Scotland's independence referendum is coming up soon. Any thoughts?

Let the good times roll.


Exhibit A

Exhibit B


Exhibit C


And where democracy doesent work, shoot them

I will admit that I am not nearly well versed enough in Scottish and English history to really get into the nuances of this, but I do know that the Scottish have always wanted to be independent of their southern counterparts. I don't blame them really. Much like the treatment of the Irish, the Scots have had their culture trampled and made into a form of pageantry for the entertainment of Englishmen. It isn't something that anyone would take lightly, yet they have born such treatment since 1707 when the Acts of Union brought the two countries together.

The only thing that I wonder is what exactly will separation entail? They have been connected for over three hundred years, so what will that do to their economies. Will Scotland wish to remain as part of the network of countries connected to the UK? Stuff like that is what I am curious about.

Elara : honestly i don't know much of whats going on there what so over i was hoping some one here would know something about it i just kind of heard about the topic on radio or something but didn't really have time to listen to the whole thing i found it fascinating though possibly some history in the making im going to do some research on it

Elara :
Thats not really the main reason behind independence. It is a factor though, aggrevated by the fact that, unlike Ireland and wales, we were still fully independent.
England made a lot of threats against the scottish economy, and lots of money changed hands, so its unsurprising the scottish parliament caved in. They did however, make several non negotiable demands, such as:
1.Forbiding the alteration of the Scottish education system
2.To protect the scottish church as the official church of scotland
3.Not to tax whisky, fish or salt.
4.Not to impose any tax in Scotland that isnt inplace elsewhere in the UK.
5.To preserve the scottish legal system and prevent meddling in it from the south.

3 was broken quite quickly, England wanted to tax scotland to repay their european war debts. The first time they imposed the tax there were national riots, the water was bad in citys so people drank a lot of whisky. The 2nd time they imposed it there were more riots, but this time they supprressed them.
4 was broken when thatcher trialled the poll tax in Scotland.

The result is an anomally, the UK isnt federal, yet there are distinct policys north and south of the border, which stopped complete unification from ever happening.

Its also Illegal in official matters, to use the English flag or refer to it as English, but the government interchanges United kindgdom with England all the time.


The main issue however, is agreed even with a lot of english people.
There is an uneven population distribution. The further south you go, the denser the population becomes. The south of England has most of the UK's population.
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the north of England are largely ignored, because the politicians pander to the majority.
The city of london, huge as it is, can outvote any ono of the partner nations.
That is how you get the current situation. 1 conservative gets elected in Scotland, but because England elected them in higher numbers, we have to be ruled by them.

Last time the conservatives were in power, they sacrificed the outer regions for the souths benefit.
Scotland in particular had its coal, iron, and steel industrys shut down, had the poll tax trialled as guinea pigs (if you turn up to vote, you get added to a tax register), watched as thatcher undid years of socialist progression, privatising rail, water, power, telecoms etc. She planned to scrap tha national health service too, but was dropped by her party before she could.
Thankfully Scotland held a referendum on privatising our water, so England was forced to drop its plan, and the NHS is devolved in scotland, so they cant privitise it.

But there is a lot of anger that the people of england would do this to us again.

The vote would have been a definite no, though.
The only reason that the yes and no vote is now a 50-50 predicted split, is because the no to independence campaign have reinforced all the images scotland has of the UK.
The yes campaign is a grass roots campaign, real people with real reasons, trying to persuade people to vote yes. Real policys, not vague promises such as alter the tax rate by 2p.
Whether feasible or not, they are offering a better alternative.
The no campaign however, has been labeled project fear by both groups of voters, and they have completely mismanaged their campaign.
They have tried to lure voters by threatening to raise border posts, stop us from using the British currency, block our entry to the EU, Blatently lie about company plans in an independent scotland (said tesco would increase prices, tesco said they would not).

If we vote no, we apparently get more devolution. Its now 7 days to the vote, and they wont tell us what those powers are. They want us to choose the 'mystery box'.

