Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'm thinking a lot of the votes will be coming from those that just want to scarper from the Tories before they drag us down any further (quote this away with your objections...). If Westminster shows some signs of getting its act together that may just garner some more votes for the Better Together campaign, but their hardly gaining any support handling government as they are now. I'm doubting that Scotland will gain Independence based solely on the people's loathing for the Tory party though, as on that same token we'd be losing a portion of the other countries in the union as well.

Perhaps if the vote fails another one could be done on giving Holyrood more powers over itself. Given that this has already been discarded due to the argument that that would require votes in Northern Ireland and Wales, its a pity that Independence is all that's up there.

There won't be any new powers for Holyrood if Scotland votes no. There are already quotes floating about from MPs talking about how the "ideal outcome" of a no vote would be the rollback and eventual eradication of devolution across the whole UK. I'll also point out that the current Scottish government were actually pushing to have the Scottish parliament vote on whether to put a devo-max option on the referendum, it was Cameron who insisted it be a straight in-out yes-no question(about which Salmond was doubtless delighted since he never wanted the option anyway).

Westminster also won't be getting its act together; the Tories and Labour are committed to essentially the same economic and social policy, they only differ on the timescales for implementation and a few extremely minor aspects(the Lib Dems are finished as a political force for at least the next parliament or so, their vote has collapsed in all the local and devolved elections they've been standing in since they entered the Coalition), and now we have Tony Blair's new "favoured son" Chuka Umunna talking about how Labour is "out of step" with the "individualistic society" of the modern youth, and that the party must be "transformed and reformed" accordingly, which is dogwhistle politico-code for "go further to the right", as well as that gormless twerp Danny Alexander taking electoral strategy tips from Ronald Reagan's campaign against Jimmy Carter.

That, I think, is the most important point the Yes campaign have to get across to Scottish voters; independence may be a risk, but the status quo makes losing our public services and a continued drive towards a more unequal society a certainty. Voting Labour won't save us, because even if they get into power, they're planning to do or will refuse to repeal everything the Tories plan to. Osborne says that an independent Scotland would have to find £2.5 billion in cuts during our first independent parliamentary term, but even if we take his assessment at face value, even if we assume that we can't find those cuts in parts of the budget that all the pro-Yes parties intend to slash anyway, those cuts are going to come regardless; the next UK government will, at the very least, be reducing Scotland's block-grant budget by 10%, in other words somewhere around £3 billion.

That's what finally shifted me from a "don't know, leaning No" to "almost certainly Yes"; the realisation that it wouldn't matter if we stayed in the Union and hung about until a different party came to power, because it isn't just about the Tories any more, the entire Westminster political culture has abandoned the values that people in Scotland want from their politics, and that isn't something that's going to change for at least another decade, most likely much much longer.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I distrust the Tories despite my being English, and I distrust New Labour as well.

Traditionally, young people are more left wing. If Salmond has misjudged that, in including 16 year olds, it tells you something about his skills as a politician.

Sorry, I perhaps didn't convey my meaning well enough there. It isn't about young people being more left-wing or less left-wing, it's more that Scottish adults aren't just, on the whole, left-wing, they also grew up either directly affected by or seeing and hearing horror stories about Thatcher's ruination of Scottish industry, the poll tax, the suppression of strikers and dissenters, as well as Labour's "triumphant" return to political power resulting in them becoming a hollow neo-liberal warmongering shell of their former selves. Unless they grew up in a family with a fairly strong traditional working-class identity, today's 16 and 17 year olds just don't have that frame of reference, and the inbuilt distrust of Westminster politics that comes with it, that's why they're politically inconvenient for the pro-independence advocates; they're not as cynical about the Union, so they still see engaging with Westminster as something that might give them the government they want.

I'd hate to find out what would happen around the north east if the goonies who run my local council had the goonies of the central belt as their ultimate overlords.

Oddly as a side effect Scotland going would be a massive boon for the tories regarding future General Elections. Not sure I'd like that.

I've also watched a few detailed programs on this subject and I really think it would be a bad move by Scotland. I hope a undercurrent of nationalism and some would say some level of racism towards the English by portion of those North of the border doesn't put Scotland into a worse position overall.

I'm Welsh btw, exile in England.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Oddly as a side effect Scotland going would be a massive boon for the tories regarding future General Elections. Not sure I'd like that.

I've also watched a few detailed programs on this subject and I really think it would be a bad move by Scotland. I hope a undercurrent of nationalism and some would say some level of racism towards the English by portion of those North of the border doesn't put Scotland into a worse position overall.

I'm Welsh btw, exile in England.

Two quick points on this MDS, the first is "the Abandonment Myth", which unsurprisingly comes up rather a lot thanks to both the Better Together campaign, and all the "Scottish coven imposing sershulism on Good and Proper Englishmen!!!" bile that the tabloid press liked to put about during the previous Labour government; in the time from the rise of the Labour Party in the 1920's until the current day, the absence of Scottish MPs from UK General Elections would have changed the result exactly twice, one turning a tiny Labour majority into a hung parliament, and once turning a hung parliament into an extremely tiny Tory majority(from memory, I'll double check in case it's the other way around). In all the other elections, either of the main parties commanded a sufficient majority to remain comfortably ahead without Scottish votes(excepting the Lib-Lab Pact, which still would have been possible without Scotland). If England/rUK want a Labour government, or indeed any other government, they only have to vote for it(that being one of the chief complaints from some in the Yes camp; Scotland only gets the government we vote for if the rest of the UK agree with us, so 52% or 40% of the time depending whether you're counting number of elections, or number of years under each party respectively); the Tories are in power right now because the people in the marginal seats which decide General Elections wanted them there.

The second is the idea that the campaign for Scottish Independence is predicated, even in part, on a jingoistic, even racist sentiment regards the English. The reality is that Scottish Nationalism is predicated on the most inclusive form of Civic Nationalism yet seen; anyone who lives here, works here, makes a home here is a Scot as far as the Nats are concerned, period. For that reason, some of the most impassioned advocates for Scottish Independence....are English. I was watching a debate the other day on YouTube regarding the role and engagement of women in the debate, and one of the audience members preceded her remarks by noting that she had moved up to Scotland from her home city of London specifically because she had lost faith in the ability of Westminster, regardless of what party was in charge, to provide a progressive political proposition rooted in social justice, and had come to believe that an independent Scotland could, through leading by example, actually be the best chance to guide the UK as a whole back towards the ethics and politics of the Postwar Consensus. There'll always be the odd dimwitted thug incapable of separating our distrust and dislike of the political institutions in Westminster from the English people, just as there are always going to be eejits down in England who think of Scots as jimmy hat-wearing whisky-swilling heroin junky benefit cheats(some of them write for national newspapers), but they're not even a significant voice in the debate let alone anything approaching a majority.

Okay, three points; be careful getting your info about this debate from the Beeb, they manage to avoid outright hostility towards the concept of independence, but they have cultivated a very deliberate strategy of "bias by omission"; between 20,000(revised Police estimate) and 30,000(organiser estimate) marched through Edinburgh on Saturday in support of the Yes campaign ending with a rally on Calton Hill attended by speakers from the SNP, the Greens, Labour for Independence, as well as music and comedy personalities plus politicians of no party affiliation, it was reported on the day by the BBC in the shortest evening news show timeslot regarding a major march I've ever seen, as having just 8000 attendees(the initial Police estimate, based purely on how many people they had expected to show up and had provisioned officers for), and was presented as being a party-political rally on behalf of Alex Salmond and the SNP alone. On Sunday Politics Scotland the day after the march, the Scottish Labour leader and avowed Unionist Johann Lamont was given over ten minutes and a couple of extremely softball questions to help her badmouth Yes Scotland and make personal attacks on the First Minister, while the march was given four seconds of coverage in their "news in 60 seconds" segment. If you want to know about the issues surrounding the debate, by and large you're going to have to bypass the media and go online to find the various points of view and academic opinions. Avoid most of the pro-independence blogs as well until you've properly made up your mind; most of them raise a lot of good points and interesting arguments, but there's also a fair bit of their output that's really just designed to give convinced Yes voters a laugh at the opposition's expense, which is fine, but not really conducive to learning the facts.

