What happens if Scotland gains independence?

825 posts in this topic

Congratulations on reading some 650 pages so quickly, bobD! Just ask yourself : how democratic is it that you, as a Scot, away from Scotland ...but a Scot - will not be allowed to vote?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you there, B. Ironically, a Dutchman living in Germany, I do have a vote (but don't tell anybody, I think I may be in deep doodah if anybody finds out). In fact, I think by the time that election rolls along, I'll make sure I give up that vote (not because I'm wouldn't want to vote, but well, the doodah, and the fact that I'm fed up having the council tax in my name).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm a few months late, but I see that Schotte mentioned in August that he sees no benefits in independence. Well let me give you one here.

 

I remember when I turned 18 and my mother encouraged me to vote telling me it was important and that people had died to give me the vote etc etc. So off I trotted to the polling station and sick of the Conservative government that we had at the time, I decided to vote Labour - which I certainly wouldn't now. Anyway, when the votes were all counted I could see that Scotland was a mass of red votes. The Conservatives only got about 1 MP if I can remember correctly. So yippee!! My vote counted along with the majority of Scots and we got a Labour government ... only we didn't. The south of England voted Conservative and since there are more people there (about 8 million in London alone as opposed to 5 million in Scotland) who voted Conservative, we got yet another Conservative government.

 

It was then that I realised that voting in Scotland doesn't matter if the South of England have a different idea.

 

So that's one benefit of independence, votes within Scotland might actually count for once. Does that count as a benefit Schotte? <_<

 

Not that I'm entitled to a vote anyway as I live here, but I thought I'd add my thoughts.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha, of course I have not read the just-published white paper (not that it stopped Darling from rubbishing the content just a few minutes after publication). I have however read today's news and also earler had a good try to finish A Evidence Based Case for Scottish Independence, Michael James Heron on Scribd) plus other online resources, for and against.

 

As for not having a vote, well I understand the practical difficulties in determining someones 'scottishness' if they are not resident, so they had to take a decsion to identify a representative and valid consitituency. I would have liked to add my vote, but If I can persuade others, family and friends, then I will have more impact.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonny and bobD: I´m agnostic about Scottish Independence. bobD: are you telling me there are practical difficulties about determining your " Scottishness "? Ok, you´re an expat, so yes. But you grew up in Scotland, I presume. Your voice does not count??? Should it not?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to vote, but I will not try underhand tactics to get one. The rules are set as they are and i will accept them. Alternatively, if we are talking about my voice, well while I can turn on a broad scots accent on demand, that would hardly be a fair way to determine Scottish heritage. There are many a posh scot sounding very un-scottish.

Maybe i should get a thistle tattoo and see if i can then get a vote. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You´re right, bobD! I reckon the inter-rUK debates could heat up, too. Anyway: who gets the kids: Northern Ireland? ( question of mine stolen from a source I can´t remember..I think it was an American but can´t remember who!)

 

poor old Northern Ireland is a bit like the proverbial ginger haired stepchild...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot get it that the Scots with all their scotch would even bother to vote for independence.Cut the limeys off their booze and they will come to their senses and realize that there are different thinking people around. Maybe they should form the free state of Scotland like Bavaria did in Germany. it did not help them very much as they still have to send their tax to Brandenburg. But at least it made them feel they are their own master. With the oil running out at Brent and drunken drivers forced off the road why would the Scots want to be independent? We have probably more Scotsman in Canada than there are in Scotland,wonderful people they are, one of them even married my daughter. The problem with the older Scots is that they are very difficult to understand sometimes, which is actually a good thing, then you just agree with them and don't argue with them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Conservatives only got about 1 MP if I can remember correctly. So yippee!! My vote counted along with the majority of Scots and we got a Labour government ... only we didn't. The south of England voted Conservative and since there are more people there (about 8 million in London alone as opposed to 5 million in Scotland) who voted Conservative, we got yet another Conservative government.

 

It was then that I realised that voting in Scotland doesn't matter if the South of England have a different idea.

 

So that's one benefit of independence, votes within Scotland might actually count for once. Does that count as a benefit Schotte?

 

Not that I'm entitled to a vote anyway as I live here, but I thought I'd add my thoughts.