Then theres the leaders of the no campaign. None of them are popular, yet they are leading the campaign.
David cameron, Prime Minister-Conservative, eton educcated (posh,rich,out of touch)-loathed.
Nick clegg. deputy PM, liberal democrats. Got a lot of his seats in Scotland, then went into coalition with scotlands least favourite party-despised.
Ed miliband, labour leader. Seems cluless, leads the party that let the economy drop, labour are viewed as having become conservative, making what people feel are empty part promises.

Overal head of the better together campaign:
Alistar Darling, chancellor of the exchequer when the recession hit. In charge of the finances basically. Lecturing scotland on how we cant manage our economy, generally laughed out the door.

Then there are guest speakers:
Tony Blair-Wasted our money and lives following America into afghanistan and Iraq.
Gordon Brown-Scottish, had a chance to appease Scotland, did nothing.

The fundamental issue here, is they are killing themselves. Every time they attack Scotlands credentials more no voters switch to yes. I know a lot of people in England are getting angry with them about it. They were especially annoyed when the 3 party leaders said they would visit scotland.

Its been 300 years since the act of union, in that time the most significant concession we have had has been getting our own parliament back. But westminster still controls many powers we need.
Independence has been threatened from the start, but never came as close as it is now. When the threat becomes real, the partys suddenly pay attention to us.
Its not anti English or pro Scottishness thats driving us. Its frustration at the political situation. Especially since we lost the royal mail to privitisation recently.

Failure to concede to popular demands like removing the UKs nuclear weapons from Scotland are also a major vote loser.

Theres also the fact that fuel bills are higher in Scotland than ENgland, despite the fact the oil is extracted in Scotland. Seems fair.

Anyone resident in Scotland can vote, scottish, English, Irish, Polish, American.
Its an incclusive country.
The scottish Nationalist party called the vote. A lot of people see name and assume its racism. But about 10% of its members are english.
There are also noteable minoritys in the party, such as sikhs and Muslims.

As for the Irish, they had it wose than Scotland. Scotland was immediately 'equal'(as could be invisiged) in the union. But ireland wasnt made an equal member until 1800.
Scotlands merchants came to dominate certain areas such as the tobbaco and cotton trade, made it into high positions such as lord admiral, superintendent of the southern colonies (america), superintent of India etc.
Irish were lackys, not fit for command. Hardly fare but then what was.
They also received little internal investment, and underwent massive famine at a time where famine was no longer common in Europe.

They became independent as once of the poorest nations in Europe.
Scotland would become independent as the 14 richest nation in the world.

As for what independence would entail for scotland the vision is something like:
1.Join the EU as an independent state. This will make free movement and equal status with native citizens a requirement for England/Rump UK. They cant legally stop it. It also regulates trade, they cant unfairely tax us.
2.Remove nuclear weapons. Ruk will need to find a new base. They may possibly be stored in france or America, as building a new base will take several years and billions of pounds. They will also be fiercely opposed by the locals of the planned new site.
3.A written constitution, enshrining free higher education, healthcare, and banning nuclear weapons.
4.The decomissioning of nuclear power plants in scotland (2 i think. The scottish parliament is opposed to nuclear energy, but the uk plans to build more in scotland anyway, because what rightdo we have to dictate how our land is used).
5.Objective to be 100% renewable energy driven by 2020 (currently around 50%).
Scotland has the highest renewable energy potential in Europe, and one of the highest in the world.
6.Establish an Oil fund like Norway. They put somemoney away from oil sales for when oil runs out. The UK has not done this. People debate how much oil is left, but most estimates envisage that it will still last until about 2050. Last time I did the research, we had larger reserves than norway, meaning we have the largest renewable and non reserves in europe.

Im yet to hear a singe valid argument for staying in the union.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29096458

If you check the highest rated comments, you will see both sides are blaming the UK government for this crisis.

thenumberone : You always have the most informative posts. Thank you!

Tomorrow is the decider, I don't know which way it will go but I know which way I will.