On which note: I'm retracting my previous provisional concession regarding the EU issue:




The most salient points regarding Scotland's potential accession into the EU and any obstacles to that are presented by the first two speakers(starting approx 5 mins) but the third is interesting as well as it discusses the challenges small independent nations face as EU members and how Scotland might address them once they attain membership. If you're extremely short on time, the Chair provides a quick sum-up of the points the speakers have made at around 59 minutes in. To make an even shorter summary; there's no precedent, indeed there's so little precedent that the EU Commission's proclamations on the subject are worthless since it's not even clear they would be the ones making any decisions, and the idea that any of the member states or the rUK would oppose Scottish membership or make it difficult is patently daft, even Spain, as it would be against their interests. The session is hosted by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and is part of a series designed to give people impartial expert academic advice to help clarify the independence debate.

The next series is a bit more partisan, since it's presented by Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp of "Business for Scotland" who are members of the Yes Campaign, however it's fully sourced should you wish to check up his facts:










It lays out the case for a prosperous post-independence Scotland, dispels a few misconceptions about various issues including oil and currency, and advocates the idea that a socially just progressive Scotland can also support and encourage genuine entrepreneurship.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Articles 4.2 and 52 of the Maastrich Treaty seem to disagree with you about who belongs to the EU but if that's not good.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-separate-scotland-must-apply-to-join-eu-warns-brussels-1-2677200

Apparently they already wrote a letter.

EU wrote:“If a territory of a member state ceases to be part of that member state because it has become an independent state then the treaties would cease to apply to that territory.”

M.

I don't think they'll do that. It would cause a hell of a lot of upheaval for no real reason. All foreign students in Scotland would have to pay tuition fees and the Spanish fishing fleet would be bankrupted overnight. If an independent Scotland were to join the EU and was not allowed immediate entry then why unravel all of the things that make Scotland compliant with the EU (and the EU compliant with Scotland) only to allow entry later on? It would cost millions and offer nobody any real tangible benefit. I think Scotland would be better forming closer links with the Norwegians rather than the EU anyway.

Scotland and England are different nations with different cultures. My mums English and I've lived in Scotland all my life. There are a great deal of similarities but they are different just as Norway is from Sweden, or ROI from England for that matter.

Indeed if Scotland was to leave it would have to reapply to the EU and it would have to take up the Euro because that is one of the conditions for joining. I'm Welsh and I'd love to see us devolve away from the United Kingdom. But I don't see it as a good idea.

Same for Scotland, if you leave the UK then what? Sure your main export is currently energy, but nearly all the companies who drill North Sea oil are English, they might not want to give their fuel to Scotland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the fact that the oil is also starting to decline in production, and Scotland is quite against Nuclear Power.

welshhoppo wrote:
Indeed if Scotland was to leave it would have to reapply to the EU and it would have to take up the Euro because that is one of the conditions for joining. I'm Welsh and I'd love to see us devolve away from the United Kingdom. But I don't see it as a good idea.

Same for Scotland, if you leave the UK then what? Sure your main export is currently energy, but nearly all the companies who drill North Sea oil are English, they might not want to give their fuel to Scotland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the fact that the oil is also starting to decline in production, and Scotland is quite against Nuclear Power.

I think Scotland would be better off outside the EU anyway. Its not guaranteed that she will reapply for the EU. The companies don't have to 'give' the fuel to Scotland. They will have to contribute in tax though if they want to drill in Scottish waters. I think Scotland should nationalise her oil anyway in the event of independence. She wont be part of Europe so no competition or trade laws. What's to stop us?

There are new sites being developed off the west and north coast and even the most conservative estimates indicate that there is still a lot left to exploit.

Leave all that aside and the economic case is slightly less compelling but still worth it to never see a tory government ever again.......

Whilst I agree that not having a Tory government again is not a bad thing (although I also have a dislike of Labour too) Being outside the EU isn't going to be a good thing due to the trade benefits that it provides. Otherwise Scotland's nearest neighbour is going to be Iceland. As I doubt the UK will fancy giving them 'mates rates' on goods.

welshhoppo wrote:
Indeed if Scotland was to leave it would have to reapply to the EU and it would have to take up the Euro because that is one of the conditions for joining. I'm Welsh and I'd love to see us devolve away from the United Kingdom. But I don't see it as a good idea.

Same for Scotland, if you leave the UK then what? Sure your main export is currently energy, but nearly all the companies who drill North Sea oil are English, they might not want to give their fuel to Scotland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention the fact that the oil is also starting to decline in production, and Scotland is quite against Nuclear Power.

I would highly recommend you watch some of the videos I posted above, as most of your points are addressed there by people far more qualified than I, but I'll have a quick crack at them in case you don't fancy watching a few hours of academics blabbing.

Regarding reapplying to join the EU, I address that in the post just prior to this so I won't go into it again, but I will address the comment regarding the Euro; you are mistaken. Even making the assumption that Scotland would have to apply for EU membership completely from scratch(which has been pointed out is unlikely at best, and patently ludicrous in the opinion of many), it would not be forced to join the Euro. In that unlikely scenario of a "virgin" application for membership, Scotland would be required to make a commitment, in principle, to transitioning into the Eurozone, at some unspecified point in the future. When that point is depends entirely on decisions made by the Scottish government, since there is a specific process for joining the Euro which has very strict requirements which must be met, not the least of which is that a new applicant must have had their own currency for two years, and that currency must meet certain economic criteria at the end of that period. In addition, they must have a certain proportion of debt and deficit both in relation to GDP which, assuming Scotland were to take on a population-share of UK debt(or close to it, depending on negotiations) as seems likely, Scotland would not meet for several more years. The European Union has no legal mechanism with which to compel a member state to join the Euro on a specific timetable. Even the vague commitment detailed just above may not be necessary, depending on whether Scotland is able to negotiate to be considered a "successor" to the UK in the same way as the rest of the UK would be, in which case the current UK exemption could be claimed in part for us as well(although this is a less likely scenario, the video I link above explains the most realistic scenario quite thoroughly and it falls between the two extremes).

Regarding energy exports and oil in particular, you are again mistaken.

Regardless of the nationality of the companies drilling for the oil, they do not own the reserves, they are granted the right to drill for and subsequently sell the oil in exchange for being taxed on the Rates(ie profits) they make from it. The entity which grants those rights, and thus benefits from that tax revenue, is the nation state which has control of the waters in which the drilling takes place, and post-independence that would be Scotland, not the rUK, since natural resources are distributed on a geographical basis under international law, under which Scotland's maritime border would encompass approximately 90% of the current UK's North Sea fossil fuel reserves(94% of the oil, and a smaller proportion of the gas). There is also the further option available to a newly independent Scotland, although it is one that will probably not be taken, which would be nationalisation. In either case, after independence the oil is Scotland's, and Scotland will benefit from the revenue in some fashion. Equally as important as the oil itself is the knowledge economy which exists around the oil industry in Scotland; we are world leaders in developing new technologies for accessing previously unprofitable reserves, and there is no sign that will stop any time soon, indeed an independent Scottish government would have the option of encouraging those peripheral industries with tailored economic policy.

Regarding the decline, well, in relative terms production of North Sea oil has been in decline from its early peak for quite some years now, that doesn't seem to have dampened the UK Treasury's lust to retain it, then and now. In absolute terms, even the more conservative estimates put the remaining volume of currently accessible reserves(ie, they assume that we will not discover any new fields or develop any new technologies to enable extraction of the already known but currently financially unviable deep reserves - the former of which would seem to be belied by the several hundred millions of pounds that oil companies are investing in new exploration in the Atlantic region of Scottish waters, the latter by the previously mentioned world-leading expertise in developing such technologies) at some 40 billion barrels of oil equivalent, around half of what has been produced up to this point. Some estimates peg the oil industry in Scotland as being able to maintain its current levels of production for another 50-odd years, and the more speculative estimates which account for the currently-unviable and potential as-yet undiscovered fields extends that estimate out to nearly a century. In any case, there is more than enough wealth left in North Sea production to allow an independent Scotland to generate its own Norwegian-style Sovereign Oil Fund, and far better we do that than leave it in the hands of the UK government which has spent the last several decades pissing the wealth away funding Thatcher's annihilation of industry and Blair's imperialist foreign wars.

