Scotland Independence

Well, then we have a very basic disagreement on appropriate governance and there is no point discussing it any further. Fortunately international precedent does not agree with you and these sorts of things routinely get voted on only in the place that wants independence.

So if Wolfgang Moneypenny managed to hold a referendum and convinced a majority of south Londoners (South Londoners I guess at that point) to declare independence from the UK, we should be recognised as an independent nation with no consultation with the rest of the UK?  

The US was wrong to wage war against the Confederate States because the Confederate States felt it was their democratic right to determine the laws in their states, including owning other people.  The international community should have condemned the US as an aggressor trying to oppress a people declaring self governance?  That was the real crime with that war, obviously.


ETA: I am not saying that Free South London=Scotland=Confederate States=Palestine=Kosovo=Belarus.  I am actually saying the opposite and that is why people seeking independent statehood isn't always the same nor should it be always treated the same.  And drawing up hyperbolic analogies isn't always helpful.

Scotland is a separate nation with separate institutions involved in a political union by treaty with the other countries of the UK; this decision was taken by political elites in 1707 without a referendum. It has a right, according to international law, to dissolve that union without the other countries having to agree if the majority of people living there vote to do so. The confederate states were in a different political situation, because they had signed up to a constitution that specifically stated that the federal government had primacy over the states (article 6), but they tried to secede illegally. If they had gone through legal channels, I think the federal government would have been in the wrong to go to war, and if I'm honest I kind of wish they had just let them go anyway. I'll ignore your snide insinuation that any view other than agreeing 100% with the federal government is a tacit approval of slavery.

The South London thing is just a joke, as South London is in no way a nation in the same way as Scotland. It's like comparing gay marriage to marrying your dog or your toaster. It's nonsense like this that irritates me about discussing this with unionists who haven't actually educated themselves on the topic and/or have no experience of Scotland. Ignore board time.

You obviously completely missed the point on my analogies with Serbia and the USSR. I was not implying that the UK is like either of those places, but illustrating the political principle, as woadgrrl pointed out. Scotland has a much greater claim to statehood than Kosovo or South Sudan, having been an independent nation for many more centuries than it has been part of the union (Braveheart was inaccurate, as it implied that Scotland fought to be free of the union, when in fact it was already 'free' and trying to remain so in the face of Edward I's expansionism), and therefore has even more of a right to independent self-determination than those countries; yet those countries did not have to have their referenda approved by the countries they were trying to leave, and Scotland shouldn't have to either.

I wasn't being snide or insinuating anything about you.  I was pointing out that not all bids for nationhood are justified or should be recognised simply because it was their democratic will to be an independent nation.  Which is what you implied.  And I've met Moneypenny.  I don't think he's totally joking.

Sorry, Omphaloskepsis.  I generally really appreciate your contributions to the various threads on this forum.  But in this particular thread, you've come across as, if not snide, then a tad condescending.  I'm sure this is unintentional.

Okay.  I am not sure what I can say about it that wouldn't come off as that unless I were agreeing with not only the Scotland only referendum and for people to vote for independence.  I am sorry, but that is sort of how it's felt with this thread.

What I think really doesn't matter anyway.  The referendum is Scotland only and I don't plan on taking residence there before it, so this is all sound and fury signifying nothing, at least on my part.  It doesn't change my opinion, however.

ETA: Actually scratch the PM request.  It doesn't matter.  Sorry I posted at all.

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.  

Two problems with that:
1) Both London and the South East produce more GDP than Scotland, not just London. That's a third of the population of England as a whole, so hardly something that can be dismissed easily.
2) Government spending in Scotland is 52% of GDP, while in England it's 42% of GDP. North Sea Oil revenues for the whole of the UK were 6,491 million in 2009-10 (most recent figures I have available). This compares to GDP for Scotland as a whole of 143,843 million (2009) - so even giving the whole of North Sea oil & gas revenue to Scotland (a more likely figure would be 90%) there is a hole of 7,900 million a year in the accounts. Hence my laughter at the assertion that Scotland would be able to cut taxes post-independence - possible, but they'd have to make far more public sector workers redundant than Cameron is even thinking of doing. In the context of Scotland being significantly to the Left of the rest of England, that's ridiculously implausible.

So yes, GDP/Capita is a completely misleading measure of whether Scotland is a financial burden on the rest of the UK. You'd do better arguing about economies of scale, specialist industrial capabilities and the like.

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.

That's what happened with Iceland - the Icelandic banks did much of their work in London and other international cities. Every other country has held Iceland responsible for compensating depositors when the banks folded, to the extent that the UK has been using money-laundering legislation to seize Icelandic assets in the UK. Lehman Brothers is another good example - the UK government .

As for the Scottish nature of RBS and HBOS, the headquarters of record for both companies is in Edinburgh. That's the way the nationality of transnational corporations is usually determined - what jurisdiction the headquarters is located in.

You must forgive me as I have little knowledge of the laws/rules of the EU as a whole so some of the names and examples given are a little over my head.

If Scotland voted for independence then things would run “business as usual” for a year or two? Who would govern during that time?

I had just assumed that only those living in Scotland would have a say as to whether or not things changed or if UK stays as is. Who exactly determines if one is a stakeholder and should have a say?

If you live in Scotland are you at all nervous about the idea of figuring things out as you go along? Meaning does having independence outweigh the unknown? I ask this mainly because I am a “Nervous Nelly” and am wondering if I could vote for something without knowing all the details of what is going to happen next.