Interestingly Texas has been jumping on this (as well as other would be nations like Quebec and Catalonia).
As far as im aware though, the Texas movement has never had much support.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/us-usa-texas-independence-idUSKBN0HB2LI20140916

"Scotland votes No to independence"

Yup, 55-45%
Im not surorised though I am disappointed.
It would be acceptable if it hadnt been achieved by lies and false promises.
The main casualty for me was the bbc. I cant take anything from them seriously, they consistantly fed wrong information snd misquotes to the masses throughout.
More autonomy is promised but we were promised that before, only to have it withdrawn.
Oh, and no supporters are currently busy attacking yes supporters in glasgow. Fantastic.

Will still be interesting to see how the next few months pan out. Badly, I imagine.
That however, is not my fault.

I'm actually kinda disappointed that Scotland voted no.
Granted, I don't know a ton about the issues,
but from my research it didn't seem like it would take Scotland long at all to stabilize after such a move.
Sure there would have been some rocky points, but ultimately they would have been much better off.
It seemed that he U.K. was going o take a larger blow than Scotland, but they would have brought that on themselves.
No disrespect for the U.K. of course, but they could have handled the issue quite differently. 
The Scottish people weren't thinking about splitting just do it, they had real complaints that just weren't being addressed at all.
I'm sure most citizens would have been happy to reach an agreeable compromise.
At least that's how it appears to me, I certainly may be misunderstanding the situation over there.



thenumberone :
The Texas movement has never received much support because there is really no reason for it frankly.
Granted, Texas is possibly a state that can do it, but for what purpose?
Ok, Obama really needs to stop trying to fix the economy, because he's only making it worse.
However, I do appreciate his foreign policy in spirit if nothing else.
That's beside the point however, because regardless of the quality of president, Texas isn't being oppressed, or even ignored.
In fact, even though this is a "Red State" there is a large percentage of democrats as well. And people who are split like me.
I understand wanting to succeed if your voice is being ignored over a long period of time
But you don't jump ship just because of one President you don't like.
Didn't hear any talk of succeeding when George Bush was president, just saying.
And mostly, Texas has had it's interest in business and politics represented quite well.
Maybe not as much as some people would like, but it's certainly been fair.
And seceding is not something that would be remotely easy on us, even if it wasn't contested.
So why go through such hardships without a strong reason?


 

Hmmmm. From what I heard as an American they probably wouldn't have been able to stabilize themselves all that quickly. They'd take on a portion of the UK's debt since they helped make it. They'd need to spend money to create a military and all the other crap an independent nation needs. The UK wasn't going to let them keep the Pound. They planned to join the EU but countries like France, Spain, and German may screw them over and block them from an accelerated membership to deter any independence movements in their own countries. In that case they'd probably have to mint their own currency which wouldn't do well because they're an experimental nation.

Vincent1875 :
That's highly debatable. We have one of the best economy's in Europe.
I honestly never expected we would win the vote.
But I honestly believe we will win the next one, unless the UK brings in sweeping political changes and limits the UK centrsl parliaments powers. We are b all sick of London dictating how Scotland is run.

What you heard was part of the UK propoganda.
If the pound is a uk asset, and the debt is in Britain's name too, how do we grt one without the other? Nonsense.
The uk government lied, there would be a currency union.
My evidence they lie?
They promised if we voted no, we would have a timetable for powers by friday.
Its now saturday and we still know nothing about what powers we will get, and when.

They say what they think we will like, then when we are no longer a threat, cast us aside again.
Do you know that the uk is now the most class driven nation in the western world?

As for military etc we would get a positional share of tre UK's .
After all, our money created it.

No eu country said they would block our access. Another lie the bbc was circulating.


baileyface544 :
I figured that. I saw a petition start immediately after Obama gained power. Whether because he's a Democrat or black I don't know.
Either way.

thenumberone : Felt the same way yesterday. I totally agree with you.

thenumberone : I honestly had not figured the BBC would use propaganda as blatantly as they did. Big mistake on my part, eh? Rather despicable of them one way or another though. 

thenumberone : And the uncertainty from declaring independence wouldn't harm the economy?