 

I, and some 400 000 other Scots, voted Conservative in the last election. Our (Scottish wide) vote has always counted and it seems absurd to almost suggest we should always be "picking the winner". This argument I see repeated all over the internet by the Yes campaign "to get a government we voted for". I have never voted SNP, so why am I stuck with an SNP Scot Government? But hey, the SNP only got barely 40% so that gives them a resounding majority in Holyrood doesn't it...which is just as unfair.

 

I find it a very weak benefit in comparison to all that will be lost in the event of independence.

 

Some people in Orkney and Shetland want indpendence for themselves. If we shouldn't be ruled by London, why should they be ruled by Edinburgh? Somehow I doubt Salmond would support their case for self determination, given they would end up with most of the oil!

 

I'm not sure if it's good or bad people living outside Scotland not getting to vote, that said though, why is it fair that you might even possibly be entitled a vote when you don't live here, but because more people live in the south east voted differently that isn't fair? Double standards.

 

Don't mean to be chippy or offensive (and genuinely sorry if I come across as so), but as a Scot living in Scotland (still) I find this debacle more than embarrassing. The millions of £ squandered on a referendum every independent poll suggests the public are not interested in seeing come true. The SNP "condemned" a local council who wished to fly the Union flag. There is more squabbling and internal fighting than I have ever seen in my lifetime in Scotland. It's like something out of Belfast at times. As a Unionist, I am somehow branded as less Scottish and patriotic which I find deeply offensive given I can find any excuse to wear my kilt or trews and would guess I know more about Scottish history than most and grew up in "Braveheart country". Even going to watch Scotland v South Africa a few weekends ago, there was a Yes table set up near to the stadium selling Mel Gibson t shirts and playing the "one chance, just one chance!" extract from Braveheart on a loudspeaker and on repeat. The Yes campaign seems to be rife with ancient heart tugging bitterness, a wee man inferiority complex encouraging Scots to feel they are 2nd class citizens (not something I have ever felt), and that we will (falsely) have more "self-determination" (yet still be governed by the EU and still have the Bank of England control our economy! Hardly independence!)

 

The white paper is a joke. Nothing concrete and the Yes campaign are somehow still insulting the Scottish people's intelligence by giving hypothetical scenarios (that ultimately the UK and EU could turn round and shaft us on). There are numerous independence promises that they are using to encourage people to vote, yet fail to tell the electorate they already have these powers to implement RIGHT NOW (ie. the child care promise). You will also notice the only concrete plans in the white paper are things that are already part of the UK (BBC, NHS, £, the Queen...)!

 

They use things like the bedroom "tax" to imply Scotland needs to vote yes as the only solution to get away from this. Yet it is the SNP who said no to a Labour proposal to make evictions (as a result of this "tax") illegal. They could be minimising the impact of this "tax" on the most vulnerable RIGHT NOW, but instead they use it as a political tool to increase their support while failing to assist those that need it for the benefit of trying to increase their support. Nicola Sturgeon has made an out and out lie regarding the child care issue. They don't seem to want to highlight too much either their plans to replace council tax with an income based local tax, or that every independent study by worldwide respected financial bodies indicates an almost 10% increase required in income tax to fund independence, and have tried to cover this up to the point their actions were ILLEGAL and they were taken to court.

 

Salmond even came out and said last night that if the UK didn't allow us to keep the £, we wouldn't take our share of the national debt! Who does he think he is?!

 

I should add that I am now a volunteer in the Better Together campaign though, was always going to vote No and am therefore somewhat biased. Rich or poor, young or old, I fail to see how anyone would be better off with independence. Salmond and the SNP have caused a more divided nation than ever before and have squandered millions in public money which they could have spent helping those they claim to want to help so much. All by selling a lie and false promises. The BT campaign does not have to convince anyone we will be so much better off as part of the UK, but there is no evidence in the Yes camp to suggest anything other than a complete leap of faith, based on nothing concrete and all dependent on factors that would be outwith Scottish control, yet it is me and other Unionists who are "anti-Scottish" apparently.