Regarding nuclear, personally I'm actually a big proponent of nuclear energy, I am of the opinion that the latest Gen 3.5 and molten-salt Thorium reactors are the world's best hope for combating climate change until we can get Fusion reactor technology up to snuff, but even if those who share such an opinion are overruled in an independent Scotland as seems likely, Scotland itself does not need nuclear to completely eradicate our own dependence on fossil fuels; Scotland has 25% of the renewables generation capacity of the whole of the EU between wind, wave and tide, and perhaps the largest single source of tidal energy in the Pentland Firth. That is ours until the moon stops orbiting the earth and the wind no longer blows, and as costs for renewables come down we can begin to replace our exports of fossil fuels with renewable energy instead, since of that substantial capacity, Scotland itself will only need around 10% to completely meet our energy needs.

But even setting all of that aside, even if we had no oil at all; Scotland is the third-wealthiest part of the UK, only Greater London and the South East of England generate more. Our tax take per-head of population is 99% of the UK average before you factor in potential revenues from oil, and much of that tax is currently wasted by the UK on foreign adventures(Scotland contributes approx £3.3 billion to UK defence spending, only approx £2 billion of that is actually spent in Scotland itself, and that figure includes Trident which we plan to scrap; we could afford to spend more on defence than is currently spent here and still save money), on tax cuts for the wealthy(5% cut in top rate of tax, tax rebates for capital gains and other forms of finance sector income and so forth), and on dogwhistle policies designed to appeal to naturally-Conservative "floating voters" in marginal English seats(such as the infamous "go home" advertising vans targeting immigrants, or the recently announced intention to reclassify benefit fraud as a more serious offence, a policy that will end up costing the taxpayer much more money than the fraud itself, which is a tiny proportion of the overall social security spend). We are a modern, developed, service economy with some of Europe's best education and research institutions, and our prosperity is no more dependent on "volatile" oil reserves than the UK's is on the even more volatile financial services industry in the City.

First off, let me say that you have an excellent argument and for that I must commend you.


Although I must ask, besides fuel, what else does Scotland export?

I ask this because I'm curious how Scotland will continue to make money, not just in the next 50 years but in the next 100+ years assuming that we don't all kill ourselves in nuclear war. Because I'm what I've been studying in my law degree, most of the money that Scotland makes comes from oil and gas. After that it's food because everyone knows that Scotland makes the best whiskey (aside from the welsh, but you can put this down to National pride (Cymru am byth, twll dyn pob sais))


Because let's face it, the oil will run out eventually, and what will happen then?

Also don't think I'm against Scotland gaining independence, because after the way the UK has treated you i'm not surprised that you want to leave.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding reapplying to join the EU, I address that in the post just prior to this so I won't go into it again, but I will address the comment regarding the Euro; you are mistaken. Even making the assumption that Scotland would have to apply for EU membership completely from scratch(which has been pointed out is unlikely at best, and patently ludicrous in the opinion of many), it would not be forced to join the Euro. In that unlikely scenario of a "virgin" application for membership, Scotland would be required to make a commitment, in principle, to transitioning into the Eurozone, at some unspecified point in the future.

You are deluded.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/06/scottish-independence-eu-accession-veto-spain_n_2249473.html
http://euobserver.com/political/120006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2fd7b0f6-1f8a-11e2-841c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2frZFFpbm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243844/Brussels-says-block-independent-Scotland-automatically-joining-EU.html

Even Nicola Sturgeon admits Scotland would have to apply.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sturgeon-case-for-scotland-remaining-in-eu-is-common-sense.1361898288


Salmond doesn't care much, except for the chance it will swing the vote. So long as he gets the yes vote and gets to become President and play with the toys he is happy.

Oh and if you keep the pound, you do so under UK administration of thecurrency, which will be directed for the needs of the UK not Scotland.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In a theoretical split, who gets the nukes?

UK doews as its a declared nuclear power, Scotland doesnt want them anyway.
However some SNP leaders have been crowing about forcing the UK to give up nukes:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-scotland-could-force-uk-to-give-up-trident-1-2166015
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nato-chiefs-warns-snp-barred-2173702

This won't work because the boomer fleet will be relocated in the transition period to independence which will likely take at least 18 months. But its interesting how SNOP think they can change UK policy post independence out of what looks something very like spite.

welshhoppo wrote:
First off, let me say that you have an excellent argument and for that I must commend you.
Because let's face it, the oil will run out eventually, and what will happen then?

Oil is already running out, production is slackening noticably. Oil reserves are hard to predict but the best years of production are already gone.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding reapplying to join the EU, I address that in the post just prior to this so I won't go into it again, but I will address the comment regarding the Euro; you are mistaken. Even making the assumption that Scotland would have to apply for EU membership completely from scratch(which has been pointed out is unlikely at best, and patently ludicrous in the opinion of many), it would not be forced to join the Euro. In that unlikely scenario of a "virgin" application for membership, Scotland would be required to make a commitment, in principle, to transitioning into the Eurozone, at some unspecified point in the future.

You are deluded.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/06/scottish-independence-eu-accession-veto-spain_n_2249473.html
http://euobserver.com/political/120006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2fd7b0f6-1f8a-11e2-841c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2frZFFpbm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243844/Brussels-says-block-independent-Scotland-automatically-joining-EU.html

Even Nicola Sturgeon admits Scotland would have to apply.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sturgeon-case-for-scotland-remaining-in-eu-is-common-sense.1361898288

Spain wont veto Scotland's euro membership mate, not if they want access to Scottish fishing waters (which they do). It is ridiculous to assume that Scotland would have to apply from scratch to the EU particularly as Scotland is already compliant with EU legislation and so many EU citizens are reliant on Scotland's continued membership. It would be an expensive and futile exercise out of nothing more than spite. Its a red herring wee man.


Salmond doesn't care much, except for the chance it will swing the vote. So long as he gets the yes vote and gets to become President and play with the toys he is happy.

Oh and if you keep the pound, you do so under UK administration of thecurrency, which will be directed for the needs of the UK not Scotland.

So what? According to project fear and numerous other detractors we're the same country anyway. We'd be better joining the NOK than the brittish pound. The economic mismanagement of the UK is breathtaking Scotland would have to go some to do any worse...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In a theoretical split, who gets the nukes?

UK doews as its a declared nuclear power, Scotland doesnt want them anyway.
However some SNP leaders have been crowing about forcing the UK to give up nukes:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-scotland-could-force-uk-to-give-up-trident-1-2166015
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nato-chiefs-warns-snp-barred-2173702

This won't work because the boomer fleet will be relocated in the transition period to independence which will likely take at least 18 months. But its interesting how SNOP think they can change UK policy post independence out of what looks something very like spite.

Its not out of spite. The world would be a better place without British warmongering. Hopefully a diminished UK would help to achieve that. What purpose do the nukes serve? Really?

welshhoppo wrote:
First off, let me say that you have an excellent argument and for that I must commend you.
Because let's face it, the oil will run out eventually, and what will happen then?

Oil is already running out, production is slackening noticably. Oil reserves are hard to predict but the best years of production are already gone.

and Scotland would be a viable nation without oil reserves. Scotland has a strong export led industry with everything from videogames (GTA is doing ok I hear) to whisky, vibrant tourism and a great deal of soft power. We'll be fine mate. Thanks for asking.

jamin484 wrote:

Spain wont veto Scotland's euro membership mate, not if they want access to Scottish fishing waters (which they do). It is ridiculous to assume that Scotland would have to apply from scratch to the EU particularly as Scotland is already compliant with EU legislation and so many EU citizens are reliant on Scotland's continued membership. It would be an expensive and futile exercise out of nothing more than spite. Its a red herring wee man.