Seems to me like the pound isn't a financial asset so much as part of the UK's sovereign identity. Leaving the UK means leaving the pound. I don't really see why splitting the debt and not the pound is nonsensical. Scotland isn't really negotiating from a position of strength here. You're being allowed to leave.

Evidence of them lying about one thing isn't evidence of them lying about everything.

And you helped create the debt as well yet you're talking about skipping out on that above.

I didn't say any EU country said they would block your access. After all they'd look bad if they just came out and said they'd screw over Scotland to send a warning to their own people. Them not saying it beforehand doesn't mean they won't do it. It's not a lie so much as speculation. It would benefit them politically to make their own citizens realize that they wouldn't just be able to split apart and join the EU with no troubles.

Vincent1875 :
And driving the working class into poverty doesent hurt the economy?
Independence could temporarily hurt scotland due to financial unertainty, but long term is the name of the game.
A currency is a tool, not an identity. People can (stupidly) get patriotic over it if they want, but its pointless.
Im sorry but you are wrong. You are saying we should pay debt, but not keep the currency.
If I get a divorce, do I give the house to my partner and keep paying the mortgage?No.
We are negotiating from a position of strength.
England will lose money if we switch currency. That increases the cost of border trade, they have a lot of business interests north of the border.
Equally the debt is in Britains name. We can legally refuse to pay any of it, hurting them.
We could tell them day one to move their nuclear weapons. They have nowhere to put them, that would be a disaster.
We have plenty of cards to play.

Evidence of one lie may not be case closed on all their statements, but it shows their character.
As for creating the debt, Scotland has paid more tax than we get back for many years, as far as im concerned, its Englands debt. They are the ones that deregulated the banks in the first place.

Im sorry, but no European nation would stop Scotland joining. We are important to too many nations, and the backlash would be swift.

Im not skipping over anything. I can address any point given.

thenumberone : Long term is the game for you and I never said Scotland wouldn't be fine eventually. Just that it might take a while to stabilize itself.

Tools can't be part of a nation's identity? I disagree with that.  I'm not saying you should or shouldn't. I'm saying that you intrinsically tying them together doesn't mean others will see or accept that. My analogy would be more in line with a couple's other debt. You had a joint account and you got divorced. Even then you would still be expected to pay some of the debt off even if you no longer have the same last name. If Scotland refuses to pay it's portion of the debt it could harm Scotland's credit.

You are negotiating from a position of weakness because the UK has all the real power. The only reason there was even a vote is because they allowed it. What's Scotland going to do if the UK takes uneven portions of the oil fields? Complain? They could largely ignore you if you tell them to move their nukes and you wouldn't do anything about it. That's why they're in the position of strength. Most of the power Scotland has to negotiate is dependent on Britain being accommodating.

I'm not saying you're skipping over my points. I was referring to you saying you wouldn't pay the debt but will keep some military assets because you helped make it.

It sounds like something of an overestimation of Scotland's power. I've been looking around and I've seen people saying that Scotland wouldn't just inherit the UK's op-outs, that it would take years for Scotland to join the EU, and that they would have to follow the usual process to join. Thinking otherwise seems like idealism. I wouldn't depend on hypothetical backlash to protect me unless another country outright came out and said they would do so.

Vincent1875 :
"Long term is the game for you"
A country isnt founded short term, Im not sure what you are trying to infer here.

"If Scotland refuses to pay it's portion of the debt it could harm Scotland's credit."
No, if a loan is under one persons name, and they fail to pay it, that doesent mean the partners assests can be seized. Not unless it had both names on it.
All debt is registered with the UK. Since we are being told that if we leave, the rest of the country will continue as the UK, its still their debt.
Unless we agree to divide proportionally everything. Thats not just politics, thats law.

