available to other nationalities. [Some not even available to Irish citizens].

    I would expect that the same would apply to those born in Scotland after Scotland became independent of England.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,885 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Interestingly, it would be a lot easier for Scotland to separate from the UK (print their own money, have their own resources, have a functioning government, border defined properly) than it would be for Northern Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,286 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Your language suggests you do not care much for self determination



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,286 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    At the moment, very few in the leadership of the SNP. The court case is in about 4 weeks and then we will see



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,720 ✭✭✭An Claidheamh


    Why would Scotland want to be part of the UK when the latter signs international agreements and breaks them?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    There is no option for a NI to become an independent country.

    They remain part of the UK until a border poll allows them to become part of a united Ireland. Of course, that depends on the SoS for NI allowing a border poll (not sure any Tory SoS would agree to one) and Ireland, in a referendum, accepting them, but I am sure they would.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Well if the majority of NI voted for an Independence party like Scotland did it would be on the agenda but that's obviously never going to happen.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,545 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    NI also print their own money on the same basis (secured against Sterling).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    I do suppose you're right. There's absolutely no proof that any States' in Northern Europe of around 5m people could be in anyway successful and be independent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    It won't be that messy. The English/Scottish border has very few crossings. It's incomparable to the British -imposed border in Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    The Union should continue so partition can continue. I see. This obsession of Irish Unionists of Scotland being an "ally" is weird.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Never-endum is the type of shte you see ripped straight off loopy political Twitter accounts.

    Also it's not a border crossed regularly because it's mostly a deadzone population wise. You would have minor problems at Gretna and I know there are English people commuting into Carlisle (many moved to score free uni for the kids)



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,474 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Scottish pound is pegged to Sterling. It would cost England billions to even begin to consider the possibility of breaking the 1:1 hard link from their side. And all for nothing if the Scots don't break the link from their side.

    Scotland are par t of the CTA a prexisting mini-Schengen, if they can grandfather in their previous exemptions then EU membership would be trivial.

    Worst case a Norway deal works for Scotland.

    Brexiteers didn't have facts and figures, just emotions and the hope that the EU would collapse at the negotiations and fully later on. Brexit for Brexiteeers was a zero-sum gain , for the UK to win the EU must lose, except the EU didn't collapse.


    The arguments from the pro UK side are mostly FUD. All about possible downsides. No upsides for staying in the union are there ?

    It cannot be stressed enough that at present a lot of the corporate profits made in Scotland are declared in head offices in London and are taxed in England.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    It's also rather baffling, the suggestion that a border arrangement would be anything but relatively amenable. Brexit has been a disaster, Northern Ireland a noted plaything of the Tories but a land border between Scotland and England woild, in my estimation, be a trivial part of the discussions. Especially as it's not an especially populous part of the world.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,401 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    The way I'd like to see a united Ireland come about is via a poll when it's a foregone conclusion that NI will vote for unification.

    That means that unification has a strong mandate.

    Were Scotland to leave the union then the union itself and NI's place in it would come under scrutiny.

    And that could lead to a very unstable situation in NI that could result in violence.

    Now I have no great time for the NI unionists cause but at the same time I'd rather not see any more people lose their lives up there.

    So Scotland's departure could have a destabilizing affect which could lead to violence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,401 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Brexiteers didn't have facts and figures, just emotions

    The Scots are pretty low on facts and figures also, have a read of the 2013 white paper and it's all aspirational stuff

    And they have plenty of emotion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    All sides and pundits praised IndyRef precisely because people debated and voted with clear heads and not emotion.

    You hate Sturgeon I get it but you are just going around in already debunked circles.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Why do you keep repeating yourself and creating such ridiculous strawmen and hurdles to try and prove your tenuous arguments?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    I could ask you the same question.

    I just don't agree with Scottish independence.

    The word is "Never" just as Paisley would have barked it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,286 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    You do not agree with Scotland becoming an independent sovereign country? That is fine and you can vote No in the forthcoming referendum. I will be voting Yes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    You could ask the same question alright but it wouldn't make sense seeing as I've not being outlining the same nonsense like yourself.

