What happens if Scotland gains independence?

825 posts in this topic

 

Would Scotland continue to support Roman Catholic schools financially as is now the case?

 

Some would argue that separate religious schools encourage divisions in society from an early age.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

An independent Scotland would have its own legal system. Would Scotland continue to support Roman Catholic schools financially as is now the case?

 

I fail to see how stopping support for sectarian indoctrination could be considered discriminatory.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Scotland has had its own legal system throughout its history, including at this very moment. The Act of Union specifically maintains that Scotland retains its own legal system AND its own educational system.

 

[edit: this is also part of the reason there are voices not to fund a UK Supreme Court (based in English law).]

 

These voices appear to want a situation where, while residents of other parts of the UK can appeal to the UK Supreme Court, residents of Scotland cannot, but can resort only to a slow-moving European court where the judges are less likely to be familiar with Scots law than judges in an appeal court in another part of the UK.

Professor Tony Kelly speaks on Supreme Court rulings involving Scottish cases

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that Scots law has its basis in Roman law and not in Anglo-Saxon law, I think that's a bit of a weird argument. Yes, Europe court is slow, no question, but the legal concepts underpinning Scots law should be second nature to Europe, as opposed to the UKSC.

 

[Of course, IANAL so I will bow to Professor Kelly's superior knowledge on matters; can't view vid as work network acting up]

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was born in England. My (late) sister investigated the family background, and discovered that our ancestors moved from the Western Isles of Scotland to eastern England late in the 18th century.

 

I have a Scottish/Scandinavian family name and a Scottish Celtic forename.

 

If (and it's a big if) I ever returned to those sceptered isles, I would go to live in Scotland or Wales - countries that are at least trying to preserve social democracy in the face of Cameron's vile neo-liberal onslaught.

 

I am, however, wary - seems that Alec Salmond of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) presented his arse for Rupert "Dirty Digger" Murdoch to stick his tongue up - either that or he wanted to kiss Murdoch's arse - not good.

 

However, when I peruse the SNP or Plaid Cymru (Welsh Nationalist) websites, I see good old Social Democratic policies there in print, and as one who is totally disillusioned with "New" Labour (otherwise known as Tory-Lite) I like what I see.

 

In a way, I always liked the United Kingdom. As an Englishman, I could (and still can) nip over to Wales or Scotland and it is/was really travelling abroad - different culture, different history, different language, different outlook on life.

 

Then again, with a Europe of open borders I can nip ove from here to Poland or the Czech Republic (nearest neighbours) and experience such differences, too.

 

I dunno. I wish Scotland and Wales all the best in deciding what THEY want - especially if they reject Cameron's ideas of Government by the rich, of the rich and for the rich - and stuff everyone else.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, similar background and outlook as me, Keefy! I was born in Yorkshire, England with a Scottish grandfather, Welsh grandmother, a Yorkshire grandfather and a Cockney grandmother.

 

My surname is Scottish/Scandinavian and I would be happy to live in Scotland if I ever returned to the UK. Or in London but that´s a big if these days...the charm of big cities has worn off as I get older.

 

Of course, it´s up to the people of Scotland or Wales if they want to secede from the UK. Same goes for the English, by the way.

I personally see an emerging Federalism as a good thing - less London and S.E.England oriented policies, please.

 

Get the Guardian up in Manchester, the Olympics on the Isle of Skye and Scotland Yard in Scotland! The way it should be! :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This wouldn't be federalism but secession and would be permanent. The parties in power today and the political figures would disappear, but the effects of a decision to secede would not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal

 

 

The agreement, struck in Edinburgh, has paved the way for a vote in autumn 2014, with a single Yes/No question on Scotland leaving the UK.

 

It will also allow 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the ballot.

So kids who cannot usually vote will be allowed to vote in this. Wonder whetherhow the Scottish school curriculum will change between now and the referendum. <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What happens if Scotland gets independence?"

 

I will move!

