Re: An Independent Scotland
You might have expected a response from me earlier than this, Stavros.
The problem I have with getting involved in a debate over Scottish independence is that while I can readily see and accept a lot of the pro's and con's, I find it virtually impossible to step away from the emotional impulse which says that, almost regardless of the economic and political arguments, the single driver of self-determination which lies at the heart of every independence movement, has to take precedence.
Or, at its weakest, the opportunity to make your own fuck-ups rather than trust them to an increasingly oligarchical and remote bunch of public schoolboys in London has an enormous appeal.
To everyone who says we're "Better Together", I simply say, remember Thatcher. You never voted for her, yet she foisted policy after policy utterly inimical to the Scottish polity, which differs profoundly to that of London and the south east, and that's increasingly the only part of the UK that government gives a damn about.
Re: An Independent Scotland
I do understand your emotional commitment, what I thought was interesting about the FT's presentation is that it showed how successful Scotland is. My hypothetical is whether or not this success would continue if Scotland was independent in a world where independence in practice is limited. The trend toward the creation of micro-states at a time of globalisation may be a response to that feeling that national identity is being submerged by immigration and globalisation, yet the same micro-states -Scotland, Catalunya- cannot survive without those same, global connections. It just seems to be a feeling that a few people have that they will be be richer in a smaller state. It might work, but is it worth the gamble to find out if it does -or does not?
Re: An Independent Scotland
Two questions are niggling me.
I. What is the status of ex-pat Scots 9in the UK) ? Why can't they vote? (When expat brits living in Scotland can)
2. If we are looking at a separation from the UK should not the whole of the UK be entitled to some part in this decision making process?
I think the emotional argument for many trumps the hard reality of economics. It is an issue of identity. And RL has blasted the distant rule of Westminster. (Londoners who don't like the present or past Conservatives rulers any better than the Scots have no such option to walk away)
But in a divorce both parties have rights.
Re: An Independent Scotland
The opinion polls currently are YES 37%, NO 47%. Plenty of time to change. I'm in two minds about Scotland going it alone. The biggest problem is that England will be dominated even more by Tory Governments. Yorkshire will became the new boundary as Tories only really worry about London and the Home Counties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
Two questions are niggling me.
I. What is the status of ex-pat Scots 9in the UK) ? Why can't they vote? (When expat brits living in Scotland can)
Well, Scottish MPs can vote on laws that only affect England. And UKIP demand the repatriation of Scots in England back to their own country?
2. If we are looking at a separation from the UK should not the whole of the UK be entitled to some part in this decision making process?
Yes - we should be able to vote ourselves separate from London.
I think the emotional argument for many trumps the hard reality of economics. It is an issue of identity. And RL has blasted the distant rule of Westminster. (Londoners who don't like the present or past Conservatives rulers any better than the Scots have no such option to walk away)
But in a divorce both parties have rights.
Re: An Independent Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
Two questions are niggling me.
I. What is the status of ex-pat Scots 9in the UK) ? Why can't they vote? (When expat brits living in Scotland can)
2. If we are looking at a separation from the UK should not the whole of the UK be entitled to some part in this decision making process?
I think the emotional argument for many trumps the hard reality of economics. It is an issue of identity. And RL has blasted the distant rule of Westminster. (Londoners who don't like the present or past Conservatives rulers any better than the Scots have no such option to walk away)
But in a divorce both parties have rights.
The answer to the first question is practical -the vote will be organised along the lines of a general election so registered electors in Scotland have the privilege. Presumably, students who are registered to vote in, say, Glasgow but who study in England, will be able to vote and other arrangements available for general elections -postal votes, proxy voting- will also apply.
The second question is irrelevant to Scotland -it is a decision made by 'the people of Scotland', for Scotland.
Re: An Independent Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by
martin48
The opinion polls currently are YES 37%, NO 47%. Plenty of time to change. I'm in two minds about Scotland going it alone. The biggest problem is that England will be dominated even more by Tory Governments. Yorkshire will became the new boundary as Tories only really worry about London and the Home Counties.
I am not sure that this will hold in the long term. If Scotland were to become independent the argument to re-draw the consitutency boundaries in England and Wales would be stronger than it has been since 2010 when the Conservatives abandoned their plans for re-drawing the boundaries in order to form the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, just as the latter have dropped their demands for proportional representation. Because the Commons would lose 59 MPs they would have to decide if they wanted to remain a smaller house or re-draw constituency boundaries to add 59 consituencies. This would then raise the question of how large a constituency should be, whether all the boundaries should be re-drawn or if not, where new constituencies would be created. If the Boundary Commission does a fair job -and it usually does, unlike in the USA where gerrymandered House districts are allegededly if not actually drawn to favour the incumbent- then the outcome in theory ought to benefit all three main parties. If anything, given the lack of trust people have in all tree parties, coalition government, rather than single party rule could be the consequence.
Re: An Independent Scotland
would there have been an independence movement if there was no oil?
Secondly they still want to keep the pound sterling as the national currency. what is the point? isnt that an admission that independence would not work in reality if they had their own currency or used the Euro? They may end up like greece, and other EU nations that needed a bail out due to currency problems
Re: An Independent Scotland
There has been an independence movement in Scotland for a very long time, the difference is that the oil industry and the wider achievements of the economy have given the independence movement a belief that they have a more solid practical foundation on which to break away -but as your post suggests, what does independence actually mean if the currency is the same, the head of state is the same -and the newly independent country wants to give up part of its 'independence' to join the EU? -I am not sure, incidentally, if Scotland ceases to be a member of the EU if it wins the referendum, this is a matter of law on which I have no expertise.
Re: An Independent Scotland
Scotland pushes for Independence...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc31pfEN2b4
Scottish independence: The complication of separation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1xTpbs0sKA