    You pedalled this nonsense a few months back and then disappeared. I mean, your use of terms like "federal elections" shows you're firmly out of your depth. Thankfully, you'll not be voting in indyref2.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    I mean, imagine invoking Paisley and the Spectator and thinking you'd be taken seriously on Scottish independence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,031 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The citizenship and currency issues are at least complete red herrings. The Free State and later the Republic kept the Punt pegged to Sterling for over 50 years after independence. Citizenship only became an issue when Ireland declared itself a Republic really. It would take a generation to resolve and would be slowly phased in. Everyone would remain a British citizen at independence. Only those born after may not be, but the likelihood is, the first generation would at least also be considered British citizens and in any case the CTA is almost certainly going to remain as is. Sure the English have lost FoM in enough of Europe....are they really going to opt to cut themselves off from Scotland and Ireland too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    are they really going to opt to cut themselves off from Scotland and Ireland too.


    One can dream 🤣🤣🤣



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Look, following a vote for independence, the transition would follow the roadmap that we followed, but over a much shorter time frame.

    The continuance of the CTA would be a given. I cannot see any point in even considering it. Who benefits from changing it?

    The continuance of most 'British' institutions would continue - probably for a generation. I am thinking of the BBC, the monarchy, the British Armed forces and defence setups.

    The North Sea could be an issue - fishing, oil and gas, wind farms.

    The postal system is covered by international norms, but privatised in the UK - I would see Scotland reverting that to state ownership. NHS would continue as is, with reciprocal access.

    Scottish Rail is already separate. Scottish Police is also separate.

    The border is a complete non-issue. There are few crossings, and nobody lives in the immediate vicinity. The NI border goes through farms and houses.

    The big issues would be taxation and control of the economy. The negotiations would trundle on and hit rocky patches on assets and debt portioning. Faslane would be one card for Scotland to play, while the Westminster negotiators would try all sorts of dirty tricks.

    Money is the root of all nationalism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,688 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    yeah it seems there is not that many people crossing the border daily to go to work unlike NI.

    Still though if it would eventually be an EU border the transit of goods like food from England to Scotland wouldnt be as seamless as it is now. If the big supermarkets all have their main distribution centres in the south a border has the potential to push food prices in a Tesco in Scotland higher than what the same items are in a Tesco in England. There would be a cost to Scottish consumers. They would also be going from a UK market of 60 million to an independent market of 5.5m and we know here in Ireland how we pay higher prices for everything from food to broadband to all sorts of consumer goods becasue we are a small market. Independence has the potential to push the prices of everything there up by 10 or 15% at least until they get new supply chains to the EU but even then many services like broadband and mobile will be within Scotlands borders only and becasue its a smaller market they will end up paying more than they do now with the benefit of a much larger UK market.

    You'd also wonder what games a Tory govt could play with such a border, the NIP situation proves that they cannot be trusted to abide by international treaties and they will use a border as a political tool. It wouldnt surprise me at all for them to use that border to put pressure on an independent Scotland in the same way as they are always accusing the French of doing at Calais. They could purposely under resource the English side of the border to create queues and undermine Scottish tourism from English holiday makers. I could absolutely see a Tory govt. doing that, it would typical of the way they carry on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,286 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Eight years today since the people in Scotland bottled it


    Sturgeon has been First Minister for almost all those eight years and she has barely moved independence forward





  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I dunno. I think I disagree; she has steered the country as close to a sovereign nation as devolution has allowed. Made some small but singular gestures that grabbed headlines (like the sanitary products initiative, highlighting period poverty), and by and large normalised the idea of Scotland: A Nation. The pandemic emphasised that with specifically Scottish decisions IIRC? (Why does that already feel like a lifetime ago)

    Probably helped that your equivalent south of the border has been one to the more venal generations of Tory.

    All of it means that if someone like Lord Frost's did come along and roll back devolution, as he had threatened? Scots wouldn't have been complacent about its own agency and separate course, they'd have lived what they were to lose.

    A lot of independence movements are sudden shocks; boom, now form a government. Congrats you have no money. Feels like Sturgeons tack is towards a continuance, rather than one of sudden change.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,561 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    How is she supposed to move independence forward, exactly? Spain has made it clear that it would oppose Scottish accession unless it's done within the confines of the British constitution. In the meantime, Scotland has other matters to contend with, as Pixelburp has shown.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Scottish independence can only be achieved (without insurrection and violence) by the agreement of the British Gov or the British Supreme Court.

    Following a positive vote in a referendum, a negotiated settlement on financial repercussions of independence and the resulting relationship between the rUK and Scotland is inevitable. It is only after this agreement and transition period would accession to the EU or EEA become relevant.

    There is no way Spain would be in a position to veto an independent Scotland from joining the EU, as an independent Scotland without the agreement of the rUK is unthinkable.



Advertisement