Wishful thinking says they wont, multiple sources say they might.
Besides the French are likely to be the main problem.

jamin484 wrote:

So what? According to project fear and numerous other detractors we're the same country anyway. We'd be better joining the NOK than the brittish pound. The economic mismanagement of the UK is breathtaking Scotland would have to go some to do any worse.

Scotland is part of the economic mismanagement, as Gordon Brown was Scottish we could safely say the worst of it. Scottish councils and the Scottish parliament is made of the same doctrines and wasteful political thinking as anywhere else in the UK. You would be a fool to think that somehow things would be any better.

welshhoppo wrote:

Its not out of spite. The world would be a better place without British warmongering.

There you go, spite, with added racism. You are British, Scotland has been a full partner of all we have collectively done..

welshhoppo wrote:

Hopefully a diminished UK would help to achieve that. What purpose do the nukes serve? Really?

If you wont be part of the UK anymore, what is it to you. If you want to set UK defence policy you do so by being elected to Westminster and setting it, an independent Scotland trying to dictate UK defence policy would be politically hostile.

welshhoppo wrote:

and Scotland would be a viable nation without oil reserves. Scotland has a strong export led industry with everything from videogames (GTA is doing ok I hear) to whisky, vibrant tourism and a great deal of soft power. We'll be fine mate. Thanks for asking.

So does the rest of the UK.

Anyway the main problem is that unionists have to look at the advantage of the whole, the separatists dont, they look only to Scotland and are unconcerned with elsewhere to the extent that in the eyes of many any problems caused south of the border by the seperation are a bonus not a concern. If Scotland gains independence under those terms and Salmond drinks your economy dry, there will be little sympathy.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding reapplying to join the EU, I address that in the post just prior to this so I won't go into it again, but I will address the comment regarding the Euro; you are mistaken. Even making the assumption that Scotland would have to apply for EU membership completely from scratch(which has been pointed out is unlikely at best, and patently ludicrous in the opinion of many), it would not be forced to join the Euro. In that unlikely scenario of a "virgin" application for membership, Scotland would be required to make a commitment, in principle, to transitioning into the Eurozone, at some unspecified point in the future.

You are deluded.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/06/scottish-independence-eu-accession-veto-spain_n_2249473.html
http://euobserver.com/political/120006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2fd7b0f6-1f8a-11e2-841c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2frZFFpbm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243844/Brussels-says-block-independent-Scotland-automatically-joining-EU.html

Even Nicola Sturgeon admits Scotland would have to apply.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sturgeon-case-for-scotland-remaining-in-eu-is-common-sense.1361898288


Salmond doesn't care much, except for the chance it will swing the vote. So long as he gets the yes vote and gets to become President and play with the toys he is happy.

Oh and if you keep the pound, you do so under UK administration of thecurrency, which will be directed for the needs of the UK not Scotland.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In a theoretical split, who gets the nukes?

UK doews as its a declared nuclear power, Scotland doesnt want them anyway.
However some SNP leaders have been crowing about forcing the UK to give up nukes:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-scotland-could-force-uk-to-give-up-trident-1-2166015
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nato-chiefs-warns-snp-barred-2173702

This won't work because the boomer fleet will be relocated in the transition period to independence which will likely take at least 18 months. But its interesting how SNOP think they can change UK policy post independence out of what looks something very like spite.

welshhoppo wrote:
First off, let me say that you have an excellent argument and for that I must commend you.
Because let's face it, the oil will run out eventually, and what will happen then?

Oil is already running out, production is slackening noticably. Oil reserves are hard to predict but the best years of production are already gone.

First off, I'll ask you to ditch that dismissive and confrontational tone. I've gone to great pains in this thread to be polite, balanced, and thorough, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Your first point seems confused, as you are quoting my argument as to why, if Scotland joined the EU, we would not be forced to immediately also have to take on the Euro currency. If you go up a few posts, I present a very brief summary of a panel discussion hosted by the Royal Society of Edinburgh which details the realities of how and under what circumstances Scotland would gain accession into the EU itself, and that discussion addresses all of the points your links raise in a balanced and impartial manner.

Regarding the Pound, we would be keeping Sterling under Bank of England administration of the currency, an institution which is ostensibly independent and which an independent Scotland would have a stake in and representation on the board of, which we currently do not have. Regardless of which, the main point regarding forming some kind of "sterling zone" following independence is to ensure stability in both the Scottish and rUK economies, the SNP have not confirmed what their medium- to long-term position on continuing that relationship would be, but many of the other voices in the independence debate advocate for establishing our own distinct currency or moving towards Euro membership eventually, so we have options if we find that the price of stability within a sterling zone is too high for us.

Regarding Trident, there are two issues here; the first is that you are making the cardinal mistake of Unionists, by equating independence wholly with the SNP and specifically Alex Salmond. As I've pointed out in this thread, the Yes Campaign is made up of multiple groups and political parties all of which have their own views on what a post-independence Scotland should be, which of those views we favour will be decided at the General Election following Independence Day and there are many analysts who don't believe the SNP -a broad coalition of pro-business right-of-centre, centrist moderates, and left-wing social democrats- will survive past independence, the sole issue which holds them together in common cause, proposing that instead it is more likely they will split into new parties, or large portions of their membership will drift off into other parties to leave them as a smaller left-of-centre party under Alex Salmond. Many in the independence movement, both within and outwith the SNP, actually believe Scotland shouldn't be a NATO member, for many of the same reasons they believe we should rid ourselves of Trident; it's an obsolete edifice with no real purpose and we can fulfill our obligations to the world through peacekeeping work with the UN and EU. The SNP assert we could remain NATO members, some apparently disagree, the problem for your argument is that disputing an SNP policy is only a silver-bullet to the argument for independence itself in the minds of Unionists, because the two are inseparable in that school of thinking - to the supporters of the independence movement, they are quite distinct.

I'll note that the "crowing about forcing the UK to give up nukes" is a jibe directed at some advocates of the Union, who have put forward the hysterical argument that the nuclear subs are at Faslane because that's the only place in the UK they can operate from, and as such if Scotland were to achieve independence the armies of the rUK would roll across the border on wings of fire to seize a two-square-mile chunk of the Clyde and declare it an independent Crown Protectorate.

 Orlanth wrote:

jamin484 wrote:

Spain wont veto Scotland's euro membership mate, not if they want access to Scottish fishing waters (which they do). It is ridiculous to assume that Scotland would have to apply from scratch to the EU particularly as Scotland is already compliant with EU legislation and so many EU citizens are reliant on Scotland's continued membership. It would be an expensive and futile exercise out of nothing more than spite. Its a red herring wee man.

Wishful thinking says they wont, multiple sources say they might.
Besides the French are likely to be the main problem.

Nooo, respected experts on EU politics in theory and policy in practice say they won't. A Scotland without EU membership because of Spain's meddling would bankrupt the entire Spanish fishing industry overnight, since no common fisheries policy means we have no obligation to allow their ships to remain in our waters. The French are practically hopping with glee at the prospect of Scottish independence, as are the Germans, since they are seeing a scenario in which the UK's constant meddling in the EU's attempts to enact policy will be much reduced, potentially eradicated entirely if rUK decide to withdraw from the EU after the next election and the in/out referendum on membership, and at the same time they will gain a new pro-EU member state. Regardless of which, and I do wish people would just watch the videos I took the time to find and post since they deal with all of these "arguments" rather handily; the EU requires that its members behave in certain ways regarding certain things - the Edinburgh Agreement establishes that the UK Government has made the decision to allow a full and legal referendum on Scottish independence, and that they will respect the result and work in good faith with a newly independent Scotland to ensure the best outcome for us both, and since the EU must respect the rights and decisions of its sovereign member states, any EU member which chooses to go against that will be damaging their standing with the rest of the EU.