 

I like to gamble now and then, but feel voting Yes would be an act of lunacy. Scotland could and would survive going it alone (absolutely no doubt in my mind). But why take this risk? Why have no safety net by being in the most successful Union that ever existed? Why cost me and EVERYONE else in Scotland a lot more money to bring this about? Why divide a nation that has been united for over 300 years and has 800 000 Scots living in rUK? Why put up borders that didn't exist before, yet be desperate to enter another union with control even further away than Westminster?

 

Just my thoughts. Sorry for such a long post.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you can guage the attitudes in Scotland better than any of us here in Abroadia, Schotte, and I am the last person to doubt your Scottishness. I have people of Yes and No within my circle of friends, and most of them are as Scottish as Irn Bru with tattie scones. What I do not like, on either side, is the short-termism: As I said above, the White Paper has too many SNP party political plans, and, as you demonstrate, the No campaign are also making this into a party political slanging match. They all seem to forget that whether Scotland goes independent or not, it has to be governed after the referendum for longer than even the political parties will exist.

 

Whatever you feel about it, I feel it's really not serving the interests of either or any side to turn this into a party political issue, because it is not: We anarchistsleft libertarians don't have a party yet still have a vote (even if yours truly won't use it), and we still will have to live in the country too. And I bet that if I search long enough, I would find Tory and Labour voters that will vote for independence.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, and duly noted, Gwaptiva. It is hard to avoid perhaps though to some extent, and it is even known now that there are many No voters in the SNP ranks.

 

Personally, I mulled over the idea of voting SNP some years ago when I still admired Salmond's political skill and valued what he might achieve with a louder Scottish voice. I think he has lost the plot now though, and as head of the SNP it's hard not to accuse his party of this and that (by association). But it should also be noted that the greens, who have recently come out in support of independence, had no say in the independence proposals, so it pretty much does boil down to an SNP v the rest match to a large extent.

 

I quite agree that the white paper is basically the SNP manifesto!

 

Can't beat a tattie scone :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a vote-less wishy-washy flip-flopper on independence, the one point which really attracts me is booting out the UK nuclear deterrent - currently operating 25 miles from Glasgow, Scotland's largest city.

 

I'm sure an enforced move south of the border, closer to the voters that matter, would spark a more involved national debate on the need for having (and spending tens of billions on) these weapons at all...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping Scotland would "annex" Trident, and then sell the scraps to the highest bidder... I hear Iran might have some cash to spare ;)

 

That does raise an ancillary or maybe more tangential question: Will Scots serving in the UK forces lose their Scottish nationality for serving a foreign power?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being one of the proverbial ginger haired stepchildren I am not sure if my views on this topic would be welcomed but here goes anyway:

 

I suppose up until quite recently I always dreamed of the utopia of an united Ireland but as I got older and gained more experience of the world at large I came to realise it was a pipe dream and a totally unrealistic idea for the good of the majority of people. I think an independent Scotland falls into the same category.

 

The clarity of what I am and where I am from was crystallised, when an English friend of mine said that I was British because I have a British passport. I am also Irish because I have an Irish passport. I come from Northern Ireland so I am Northern Irish as well. I distilled it into that I am British, Irish and Northern Irish, which is no different from a German person saying he is German, Bavarian and Franconian.

 

Back to the Scottish referendum on independence. I cannot understand why the rest of the UK cannot have a vote on this because if the vote is a yes it will have an impact on everyone in the UK. I can understand the idea that people feel as if they are being ruled by London and have no say in national or international affairs even though they have devolved parliaments locally. My own suggestion for more inclusiveness is actually a federal system of government similar to what they have in Germany and I would be in inclined that Ireland should be part of this as well. I am probably indulging in just another pipe dream here, but hey we might even include France if we could get over the language barrier. :)

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be welcoming you to your new life as non-EUs and willing to assist you with any questions you have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Scotland would cede EU membership if it voted for independence, nor do I believe the EU would chuck them out either, although I am not very clued up on these things. I believe the same stance would apply to a federal British Isles but if someone can provide info to the contrary I would be happy to have a look at it later this evening.

 

Edit: the UK may well vote to leave the EU in any case if the Tories have their way.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here goes...

 

 

...Some people in Orkney and Shetland want indpendence for themselves. If we shouldn't be ruled by London, why should they be ruled by Edinburgh?

The Orkney Independence movement was a tiny group promoted by the local MP to cause discord. Rule by Edinburgh will be a damn sight more representative and responsive than London. It's a matter of scale.