Do you think 1-2 years is enough time to start a government from scratch or do you think many UK rules and regulations would stay intact?

I do sincerely thank all of you that were kind enough to reply! I am sorry to ask so many questions, but anyone who knows me would definitely say that I am a curious individual.

One benefit to Scottish independence - it would put an end to Rangers and Celtic going on about joining the English Premier League.
And even if they don't get independence, can we put an end to Scottish MP's voting in Parliament on issues that don't affect Scotland?

 It is not the SNP or independence supporters who are arguing the sentimental line;

If that is truely the case, then why are they insisting on waiting until 2014, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, to have the vote?
No, that's not sentimental at all is it?

If Scotland voted for independence then things would run “business as usual” for a year or two? Who would govern during that time?
...
If you live in Scotland are you at all nervous about the idea of figuring things out as you go along? Meaning does having independence outweigh the unknown? I ask this mainly because I am a “Nervous Nelly” and am wondering if I could vote for something without knowing all the details of what is going to happen next.

As I understand it, the current Holyrood government (the SNP) would remain in place until elections could be held. 

And yes, it does make me nervous.  I'm also the sort of person who likes to have a firm plan, and not knowing exactly how things will play out is a bit worrying.  But as I was saying before, I think the problem it's pretty difficult to know exactly how it would work out, until there's actually been a vote.  Apart from anything else, unless it's actually happening, the various departments of government aren't going to want to spend time and money working out hypothetical plans for something that may or may not happen.

So, for those who vote for independence, it'll be a bit of a leap of faith.  At this point, I think many people wonder 'Could it really get any worse?'

And even if they don't get independence, can we put an end to Scottish MP's voting in Parliament on issues that don't affect Scotland?

See, this is a fair point.  Everyone in the rest of the UK who's so worried about breaking up the union, etc., and what will happen, and how it's not fair, etc., should step back and really look at the situation.  Instead of trying to insist that Scotland remain tied to Westminster, they should realize that the single, Westminster government isn't really good for anyone, and start campaigning for Regional assemblies and better, proportional representation.

With regards to waiting 'til 2014...could it not simply be that that's how long it's going to take to organize the referendum and contingencies should it pass?  Could the date not simply be a coincidence?  How many people really know, of the tops of their heads, when the Battle of Bannockburn took place, and is it really going to matter? 

And even if the answer is yes, it's a calculated attempt to sway people... that doesn't negate DrSuperL99's point that those opposing independence have yet to put forth solid, fact-based arguments for remaining in the union (other than debatable 'evidence' to try and prove that Scotland can't survive on it's own.)  To go back to the inevitable divorce analogy, they're going with "You'll never make it on your own.  You need me," rather than "These are the things in our relationship worth saving, and we'll work to fix what's wrong."

Personally speaking, I'd rather that Scotland remained part of the UK, stronger together and all that, I probably am coming at it from a sentimental side, I don't have any hard and fast data to back up my position, just a gut feeling.
Then again, I wanted us to remain with the pound and not join the Euro "for sentimental reasons" and that seems to have been the best course of action.

As to the anniversary of Bannockburn - I don't believe it is merely coincidence, the SNP have even mentioned it being the anniversary.

Then again, I wanted us to remain with the pound and not join the Euro "for sentimental reasons" and that seems to have been the best course of action.

Your reasoning for keeping the pound might have been sentimental, but I'm sure there were plenty of economists and other experts who had very reasonable, concrete arguments for retaining the pound.

But in this debate, it seems as though the best that even the 'experts' can come up with is sentiment and/or fear-mongering. 

Personally speaking, I'd rather that Scotland remained part of the UK, stronger together and all that, I probably am coming at it from a sentimental side...

Everyone in the rest of the UK who's so worried about breaking up the union, etc., and what will happen, and how it's not fair, etc., should step back and really look at the situation.  Instead of trying to insist that Scotland remain tied to Westminster, they should realize that the single, Westminster government isn't really good for anyone, and start campaigning for Regional assemblies and better, proportional representation.

Yeah, what bugs me is that if Scotland takes off, I don't relish the idea of being stuck here in the Toryland England that is left behind (Lib Dem being another word for Tory these days...a stinkin' flower by any other name doesn't smell any sweeter & all that...)

It's not like London/Home Counties cares anything about The North either!  But I don't want to move to Scotland - it's even colder & grimmer up north of The North...  Maybe it could be Scotland and The North, and then Them Down There.

Yeah, what bugs me is that if Scotland takes off, I don't relish the idea of being stuck here in the Toryland England that is left behind (Lib Dem being another word for Tory these days...a stinkin' flower by any other name doesn't smell any sweeter & all that...)

It's not like London/Home Counties cares anything about The North either!  But I don't want to move to Scotland - it's even colder & grimmer up north of The North...  Maybe it could be Scotland and The North, and then Them Down There.

Ditto.

I don't relish the thought of easy election wins for the Tories, although I did hear a political commentator on TV say that only 1 election since 1997 (I think) would the Tories have won if it didn't include Scotland, then again that was at the height of Labour.
I've half joked with DW that I might consider moving to Scotland if they get independence, as much because I think they'll defend the health service and also their care for the elderly. I could see if I can get a transfer in my company to Edinburgh, my boss is based there anyway and I can do the job I do equally as well there as here.