Scotland is part of the economic mismanagement, as Gordon Brown was Scottish we could safely say the worst of it. Scottish councils and the Scottish parliament is made of the same doctrines and wasteful political thinking as anywhere else in the UK. You would be a fool to think that somehow things would be any better.

Gordon Brown is also an avowed Unionist, and is as poorly regarded among the independence movement as he is in many other parts of the UK, although doubtless not for the same reasons. As to whether things would be "better", I would put to you that depends on what you think would be "better" - I think I have an inkling based on your tone here what you think that is, but I'd appreciate it if you could more thoroughly define what you consider to be "economic mismanagement" and "doctrines and wasteful political thinking" before I dispute this point fully, as I dislike proceeding on assumptions.

There you go, spite, with added racism. You are British, Scotland has been a full partner of all we have collectively done..

Racism? Really, contain yourself, that kind of obvious hyperbole just isn't necessary.

Anyway the main problem is that unionists have to look at the advantage of the whole, the separatists dont, they look only to Scotland and are unconcerned with elsewhere to the extent that in the eyes of many any problems caused south of the border by the seperation are a bonus not a concern. If Scotland gains independence under those terms and Salmond drinks your economy dry, there will be little sympathy.

It's odd then, if the Unionists must "look at the advantage of the whole", that the "Better Together" campaign has been a relentless stream of negativity, belittlement, and personal slander against one or two political figures. Your view of independence advocates as bitter England-haters who hop about in glee at the thought of harming the rUK by gaining the right to govern ourselves is really actually quite depressing, because it tells me that you've not actually examined the Yes argument in any detail and likely never will. If you had, you would note that the Yes Campaign is fully brimming over with internationalists, socialists, union members, pro-Europeans and so forth, all of whom consider a continued and cordial relationship with the rUK as an important and desirable element of our future. You'd have noted that many independence advocates have family down south, or even originally come from England or Ireland or Wales, and none of them have a burning desire to see their families and friends suffer.

And finally, for the very very last time; please stop equating an independent Scotland with Alex Salmond and the SNP. There's a solid chance the SNP would lose any post-independence election, and many of the Yes Campaign have never voted for the SNP in their lives, myself included. Dispute the arguments if you can and wish to, but constantly resorting to cheap shots at one of the most trusted and respected politicians in the country just makes your position look weaker, not stronger.

Orlanth wrote:


jamin484 wrote:

Spain wont veto Scotland's euro membership mate, not if they want access to Scottish fishing waters (which they do). It is ridiculous to assume that Scotland would have to apply from scratch to the EU particularly as Scotland is already compliant with EU legislation and so many EU citizens are reliant on Scotland's continued membership. It would be an expensive and futile exercise out of nothing more than spite. Its a red herring wee man.


Wishful thinking says they wont, multiple sources say they might.
Besides the French are likely to be the main problem.

Nooo, respected experts on EU politics in theory and policy in practice say they won't. A Scotland without EU membership because of Spain's meddling would bankrupt the entire Spanish fishing industry overnight, since no common fisheries policy means we have no obligation to allow their ships to remain in our waters. The French are practically hopping with glee at the prospect of Scottish independence, as are the Germans, since they are seeing a scenario in which the UK's constant meddling in the EU's attempts to enact policy will be much reduced, potentially eradicated entirely if rUK decide to withdraw from the EU after the next election and the in/out referendum on membership, and at the same time they will gain a new pro-EU member state. Regardless of which, and I do wish people would just watch the videos I took the time to find and post since they deal with all of these "arguments" rather handily; the EU requires that its members behave in certain ways regarding certain things - the Edinburgh Agreement establishes that the UK Government has made the decision to allow a full and legal referendum on Scottish independence, and that they will respect the result and work in good faith with a newly independent Scotland to ensure the best outcome for us both, and since the EU must respect the rights and decisions of its sovereign member states, any EU member which chooses to go against that will be damaging their standing with the rest of the EU.

I find this really really naïve. Both Spain and France have separatists movement in several regions and the fishing industry does not even enter the Spanish calculations. What do you think a sane country will do, support a Scottish independence and live with the fall out when Cataluna or Corsica start screaming about independence now or veto the whole joining thing?
Also respecting the result of the referendum doesn't mean welcoming Scottland to the UE, it just means that they will deal with Scottland the same way they do with a third european country like Ucraine, Turkey and others.

BTW Italy would be in the throes of serious political instability between the North and South halves, so that's another country probably not happy at an independent Scotland getting a free pass at joining the Union. (neither would be Belgium)

Short and simple, whatever the internal issues of the UK play out in this, there are too many downsides within other other countries to allow Scotland join the EU without a cooling down period at the very least if ever.
M.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Item plus: When in the above videos they say there is no precedent of blocking the access of a country to the EU they forget Turkey that has been trying to access the EU since 1987 (after signing an agreement about becoming an associate member in 1959) There was never a rotound no, just Germany (mainly) finding one excuse after another about why Turkey can't join this year.

 Miguelsan wrote:

Orlanth wrote:


jamin484 wrote:

Spain wont veto Scotland's euro membership mate, not if they want access to Scottish fishing waters (which they do). It is ridiculous to assume that Scotland would have to apply from scratch to the EU particularly as Scotland is already compliant with EU legislation and so many EU citizens are reliant on Scotland's continued membership. It would be an expensive and futile exercise out of nothing more than spite. Its a red herring wee man.


Wishful thinking says they wont, multiple sources say they might.
Besides the French are likely to be the main problem.

Nooo, respected experts on EU politics in theory and policy in practice say they won't. A Scotland without EU membership because of Spain's meddling would bankrupt the entire Spanish fishing industry overnight, since no common fisheries policy means we have no obligation to allow their ships to remain in our waters. The French are practically hopping with glee at the prospect of Scottish independence, as are the Germans, since they are seeing a scenario in which the UK's constant meddling in the EU's attempts to enact policy will be much reduced, potentially eradicated entirely if rUK decide to withdraw from the EU after the next election and the in/out referendum on membership, and at the same time they will gain a new pro-EU member state. Regardless of which, and I do wish people would just watch the videos I took the time to find and post since they deal with all of these "arguments" rather handily; the EU requires that its members behave in certain ways regarding certain things - the Edinburgh Agreement establishes that the UK Government has made the decision to allow a full and legal referendum on Scottish independence, and that they will respect the result and work in good faith with a newly independent Scotland to ensure the best outcome for us both, and since the EU must respect the rights and decisions of its sovereign member states, any EU member which chooses to go against that will be damaging their standing with the rest of the EU.

I find this really really naïve. Both Spain and France have separatists movement in several regions and the fishing industry does not even enter the Spanish calculations. What do you think a sane country will do, support a Scottish independence and live with the fall out when Cataluna or Corsica start screaming about independence now or veto the whole joining thing?
Also respecting the result of the referendum doesn't mean welcoming Scottland to the UE, it just means that they will deal with Scottland the same way they do with a third european country like Ucraine, Turkey and others.

BTW Italy would be in the throes of serious political instability between the North and South halves, so that's another country probably not happy at an independent Scotland getting a free pass at joining the Union. (neither would be Belgium)

Short and simple, whatever the internal issues of the UK play out in this, there are too many downsides within other other countries to allow Scotland join the EU without a cooling down period at the very least if ever.
M.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Item plus: When in the above videos they say there is no precedent of blocking the access of a country to the EU they forget Turkey that has been trying to access the EU since 1987 (after signing an agreement about becoming an associate member in 1959) There was never a rotound no, just Germany (mainly) finding one excuse after another about why Turkey can't join this year.

I'm afraid I'll just have to agree to disagree then, as I'm more inclined to accept the case as presented by an academic expert on EU politics and economics, and a man with decades of experience working in the EU during accession negotiations than the case you present, which I think overstates the opposition, overestimates the effect Scottish independence would have on other EU nations(remember, the independence movements in Catalonia and elsewhere are still campaigning for the right to hold a referendum, if they secede now it would be unilateral and as such Scottish independence wouldn't be a precedent for their potential EU membership, since we would have gained independence with the authority and cooperation of the existing UK), and drastically underestimates the value of a stable Scotland to the EU.