"What's Scotland going to do if the UK takes uneven portions of the oil fields?"
The UK is bound by the european courts, if they find it to be unlawfull, they will demand just compensation. The UK courts too, have the power to overturn the states decisions (as they have done before).
"They could largely ignore you if you tell them to move their nukes and you wouldn't do anything about it."
No, they couldnt. The moment Scotland became a sovereign state, unless there was an agreement in place to allow them to stay, it would become an act of aggression. If they refused to move them, Scotland would begin the process of dismantling them. If the UK tried to stop us, that would be a further escalation, as they have no mandate to use military force in a sovereign Scotland.

"I'm not saying you're skipping over my points. I was referring to you saying you wouldn't pay the debt but will keep some military assets because you helped make it. "
I wasnt saying Scotland wouldnt pay, I was saying if we didnt get the pound we wouldnt. If we got the assets in a fair percentage, we would take the debt in an equal level.

"it would take years for Scotland to join the EU".
No it wouldn't.
Nations wait years, because they need to reform laws and social systems, address concerns, prepare their nations for exposure to a large open market, the European officials have to ensure the candidate nation meets the requirements etc.
All these boxes are ticked since Scotland, under the UK, has been in Europe for years.
Equally, since we have the largest Oil reserves in Europe, are a net exporter, and a major destination for European migration, not many nations would want us to stay out longer than necessary.

thenumberone : The point is that other people could be more concerned about short term and thus not want to found a country.

So if the UK changed its name it would lose all its debt because it's no longer the UK? Pretty sure it doesn't work like that. Scotland is not the UK's partner in this scenario. It is a part of the UK. Not a separate entity. Thus the UK's name being on it is the same as Scotland's name being on it as Scotland is understood to be a member of the union. So I think Scotland not paying the debt could be considered a default though the UK probably would have payed it regardless.

Yeah, I don't see all that going down. The UK might not have the same weight as the US or Russia to swing around and largely ignore Europeans opinions but I don't see other countries picking a fight with them. What would further escalation mean? Scotland going to the UN and asking for aid like the Ukraine? It's not like they'd be able to do anything there with the US and UK being on the SC.

Could Scotland even keep the pound and join the EU? I've read quotes from diplomats of other EU countries saying no.

That it would take years is a quote from Gianni Pitella(Italian political). Inigo Mendez de Vigo(the Spanish European Affairs Minister)said that the new European
Commission president said it would take five years.

Vincent1875 :
If the UK dissolved then they would need to negotiate liability between the successor states. As things go, the remaining area of the UK has declared itself the successor state, ergo taking on all the former nations liability's, unless negotiated otherwise.
Russia was the successor to the USSR, they took on the nations obligations, except where agreement was met with the departing nations.
If there are 3 people in a registered company, and one member leaves and forms a new company, separate of the original, it takes on no debt. Unless the debt mentions the individual rather than the company, they are not liable. The company's assets can be seized, but outside resources cannot.
The UK's name being on the debt does not obligate an independent Scotland to pay it.
Comparing the Ukraine-Russia scenario to the UK-Scotland one is frankly, nonsensical.
For one, neither nation is bound by the European courts. Ours are.
Neither is a member of the EU.
Ours are.
As for the UN, it's a largely useless organisation.

There are various nations in the EU(UK included), that do not use the euro. People argue that now new nations must join it, that is highly unlikely, especially since Scotland, as stated before, has been in Europe for many, many years. And equally, despite what they say, The UK would not want Scotland to change Currency.

And Jo Leinen said Scotland could join within 18 onths of voting yes, bearing in mind there would be a 2 year gap between the vote and independence, resulting in our emergence as an independent state within the EU.

""Scotland should not be compared with other candidate candidates. The Scots have been EU citizens since 1973 and are committed Europeans. A special accession treaty could be negotiated and ratified before the envisaged date of independence in March 2016. The continuation of Scottish EU membership could thus be achieved."

Leinen also believes that fast-tracking Scottish membership would benefit the wider EU, arguing that, "Due to its dynamic economy and energy reserves, the membership of Scotland in the EU is in the interest of the European Union and its member states.""