Scotland Independence

I kept waiting to see a thread on this subject. I am curious to know your opinion(s) on this subject in an effort to further my understanding of this issue. What do you consider to be the pros and cons?

I have read where Scotland has said that if they were independent they could lower the corporate tax rate and therefore attract new business. What would the currency be? Would it stay in pounds, change to the euro, or something entirely different?

Thanks in advance!

I have read where Scotland has said that if they were independent they could lower the corporate tax rate and therefore attract new business.

* pdf27 starts pointing and laughing. Scotland is heavily subsidised by the English, and protestations about North Sea Oil notwithstanding are more likely to be raising tax than lowering it post independence.

Although you have to admire Alec Salmond's chutzpah in demanding that the English pay for bailing out Royal Bank of Scotland / HBOS and keep the debt from it post Scottish independence (it's equivalent to about 30% of Scottish GDP!).

The currency is an interesting one. The SNP are in favour of joining the Euro, but given the current situation within the Eurozone it's unlikely that
1. They'd want to join up straight away
and
2. That Germany and France etc would accept another member right now.
So that would leave them with the pound. Now, whilst Scottish banks do issue their own banknotes they are linked to the Bank of England in terms of interest rates etc.
So unless they completely made Scottish Pounds a completely seperate currency - which would then entail exchange rates, they'd still have to be tied to the BofE, and would Scotland really want their interest rates to be controlled from London?

That's just one issue, but the entire process would be fraught with such complicated issues and the worry is that people are just going to be voting with their hearts without even slightly understanding the implications involved.

I think we should all be voting on it, not just Scotland.

Many of the UK government's own figures show that Scotland is not heavily subsidised, and is in fact a net contributor to the UK economy. The investment branches of RBS and Bank of Scotland (which is merged with Halifax and therefore as much English as Scottish), which are the bits that failed, are primarily based in the City of London and are international banks which have Scotland in the name. To suggest that Scotland should be solely responsible for their bailout is absurd.

As for Europe, there is no procedure for kicking out a country that is already in Europe; Scotland (and the 'rump UK' that would be left in fact) would be a succession state, not an accession state, and would therefore not be subject to accession rules such as having to have the Euro, etc. When Germany reunited these were the rules that they came under, and it has been confirmed by Brussels that this would be the situation. Sterling is a fully convertible currency, which means Westminster can't prevent Scotland from using it, and there are many countries in financial union (lots of countries use dollars, for example) that aren't in political union. Initially Scotland could keep the pound and then a future elected government (keep in mind that an election would take place within a year or two upon independence, so it's not like it will be SNP's personal kingdom) could make decisions about future currency policy.

I suppose the entire Soviet Union should have voted on whether the former republics should have become independent, and Serbia should have voted on Kosovo. After all, when a couple breaks up, both partners have to agree or they stay together right? It is recognised in international law that countries have a right to self-determination; if Scotland voted yes and the rest of the UK voted no, would Scotland be forced to stay in? That is an absurd and undemocratic situation.

Worried about freedom of movement? As EU succession states, that's not an issue, and the relationship between the UK and Ireland (which was a much more acrimonious 'break-up') shows a template for how things could work in terms of the CTA, free movement and even voting rights.

I am still waiting to hear the so-called positive case for the union. All the unionist arguments seem to fall in two camps: scare-mongering (Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid) or sentimental 'isn't the union just so lovely'. It is not the SNP or independence supporters who are arguing the sentimental line; they are putting out facts and figures, calmly answering unionist questions (and often having to counter unionist lies), explaining the benefits, and then having their views ignored and shouted down in most mainstream news outlets, including the allegedly neutral BBC.

Scottish independence is not about being anti-English; it's about being able to run one's own affairs instead of having them managed by a government far away, who doesn't give a crap about you. English people who feel the same are welcome in Scotland. I have a friend whose mother and wife are both English and who spends a lot of time in England, and he is a life-long nationalist because he wants Scotland to be politically independent of Westminster. We already have a separate legal system, education system and NHS. Scotland is better off than a lot of other countries of similar size, even within Europe, even if you buy into the worst projections for what an independent Scotland would be like. If South Sudan can do it, why can't we? Look at the unionist arguments and try replacing Scotland with, say, India, and see if you think anyone would dare to say the same things today about other commonwealth countries. Oh, I suppose there should have been a UK referendum about ending the Raj too, and if the majority had voted to keep it then India should still be British, right?

And now that I've said my piece, I shall be ignoring this thread, because I've read enough condescending unionist crap of the nature of pdf27's ever-so-mature comments that the whole thing gives me a rage headache. I just know that I will be voting yes and hoping that my fellow Scots- meaning people who choose to make their home Scotland, and not just people who are Scottish by birth- will too.