EDIT: OK, thinking about it, I'll engage a little further, but I'm making this clear from the outset; this is speculation, every bit as much as your projections, it is the opinion I have formed in the time since I was convinced by the academic argument.

I'd like you to consider Miguelsan; which is a greater threat to long-term stability in Spain(or other EU nations); an emotionally emboldened Catalan independence movement which nonetheless has not gained any new legal authority by Scotland becoming independent, or the prospect of an economically unstable Scotland? You might say the latter, given we're just a small nation, not very important in the grand scheme of things according to opponents of independence, but lets think about that for a moment. EU students would be required to pay fees at Scottish universities. EU fishing vessels wouldn't be able to use Scottish waters. All the trade tariffs and regulations which the EU avoids or streamlines would come into effect not just between Scotland and the EU mainland, but between Scotland and the rest of the UK as well. The energy surplus which Scotland currently trades with rUK would become more expensive overnight, small Scottish businesses could fail in fairly large numbers which would have a substantial effect on any rUK businesses linked to them, and the regulatory loopholes the UK financial sector has would cease to apply to their Scottish counterparts, not to mention the fact that North Sea oil and gas are a large factor in mitigating the UK's trade deficit and backing the value of Sterling. It would undoubtedly cause serious problems for the City, potentially even another market crash, but at the very least a return to recession for rUK. It could be enough to tip several of the more fragile European banks, many of which are still heavily exposed to UK personal and public debt, over the edge.

Blocking or delaying an independent Scotland's accession into the EU could trigger an economic event at least as severe as the crash of the Greek economy, potentially far worse since the EU wouldn't have access to any of the regulatory or economic tools they did when dealing with such a scenario within a member state. An independent Scotland in the EU might be politically inconvenient to Spain and others in the short term, but an independent Scotland blocked from EU membership could well result in a second Eurozone Crisis.

 Yodhrin wrote:

First off, I'll ask you to ditch that dismissive and confrontational tone. I've gone to great pains in this thread to be polite, balanced, and thorough, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Fair enough, however my point remains. Scotland would have to apply afresh, and that will require uncertain cooperation. It is pointless trying to argue different to the point of delusion as even SNP leadership admit this fact.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding the Pound, we would be keeping Sterling under Bank of England administration of the currency, an institution which is ostensibly independent and which an independent Scotland would have a stake in and representation on the board of, which we currently do not have.

This is what Salmond might demand, but it is up to us to accept, in reality Scotland will be given two choices, keep the pound on our terms, not yours, or accept the euro on their terms not yours. It is not in the UK interests to allow a foreign country to control our currency.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regardless of which, the main point regarding forming some kind of "sterling zone" following independence is to ensure stability in both the Scottish and rUK economies, the SNP have not confirmed what their medium- to long-term position on continuing that relationship would be, but many of the other voices in the independence debate advocate for establishing our own distinct currency or moving towards Euro membership eventually, so we have options if we find that the price of stability within a sterling zone is too high for us.

To join the EU will involve joining the Euro as all new members must do. Accepting the pound is the only option but only under UK control.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regarding Trident, there are two issues here; the first is that you are making the cardinal mistake of Unionists, by equating independence wholly with the SNP and specifically Alex Salmond.

If there is a yes vote Salmond will likely be in power for a long time. Post independence rush will see to that, plus associated spin.
The only 'major' pro independence party are the Greens, and I cant see them taking over, can you.

 Yodhrin wrote:

I'll note that the "crowing about forcing the UK to give up nukes" is a jibe directed at some advocates of the Union, who have put forward the hysterical argument that the nuclear subs are at Faslane because that's the only place in the UK they can operate from, and as such if Scotland were to achieve independence the armies of the UK would roll across the border on wings of fire to seize a two-square-mile chunk of the Clyde and declare it an independent Crown Protectorate.

The crowing about forcing the Uk to give up nukes comes from elected SNP representatives, and is documented. I cant think of anyone anytime talking about an invasion of Scotland to sieze Faslane, it would be a major scandal if anyone with any authority did. Sorry, that argument is delusional.
Besides considerations to move the boomer fleet are already underway, and can be actionable post an independence vote. As Faslane will still be part of the UK until a settlement deal is concluded no invasion would be necessary, even if anyone would think of one. So the threat is a non starter no matter how much beer you drink to dream up the idea, and it you attribute some SNP officials to believing it enough to make statements to counter then you only further tarnish their credibility..

 Yodhrin wrote:

Nooo, respected experts on EU politics in theory and policy in practice say they won't.

Wishful thinking at its worst. For a start the French might say Non just to be contrary and cause problems. They did so before, and for the same motive, spite.

 Yodhrin wrote:

A Scotland without EU membership because of Spain's meddling would bankrupt the entire Spanish fishing industry overnight, since no common fisheries policy means we have no obligation to allow their ships to remain in our waters.

Bankrupt overnight, ZOMG!!!!
For a start the Spanish fishing industry is more robust than that, second they dont stick to EU legislation why would they stick to Scottish. Spanish trawlers have been caught overfishing and quota busting 2 miles from UK shores, and not talking about Gibraltar either.

 Yodhrin wrote:

The French are practically hopping with glee at the prospect of Scottish independence.

The Frnch are hiopping with glee as it offers grerat opprtunity to stick the knife in.
First by denying Scottish membership without major concessions or lengthy delays, second by a UN security council motion to strip the UK of its Security Council seat as it wont be the full UK anymore.

 Yodhrin wrote:

as are the Germans, since they are seeing a scenario in which the UK's constant meddling in the EU's attempts to enact policy will be much reduced,

Actually you got it backward. The Germans dont want a UK split as they are also having problems with the French, a decline in Uk influence will not help Germany.

 Yodhrin wrote:

potentially eradicated entirely if UK decide to withdraw from the EU after the next election and the in/out referendum on membership, and at the same time they will gain a new pro-EU member state.

Very unlikely that the UK will withdraw.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Regardless of which, and I do wish people would just watch the videos I took the time to find and post since they deal with all of these "arguments" rather handily; the EU requires that its members behave in certain ways regarding certain things - the Edinburgh Agreement establishes that the UK Government has made the decision to allow a full and legal referendum on Scottish independence, and that they will respect the result and work in good faith with a newly independent Scotland to ensure the best outcome for us both,

That can be summed up as give Salmond the rope to hang himself with. Also by giving control of the referendum to the Scottish parliament there is no excuse for the Scots to blame Westminster if the vote is No.

 Yodhrin wrote:

and since the EU must respect the rights and decisions of its sovereign member states, any EU member which chooses to go against that will be damaging their standing with the rest of the EU.

The right to apply to join the EU would be respected, the results however are not in Scotlands control. Look at other EU membership applications.

 Yodhrin wrote:

There you go, spite, with added racism. You are British, Scotland has been a full partner of all we have collectively done..

Racism? Really, contain yourself, that kind of obvious hyperbole just isn't necessary.

On the contrary, you are saying you want to be 'end British warmongering'. Scots were and still are fully party to this, it's not something you can pin on folks south of the border. Scots helped build the Empire and all it did good and ill, Scots orchestrated our more recent adventures including Iraq.
As attempt to argue Scots are above this is just delusional.

 Yodhrin wrote:

It's odd then, if the Unionists must "look at the advantage of the whole", that the "Better Together" campaign has been a relentless stream of negativity, belittlement, and personal slander against one or two political figures.

Actually the Better Together campaign is better than that, the negativity is largely from the other side.
Did not Salmond recently ask Cameron for a TV debate where, Cameron would be asked to make his 'anti-Scottish' view against Salmons pro-Scottish. Salmond had to be instructed that the Better Together campaign is not 'anti -Scottish'. That gave a lot of insight as to the mentality of the SNP leadership.


Your view of independence advocates as bitter England-haters who hop about in glee at the thought of harming the rUK by gaining the right to govern ourselves is really actually quite depressing, because it tells me that you've not actually examined the Yes argument in any detail and likely never will.