 

Sooo sick of Salmond - can't stand the man. He's like a wee dictator and thinks he owns the country.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving kids the vote is pretty cynical; the SNP have obviously discovered that support for independence among this age group is higher than among the rest of the population. I think it's a great shame that the UK may be split up on the back of a fraudulent referendum. They've already nicely fixed the date in their favour (700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[tartan on]"Remember Bannockburn!!"[/tartan off] Recently finished reading "A History of Scotland" by Neil Oliver, and many of Scotland's leaders seemed to spend their time either switching sides so often that they became a blur or dealing out death and destruction to their rivals and minions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Giving kids the vote is pretty cynical; the SNP have obviously discovered that support for independence among this age group is higher than among the rest of the population.

 

No more cynical than insisting it doesn't ask any secondary questions; just because they know that if the Scots reject full independence, they are likely to vote for further devolution.

 

Aside from that, those "kids" are "allowed" to pay taxes and even to volunteer dying for their country, so voting seems the least of the things to give them back

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I'm opposed to giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote. It's the cynical nature of the proposal that bothers me; if Salmond genuinely believed that they should have the franchise then the proposal would be extended to all Scottish elections and not just the referendum. Either way, such a change should be debated in parliament and not agree upon in a smoky backroom as was the case here.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland goes, the Tories will pretty much have a monopoly in the UK going forward, especially if they push the boundary changes through next year, which they seem confident they can get the Lib Dems to support again. Both of those combined would put Labour in the position of needing a miracle to obtain a working majority in the Commons again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would definitely make it harder. Labour currently have 40 seats more than the Tories in Scotland and the proposed boundary changes allow the Tories to steal 15 seats off Labour and the Lib Dems. On the other hand, Blair in 1997 won by 180 seats.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Giving kids the vote is pretty cynical; the SNP have obviously discovered that support for independence among this age group is higher than among the rest of the population. I think it's a great shame that the UK may be split up on the back of a fraudulent referendum. They've already nicely fixed the date in their favour (700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn).

 

can´t locate the poll I saw the other day ( the Scotsman online ) but it suggested the youngsters in Scotland were actually in their majority in rejecting a separating Scotland. A result of the recent Olympics, maybe? ( Mind you, the referendum will be around the time of the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow!! )

We shall see but I think fixing a date on the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn is ridiculously narrow-minded, backward and divisive.

 

An independence programme should be based on NOW and the future - not on some way-gone historical battle.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would definitely make it harder. Labour currently have 40 seats more than the Tories in Scotland and the proposed boundary changes allow the Tories to steal 15 seats off Labour and the Lib Dems. On the other hand, Blair in 1997 won by 180 seats.

 

That was an historic vote, though. Wasn't it the worst the Tories had done in more than a hundred years?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

can´t locate the poll I saw the other day ( the Scotsman online ) but it suggested the youngsters in Scotland were actually in their majority in rejecting a separating Scotland.

 

All sections of the population currently have a majority opposed to independence. I'd love to think that Salmond is doing this as an inspired act of democracy, but I'm still fairly certain that it's because they believe that support for independence is higher in this age group than across the average.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, it's politics. Mr Salmond, for better or worse, managed to achieve what was supposed to be impossible under devolution and that is to win an outright majority in the Scottish parliament... and that was after managing a 4-year minority government. I've never voted for the SNP, but as a semi-neutral by-stander, I'm impressed.

 

And then, the UK public gave the SNP the best present they could: a Tory(-led) government in Westminster. The Scottish Conversative and Unionist Party have 1 (one, I) MP in Westminster, out of 59 Scottish MPs. And yet, I haven't really noticed too many instances of outright "Tories have no mandate here but govern you" calls from the SNP. That might come, or it might have been more subtle, or people can work it out for themselves (or I may have not been paying attention).

 

Yes, the SNP would've liked to ask an alternative question during a referendum, yes, the other parties may not have wanted an independence referendum at all, but in the end, I think we ought to give the Scottish electorate a bit more respect than to suggest they may be influenced by the 700th anniversary of a battle when deciding over their pensions, jobs, taxes, etc.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now