* pdf27 starts pointing and laughing. Scotland is heavily subsidised by the English, and protestations about North Sea Oil notwithstanding are more likely to be raising tax than lowering it post independence.

The only part of the country that produces more per capita tax revenue than Scotland, is London.  Scotland is less of a tax burden on England than most of England is.  

And the protestations about North Sea Oil are actually fairly important.  Westminster have been quietly trying to shift control of oil fields away from Scotland since Thatcher's time, at least, because the oil fields are what's really subsidizing all of the U.K.  

Personally, before I voted on independence, I'd like to know for certain what oil rights Scotland would retain, because it's a major factor in the strength of an independent Scottish economy.  I'm uncomfortable with the assumption that 'Of course we'll get it, it's ours!'  While Scotland may be entitled to it, and would probably get it eventually, I can't see Westminster just handing it over without a protracted legal battle, at least.

But, like most of the questions surrounding independence (currency, defense, immigration), there's a bit of a Catch-22.  We all want answers before we vote, but the answers won't really be there unless we vote for independence.  Until then, it's really all just speculation.

I'm torn as to whether the vote should be extended to the rest of the U.K., or only to people living in Scotland.  I think, ideally, it should be extended to anyone currently residing in Scotland, and anyone who was born in and previously registered to vote in Scotland.  But that gets very tricky, and where do you stop?  Is it only people still living in the U.K.?  What about people who've emigrated to Australia, or Canada?  What about people who've emigrated to the U.S. or other non-Commonwealth countries?  Although I concede the point that Scotland leaving the union does affect everyone in the union, I don't think it's right to have everyone in the U.K. vote on it.  

ETA:  Thank you, DrSuperL99 for covering all the points I just didn't have the energy to deal with.

Yeah, you've convinced me, DrSL.  Your analogy of the UK being akin to the USSR is spot on!  

Scotland hasn't been an independent country for centuries. I suspect for some people in the rest of the UK, Scotland's independence would be more appealing than to many in Scotland itself.

If they were to gain independence, I really hope it's a true independence and not this "devolution max" crap. 

The basic principle still stands, though.  It is not ok for a country to be forced to remain in union against its will. 

It doesn't matter how long the union has been in place.  If Scotland decides to leave the union, it has the right to do so, and the other members don't have the right to stop them. 

But this nation is a little more than just a union of independent countries with independent economies an cultures.  It's my nation too, and I should have a say in how things go.  It's not like this is a totalitarian nation with Scots being disenfranchised and being held to things against their will.  


ETA: But if the Scotland-wide referendum fails (which it probably will), I hope this will put an end to this for at least a generation or two.

But this nation is a little more than just a union of independent countries with independent economies an cultures.  It's my nation too, and I should have a say in how things go.  It's not like this is a totalitarian nation with Scots being disenfranchised and being held to things against their will. 


ETA: But if the Scotland-wide referendum fails (which it probably will), I hope this will put an end to this for at least a generation or two.

This is entirely a matter of perspective.  The picture of the union is certainly much rosier when viewed from the south. 

*sigh* If this were a question of Wales becoming independent, I would want a UK wide referendum as well.  I don't know if I have a skewed view of how Scotland fares in the Union (and I don't think I've said whether or not I think it should be independent or not, just that the entire nation should be able to vote and devolution max shouldn't be on the table), but I really don't have a rosy view of how Wales has fared.

So if Scotland votes yes and the rest of the UK votes no, you think it is democratic to force Scotland to stay in the union?

ETA: Or indeed, the reverse. If Scotland voted no and the rest of the UK votes yes, is it democratic to force Scotland out against its will?

I'm not going to pretend that I know as much about this as DrSuper, and I think she pretty much nailed it.

I will say that I think this is certainly capable of being a reality, at least more than it ever has been in the past. I think it's too soon to be saying that it will probably fail, especially since Salmond has 2 years to work on it. If he had bent to Cameron's calls for something more immediate, yeah it probably would have failed because there's no plan (which is undoubtedly why Cameron wanted one sooner rather than later).

ETA: I found this opinion piece pretty interesting: Scotland's Social Mind Will Settle Independence Vote.

So if Scotland votes yes and the rest of the UK votes no, you think it is democratic to force Scotland to stay in the union?

ETA: Or indeed, the reverse. If Scotland voted no and the rest of the UK votes yes, is it democratic to force Scotland out against its will?

Yes. 

I'm not going to pretend that I know as much about this as DrSuper, and I think she pretty much nailed it.

I will say that I think this is certainly capable of being a reality, at least more than it ever has been in the past. I think it's too soon to be saying that it will probably fail, especially since Salmond has 2 years to work on it. If he had bent to Cameron's calls for something more immediate, yeah it probably would have failed because there's no plan (which is undoubtedly why Cameron wanted one sooner rather than later).

I suppose time will tell.