 Orlanth wrote:
-snip-

We're done here, I'm not going to keep trying to have a good-faith debate with someone who can't manage to go a single post without calling me delusional.

If anyone else would care to look through Orlanth's post and pick out any arguments they feel are legitimate and re-present them with less hostility, I'll happily discuss them.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
-snip-

We're done here, I'm not going to keep trying to have a good-faith debate with someone who can't manage to go a single post without calling me delusional.

If anyone else would care to look through Orlanth's post and pick out any arguments they feel are legitimate and re-present them with less hostility, I'll happily discuss them.

There is very little point discussing things with Orlanth, he seems to have great difficulty remaining civil.

I have always been a nationalist but in a mild 'can't really be bothered' way but I have become more and more disillusioned with the relentless rightwards march of UK politics, to the extent that I am genuinely considering emigrating, so I will be voting yes next year, even if an Independent Scotland would probably put my current job at risk. In reality I wouldn't be at all suprised if the no vote prevails, people are scared of change after all, but if we do manage to become independent I have little doubt that we couldn't do anything worse than what ever shower end up in westminster after the next UK election.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Dispute the arguments if you can and wish to, but constantly resorting to cheap shots at one of the most trusted and respected politicians in the country just makes your position look weaker, not stronger.

Trusted? Really. Haven't you heard of the problems with Salmond calling in the Menie estate bid and the way the police were mobilised to harass those opposed to the development. Police brutality for profit is the reality of Salmond in authority.

It offered a massive financial incentive, jobs and investment for Scotland. Aberdeenshire Council made the wrong choice.

I'm not overly fond of Salmond, I just think the Police brutality point is a ridiculous one and I don't ever remeber hearing much about Police harassment. Certainly that stubborn farmer has been "tree'd in" IIRC.

I don't think Scotland is a that left wing, I doubt many Scottish people would be in favour of mass EU immigration (SNP Plan) to bolster Scotlands numbers.

One of the greatest fears I have about in independant Scotland is that you'd get massive support for people along the lines of Tommy Sheridan or George Galloway.

Speaking of Mr Galloway here's a particularly cringe worthy Question Time.

 Medium of Death wrote:

One of the greatest fears I have about in independant Scotland is that you'd get massive support for people along the lines of Tommy Sheridan or George Galloway.

Why? They have little support now, independence isn't going to change that.

Something that amuses me with all this talk on Scotland getting control of it's own oil:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9794316/Alex-Salmond-warning-over-Shetland-oil-after-independence.html

In a letter to the First Minister, Tavish Scott, the Shetland MSP, said his constituents will “not simply be ignored, bypassed or trodden on” in negotiations with the rest of the UK to create a separate Scotland. He challenged Mr Salmond to confirm the SNP administration’s policy towards the islands in the event of Scottish independence after one of the First Minister’s confidantes indicated they would have no influence.
His intervention came as Orkney Islands Council announced a new constitutional reform group that will examine what deal they should seek if there is a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum.

But Stewart Stevenson, a former minister, told MSPs on Wednesday that Shetland had too few residents to lay claim to any North Sea oil revenues, around a quarter of which derive from fields around the islands.
Shetland’s residents have traditionally been hostile to Scottish independence and prefer Westminster government to that from Holyrood. They were part of Norway until the late 15th century.

The SNP has previously recognised the islands' right to decide their own future but has since changed its mind, with oil revenues vital to its economic case for separation. Speaking after sending his letter, Mr Scott said: “This week the genie flew out of the nationalist bottle. The SNP doesn’t believe in people determining their future unless it’s on their own nationalist terms.
“That does not work in Shetland. If independence, with all the huge uncertainty that would cause, were to be contemplated, then Shetland will want to fight for what is fairly ours."

His letter referred to a report by Capital Economics, one of the world’s leading economic research firms, lauding the “strong” negotiating position of the islands if Scots vote for separation.
The analysis said Shetlanders could decide to remain part of the UK in the aftermath of a ‘yes’ vote or insist on a high degree of autonomy from a separate Scotland, similar to the relationship between Denmark and the Faroe Islands.

Mr Scott challenged the First Minister to “accept that fact”. When Shetland's local authority held a referendum 35 years ago asking if residents wanted to be part of an independent Scotland, the result was nine to one against. Sullom Voe, one of the largest oil and liquefied gas terminals in Europe, lies off Shetland's coastline and a 1974 legislative settlement provides it with a nest egg called the Reserve Fund, which is now worth around £650 million.

The new Orkney working group of eight councillors will examine the “threats and opportunities” arising from constitutional reform, including what the islands “should seek” in post-referendum negotiations.
In addition, they will investigate opportunities to work with Shetland and the Western Isles. Councillor Steve Heddle, the working group’s chair, said: “Our shared goal is that Orkney retains local control of our destiny.”

A spokesman for the First Minister said: “Shetland is a valued part of Scotland and will remain so.
“Tavish Scott should stop mischief making by dreaming up hypothetical constitutional positions which no one – including himself – is arguing for.

To summarise, a quarter of North Sea Oil is contained in the Orkney and Shetland Islands. And they generally want to stay with the UK. So even if Scotland does go independent, it does not follow that the oil goes with it. Here's a map of oil distribution. The squares coloured yellow represent licensed areas, and red areas oilfields:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236227/Infrast_Off.pdf

If one draws a dividing line along the same angle as the border with Scotland, around another five to ten percent is removed to remain with the UK.
So to assume (at the lowest estimate) that twenty five to thirty percent of the oil remains within the UK, Scotland's plans for their independent oil wealth suddenly become somewhat moot.

The SNP spokesman saying '“Shetland is a valued part of Scotland and will remain so.' gets my goat though regardless of the oil. If the people there want to remain within the UK, that's exactly what should happen. The Scots can go it alone if they like, but there's absolutely no reason to allow the SNP to impose it's nationalist dogma on other citizens of the UK.


EDIT:_ Scratch the above. The SNP grudgingly admitted the northern isles could do as they pleased after a small furore.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9156220/SNP-admits-Shetland-and-Orkney-could-opt-out-of-independent-Scotland.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/scotland-blog/2012/mar/19/islanders-threaten-salmond-independence-plans
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/30/shetland-independence-vote-scotland

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Dispute the arguments if you can and wish to, but constantly resorting to cheap shots at one of the most trusted and respected politicians in the country just makes your position look weaker, not stronger.

Trusted? Really. Haven't you heard of the problems with Salmond calling in the Menie estate bid and the way the police were mobilised to harass those opposed to the development. Police brutality for profit is the reality of Salmond in authority.

It offered a massive financial incentive, jobs and investment for Scotland. Aberdeenshire Council made the wrong choice.

I'm not overly fond of Salmond, I just think the Police brutality point is a ridiculous one and I don't ever remeber hearing much about Police harassment. Certainly that stubborn farmer has been "tree'd in" IIRC.

I don't think Scotland is a that left wing, I doubt many Scottish people would be in favour of mass EU immigration (SNP Plan) to bolster Scotlands numbers.

One of the greatest fears I have about in independant Scotland is that you'd get massive support for people along the lines of Tommy Sheridan or George Galloway.

Speaking of Mr Galloway here's a particularly cringe worthy Question Time.

Ugh crikey, Galloway really is a walking disaster zone isn't he. I tried to watch that QT when it was on, but when I realised it featured both George "Whiskers" Galloway AND Anas "what an arse" Sarwar I just turned it off, I don't have enough spare braincells to waste them watching those two clowns verbally masturbating for an hour. It should be noted though that Galloway had to scurry off down south in order to get elected the last time, I doubt he'd see much success if he tried to run for office in Scotland again.