 

 

 

The SNP "condemned" a local council who wished to fly the Union flag. There is more squabbling and internal fighting than I have ever seen in my lifetime in Scotland. It's like something out of Belfast at times.

 

They take every opportunity to promote Scotland, to a fault. If a council only flies the UK flag, then it is understandable that they, as the Scottosh Government and a nationalist one at that, would want to ensure the Scottish flag is shown. The Wimbledon stunt however, was embarrassing.

As for the infighting, there is finally something meaningful to fight for in Scottish politics. It's not a provincial sideshow any more. That's why there is more debate, more disagreement. There is more to discuss.

 

 

As a Unionist, I am somehow branded as less Scottish and patriotic which I find deeply offensive given I can find any excuse to wear my kilt or trews and would guess I know more about Scottish history than most and grew up in "Braveheart country".

 

Where I live, every 3rd car has a Scottish flag on it, there is a Düdlesack akademie and a Celtic Music event every year. I went once in my 'rugby kilt' (ie not formal) and was given the evil eye by the local Germans who were in full highland regalia. A kilt does not make anyone Scottish.

 

Given the questions at hand, a group of people arguing against independence must be arguing for the status quo, which is seen my many as less positive for Scotland, ergo, you must be anti Scottish. I don't buy that, and I have been a Tory voter in Scotland before. I guess it's connected with the lack of a positive message for the future from BT.

 

 

The Yes campaign seems to be rife with ancient heart tugging bitterness, a wee man inferiority complex encouraging Scots to feel they are 2nd class citizens (not something I have ever felt), and that we will (falsely) have more "self-determination" (yet still be governed by the EU and still have the Bank of England control our economy! Hardly independence!)

 

Congrats on your self confidence. It's not a widely held condition in Scotland, individually or nationally. cf. the Scottish Cringe. Now Scotland is a region of the UK and is one of many regions. As an independent country, Scotland is then dealing with nations and not regions. Independance in todays world is not total, that is N Korea. Is Ireland governed by the EU, is Denmark?

 

 

The white paper is a joke. Nothing concrete and the Yes campaign are somehow still insulting the Scottish people's intelligence by giving hypothetical scenarios (that ultimately the UK and EU could turn round and shaft us on).

 

It can be nothing other. No one can tell the future, they need to set out what they want, but to measure the success or failure of independance by looking back at the White Paper in a few years, would not be fair. You are right that there are other parties to the negotiation, and that fact could destroy the SNP post independence. There is of course no guarantee that they will continue as a political party if they achieve their goal. If anyone is expecting certainties then they do not live in the real world. Likewise using IFS and other No supporting reports that have time horizons of 30-50+ years are also meaningless. Where is the 30+50 year outlook for the UK, or Scotland in the UK?

 

 

There are numerous independence promises that they are using to encourage people to vote, yet fail to tell the electorate they already have these powers to implement RIGHT NOW (ie. the child care promise). You will also notice the only concrete plans in the white paper are things that are already part of the UK (BBC, NHS, £, the Queen...)!

 

They use things like the bedroom "tax" to imply Scotland needs to vote yes as the only solution to get away from this. Yet it is the SNP who said no to a Labour proposal to make evictions (as a result of this "tax") illegal. They could be minimising the impact of this "tax" on the most vulnerable RIGHT NOW, but instead they use it as a political tool to increase their support while failing to assist those that need it for the benefit of trying to increase their support. Nicola Sturgeon has made an out and out lie regarding the child care issue. They don't seem to want to highlight too much either their plans to replace council tax with an income based local tax, or that every independent study by worldwide respected financial bodies indicates an almost 10% increase required in income tax to fund independence, and have tried to cover this up to the point their actions were ILLEGAL and they were taken to court.

 

That's politics, and it was clearly on display with the child care proposals. It is dirty, but valid.

The BBC etc actually exist, the future can easily be extrapolated. We have a starting point. Other ideas with no real-world starting point will not easily have the same connection with people reading the WP. If we don't like them, vote them out, either from the Scottish Parliament as it is, or the new Scottish government post 2016.

 

 

Salmond even came out and said last night that if the UK didn't allow us to keep the £, we wouldn't take our share of the national debt! Who does he think he is?!