On Scotland's political bent; I don't doubt there'd be some anti-immigration sentiments on display in an independent Scotland, but you have to remember that UKIP don't really get a look-in up here, even moreso than the Tories(watching Farage getting hounded into that pub when he tried to spread his bile in Edinburgh really cheered me up), and when the UK government brought in those "go home" posters and so on in Glasgow it caused a lot of genuine outrage, seemingly even among people who have issues with large-scale immigration. People seem quite aware of the fact we have an aging population in Scotland and that we need immigration to counteract that(largely because Unionists have spent so long hammering away on that point as part of their "too wee, too poor, too stupid" campaigning triad), the disagreement seems primarily concerned with to what extent that immigration should be. Economically Scotland is certainly substantially more left-wing than other parts of the UK, and definitely the parts of the UK which are currently deciding Westminster elections.

It's just an irrational fear of mine.

I'd hate to give Alec Salmond the historical recognition of "Being the man getting Scotland it's Independance" without anything solid to base it on.

In saying that, you're point about we probably can't do much worse than the next lot waiting to roll into UK Parliament certainly seems true.

Maybe we should just take the plunge and find out?

 Orlanth wrote:

jamin484 wrote:

Spain wont veto Scotland's euro membership mate, not if they want access to Scottish fishing waters (which they do). It is ridiculous to assume that Scotland would have to apply from scratch to the EU particularly as Scotland is already compliant with EU legislation and so many EU citizens are reliant on Scotland's continued membership. It would be an expensive and futile exercise out of nothing more than spite. Its a red herring wee man.

Wishful thinking says they wont, multiple sources say they might.
Besides the French are likely to be the main problem.

jamin484 wrote:

So what? According to project fear and numerous other detractors we're the same country anyway. We'd be better joining the NOK than the brittish pound. The economic mismanagement of the UK is breathtaking Scotland would have to go some to do any worse.

Scotland is part of the economic mismanagement, as Gordon Brown was Scottish we could safely say the worst of it. Scottish councils and the Scottish parliament is made of the same doctrines and wasteful political thinking as anywhere else in the UK. You would be a fool to think that somehow things would be any better.

welshhoppo wrote:

Its not out of spite. The world would be a better place without British warmongering.

There you go, spite, with added racism. You are British, Scotland has been a full partner of all we have collectively done..

welshhoppo wrote:

Hopefully a diminished UK would help to achieve that. What purpose do the nukes serve? Really?

If you wont be part of the UK anymore, what is it to you. If you want to set UK defence policy you do so by being elected to Westminster and setting it, an independent Scotland trying to dictate UK defence policy would be politically hostile.

welshhoppo wrote:

and Scotland would be a viable nation without oil reserves. Scotland has a strong export led industry with everything from videogames (GTA is doing ok I hear) to whisky, vibrant tourism and a great deal of soft power. We'll be fine mate. Thanks for asking.

So does the rest of the UK.

Anyway the main problem is that unionists have to look at the advantage of the whole, the separatists dont, they look only to Scotland and are unconcerned with elsewhere to the extent that in the eyes of many any problems caused south of the border by the seperation are a bonus not a concern. If Scotland gains independence under those terms and Salmond drinks your economy dry, there will be little sympathy.

Its offensive to call me rascist Orlanth. I know I am British and and am proud to call myself British. My grandfather is Welsh my mother is English I consider myself Scottish. My father (who is Norwegian) considers himself to be European and Scandanavian despite Norway being an independent state. Is it rascist to consdier my citenzenship of an independent Scotland in simialr terms? I think you owe me an apology.

Of course I want to influence British policies and the use of power. I want to influence it becasue I am British. I believe an independent Scotland would help to create the type of Britian that I want to see.

 Medium of Death wrote:
It's just an irrational fear of mine.

I'd hate to give Alec Salmond the historical recognition of "Being the man getting Scotland it's Independance" without anything solid to base it on.

In saying that, you're point about we probably can't do much worse than the next lot waiting to roll into UK Parliament certainly seems true.

Maybe we should just take the plunge and find out?

Oh don't worry I have plenty of those irrational fears myself. I worry that religious nutters might get their claws into the constitutional drafting process, or that corporate lobbyists will worm their way into the Scottish parliament in the same way they infest Westminster, but for me it does keep coming back to exactly what you mention; yes, independence is a risk, but given the current political culture of Westminster and the marginal seats in England which actually decide elections thanks to First Past The Post voting, so is remaining within the UK.

Stories like these really do sharpen up just what we're choosing between.

 Ketara wrote:
Something that amuses me with all this talk on Scotland getting control of it's own oil:...-snip to save space-

Yeah, the "but Sheland and Orkney could declare independence from you/stay in the UK!" scenario is one that gets put about a lot by supporters of the Union in the press. Unfortunately it was debunked pretty thoroughly back in April when the Press & Journal conducted a poll of Islanders and found they would choose to remain Scottish by a comfortable margin, with 81% in favour. It should also be noted that, contrary to the assertions made in some newspapers, the SNP did not "reluctantly" begin to support greater autonomy for the Islands after this little episode by the Lib Dem MSPs, in fact the SNP used to be closely allied to the Orkney and Shetland Movement and made deals with them to refrain from standing their own members in elections where the OSM were standing candidates. The OSM is now defunct, the poll above might give us a clue as to why.

Two grandstanding Unionist Lib Dem MSPs and their baseless scare story do not a crisis make.

EDIT: Edited for clarity.

Let me get this straight. An 'exclusive poll' by a Scottish newspaper that refuses to give the numbers of people quizzed?

Sorry. Colour me a little dubious, as IIRC, a poll on the subject taken about thirty years ago filled in by the majority of the islanders came out 9 to 1 in favour of Union. The results being shown by this 'poll' seem like a rather shocking shift to say the least, wouldn't you agree?

I mean, Jesus, they couldn't even get any blokes between the ages of 26-35 to vote. For a population of a few thousand, if there's a gap that big, I think it more or less tells you that the number of people who actually answered the 'poll' were relatively small.



This is of course, excluding the fact that the question asked was whether or not they should be completely independent countries. As opposed to whether they would be UK, Scottish, or independent.

 Ketara wrote:
Let me get this straight. An 'exclusive poll' by a Scottish newspaper that refuses to give the numbers of people quizzed?

Sorry. Colour me a little dubious, as IIRC, a poll on the subject taken about thirty years ago filled in by the majority of the islanders came out 9 to 1 in favour of Union. The results being shown by this 'poll' seem like a rather shocking shift to say the least, wouldn't you agree?

I'll have a dig about to see if I can find the methodology for the poll for you. I will note that "refuses to give the numbers" is a bit misleading, the full story is behind a paywall, just as similar stories are on other newspapers like the Herald and the Times.

I would agree they were a "shocking" shift if, as you yourself note, the original poll was not thirty years old. It's been a rather eventful few decades, perhaps the Islanders have come to believe they have a better chance of getting devolution/home rule from an independent Scottish government than they would from the UK?

Not exactly sure how Shetland and Orkney get to back out of an Independant Scotland? What's the Logic based on that?

Might aswell let Arran and The Hebrides do the same...

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Let me get this straight. An 'exclusive poll' by a Scottish newspaper that refuses to give the numbers of people quizzed?

Sorry. Colour me a little dubious, as IIRC, a poll on the subject taken about thirty years ago filled in by the majority of the islanders came out 9 to 1 in favour of Union. The results being shown by this 'poll' seem like a rather shocking shift to say the least, wouldn't you agree?

I'll have a dig about to see if I can find the methodology for the poll for you. I will note that "refuses to give the numbers" is a bit misleading, the full story is behind a paywall, just as similar stories are on other newspapers like the Herald and the Times.

I would agree they were a "shocking" shift if, as you yourself note, the original poll was not thirty years old. It's been a rather eventful few decades, perhaps the Islanders have come to believe they have a better chance of getting devolution/home rule from an independent Scottish government than they would from the UK?

I'd be more inclined to believe that had a) the question actually been a 'scots, UK, or Independent' question as opposed to 'Independent or Scottish', and b) they'd actually been able to get a single bloke between 26-35 on the poll.

I'll wager this poll was made up by a bloke sitting in the office one evening phoning people randomly out of the phonebook. And as a result, is probably based on the input of about twenty people (because very few people ever actually say 'yes' when asked to do a phone survey).

I'm more inclined to believe the supposed representatives, than this poll.