 

Sturgeon actually said that Scotland is willing and happy to take on it's fair share of liabilities so long it gets a fair share of assets. The pound is a shared asset of the UK. If it, or other assets are not fairly shared, then why should Scotland take the liabilities. The pound has been singled out, but the comment is more general, and quite fair. Assets/liabilities fairly shared.

 

 

I should add that I am now a volunteer in the Better Together campaign though, was always going to vote No and am therefore somewhat biased. Rich or poor, young or old, I fail to see how anyone would be better off with independence. Salmond and the SNP have caused a more divided nation than ever before and have squandered millions in public money which they could have spent helping those they claim to want to help so much.

 

Perhaps state that at the top of your post so it provides the filter to help us understand your comments. On the divided nation point, I think that this, and the conversations, ideas being expressed, the discourse in Scotland means that we can never go back to the status quo. This means the BT team do need to actually show why Scotland will be better off than today in the UK.

 

 

The BT campaign does not have to convince anyone we will be so much better off as part of the UK, but there is no evidence in the Yes camp to suggest anything other than a complete leap of faith, based on nothing concrete and all dependent on factors that would be outwith Scottish control, ...

 

As I say, I think the BT team do need to convince people. The prospect of continued welfare cuts, the coming EU referendum, there are significant things in the UK's future that need to be presented by BT, show an improvement from next year for Scotland, if the country votes No. I feel that is missing now.

 

 

I like to gamble now and then, but feel voting Yes would be an act of lunacy. Scotland could and would survive going it alone (absolutely no doubt in my mind). But why take this risk? Why have no safety net by being in the most successful Union that ever existed? Why cost me and EVERYONE else in Scotland a lot more money to bring this about? Why divide a nation that has been united for over 300 years and has 800 000 Scots living in rUK? Why put up borders that didn't exist before, yet be desperate to enter another union with control even further away than Westminster?

 

Risk Management means minimising risks and taking steps to eliminate if possible, otherwise you accept the risk. The risk to Scotland is small. The country can be a successful, independent nation, you say so yourself. So the risk must be small, oder? Looking back into History is great, but we need to look forward. The EU does not exert the same control over a member as London does over Scotland. That may change with the Scotland Act in 2016, as already passed, but the best solution would have been devo+. We don't have that option.

 

I am no rabid cybernat, and I have no vote, but I have come from a No position to a Yes through examining the facts and seeing the opportunities.

 

An interesting 10 months on the horizon, but either way, nothing will be as it was after the results are announced.

 

Kind regards and apologies for the long reply to the long post

 

B

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EU membership is another key issue Alex Salmond is unable to give a straight answer on.

 

He said EU membership would be "automatic". But the president of the European commission said Scotland would have to reapply. That would mean meeting all the political and economic criteria every other country has to meet.

 

If Alex Salmond wants an independent Scotland, he can't expect to ride on the coat-tails of the UK.

 

Alex Salmond accused of misleading Scottish voters about EU legal advice

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people that can verify the situation vizaviz the EU, are member states. The UK Government would have to ask the question of the EU, Scotland can't. The UK will not until they need to as the asking and the answer would be public and could play into the hands of the SNP/Yes camp.

 

The White Paper is the Yes camp's proposal for an Independant Scotland, not a blueprint.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kludgie,

 

Below from the Guardian:

 

 

An independent Scotland would allow submarines and warships armed with nuclear weapons from the US, Britain and other Nato countries to dock in its ports as part of what was dubbed as a "don't ask, don't tell" policy to guarantee membership of the North Atlantic alliance.

 

In a sign of the Scottish National party's determination to reassure wavering voters – in the face of a commanding lead for the pro-UK camp – the Scottish government outlined a series of concessions by offering to share its military bases with the UK and even softening its stance on the timetable for removing Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/alex-salmond-snp-stance-nato-nuclear-weapons

 

So kinda like a part of NATO and supporting it, but not really fully committed to it and happy to take the benefit of it (much like the good bits of the UK they want to keep) while contributing little.

 

Although as you indicate, the trident issue is a huge debate in itself. But it's no wonder people are confused over what exactly an independent Scotland is trying to achieve.

1

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