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.

Scotland leaving the UK would be a big blow for both sides of the border, so I hope that they are both prepared for such a situation.


On the plus side, you probably won't have to join the Euro at least.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Would you care to elaborate on why it would be "pretty stupid"? I'm not being sarcastic I'm genuinely interested in your perspective; I believe constant exposure to opposing opinions is necessary to avoid slipping into groupthink.

I don't think that any of the reasons that "Scotland" (and hear I mean the leaders of the SNP put forward as to the reason that "the Scottish" want to break away from the UK, rather than what I suspect their real reasons are ("We hate the English!" and "we want more personal power!")) are valid to start with. I also don't believe any of the analysis which states that Scotland would be better off in any way if they split, nor do I believe that splitting will magically let Scotland pretend that they are actually different from the rest of the people who make up the UK.

If the majority of Scottish people decide to vote "yes" I will be extremely surprised and indeed saddened.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Would you care to elaborate on why it would be "pretty stupid"? I'm not being sarcastic I'm genuinely interested in your perspective; I believe constant exposure to opposing opinions is necessary to avoid slipping into groupthink.

I don't think that any of the reasons that "Scotland" (and hear I mean the leaders of the SNP put forward as to the reason that "the Scottish" want to break away from the UK, rather than what I suspect their real reasons are ("We hate the English!" and "we want more personal power!")) are valid to start with. I also don't believe any of the analysis which states that Scotland would be better off in any way if they split, nor do I believe that splitting will magically let Scotland pretend that they are actually different from the rest of the people who make up the UK.

If the majority of Scottish people decide to vote "yes" I will be extremely surprised and indeed saddened.

Hmm, OK.

Can I ask, why do you think the SNP "hate" the English, given that they have English MSPs, and espouse a form of Civic Nationalism which deliberately avoids resorting to ethnic or cultural definitions of citizenship by classifying anyone who lives in Scotland as a Scot, regardless of their place of birth?

I find the idea that the SNP are after personal power a bit silly to be honest, because the first thing that's likely to happen if Scotland were to become independent would be the breakup of the SNP as an entity, probably resulting in one main offshoot party diminished in numbers with the defectors being absorbed into various other parties or founding new ones. Since the SNP are a collection of people from right across the political spectrum who's main uniting factor is independence, achieving their goal rather makes them obsolete.

Further, it's important to emphasise that Yes Scotland, the campaign in favour of independence, are composed of the SNP, the Greens, the SSP, Labour for Independence, the Jimmy Reid Foundation, National Collective, and dozens of smaller organisations, independent MSPs, and local grassroots campaign groups. The chief executive of the campaign is Blair Jenkins, not Alex Salmond, and the former Labour MP and MSP Dennis Canavan is the chairman. It may be a common conceit in the Unionist press to conflate the independence movement with the SNP in general and Salmond in particular, but while they are certainly closely linked, the two are distinct from one another.

Regarding whether Scotland is distinct from the UK, I don't see where you're getting the idea it's based on magical thinking from. As a nation our politics are very different to the current UK system of a London&SE-dominated Westminster running on neo-liberal economic principles, and while I don't deny that there are many areas of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland which have a similar political bent, the fact of the matter is those parts of the UK, just like Scotland, are essentially disenfranchised under the current system, since elections are decided mainly by Southern-English marginals with a centrist-to-right-of-centre majority. That isn't going to change any time soon, regardless of which party is elected to power at Westminster, and for many people like myself who were previously ambivalent about independence, that realisation is what changed our minds.

The analysis of whether Scotland would be better off under independence is fairly solid in my view, given that it's formed on the basis of reports from the Fiscal Commission Working Group(that being a group of five top economists, two of them Nobel laureates) and the UK government itself(the new HMRC figures are one example, another is the McCrone report, which the government of the day had classified and buried because it essentially forecast exactly what it turns out has happened to Norway for an independent Scotland). Scottish debt would be a smaller percentage of GDP than rUK; our interest payments would be far lower(we currently pay out £4.1 billion a year towards servicing the interest payments on UK debt, so even if the Unionists' dire predictions are true and we end up paying a higher interest rate on our share of the debt than the UK pays on theirs, our payments will still be smaller in absolute terms than they are right now), our public spending is a lower percentage of GDP and so forth. Establishing a Norwegian-style oil fund and stabilisation fund would allow us to secure our pensions and infrastructure in a way simply not possible within the UK at present. Scotland currently contributes approx £3.3 billion to the UK's armed forces, yet only £1.6-2 billion of that is actually spent here in Scotland, and not to great effect when it comes to our own interests either, as evidenced by the eradication of the Nimrod aircraft vital for maritime patrols of Scottish waters, and the fact that a Russian fleet was able to anchor right off the Scottish coast to shelter from a storm and there were no vessels at all present to monitor them(they had to send a destroyer up from Portsmouth, and the Russians were away by the time they got here) - we could have a defence budget of around £2.5 billion and that would save us money overall, at the same time as increasing the actual spend within Scotland, and be spent on a military actually suited to defending Scottish lands and waters rather than serving as an Imperialist manhood-extender for Westminster politicos who want to "project power". While the Independence movement talks about transforming Scotland into a high-skill, high-wage economy with a strong, universal programme of Social Security, or even adopting a more radical approach via the Common Weal Project, the Tories talk about taking benefits away from under 25's and driving down wages through workfare programmes as part of their "race to the bottom" economic model, and Labour fiddle while Rome burns with unworkable nonsense like Milibungler's energy price cap.

I'm not getting my hopes up that we'll see a Yes vote, if there's one thing I've learned since I became interested in politics it's that you can always rely on people to vote against their own best interests, but I really have come to believe it's the best hope Scotland has for returning to the postwar consensus now so absent at Westminster, and if we can make a good fist of it perhaps we can even serve as an example to embolden the Left in the rest of the UK.

Given that the concept of Scotland is arbitrary and that there is no recognised Scottish ethnic group beyond anyone who happens to be living there, shouldn't independence be done on a regional basis? Maybe not the whole of "Scotland" wants to leave the Union. What if the Isles wish to remain for instance, or the metropolitan area around Edinburgh?

New Scots aside, traditionally there have been three major cultural influences in Scotland, the Celtic, the Anglish, the Norse. There's also been over 300 years of Union where Scots played a huge role in the later Empire.
Are archaic borders, which don't actually recognise a specific culture, worthy of preserving in such an instance? Why should Scottish independence automatically mean the whole area that was "Scotland" in 1707?
Similarly, if nearby counties in England or Northern Ireland wished to join, should they be allowed to provided they were welcome?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I just hope that if you guys vote to split from the Union, the rest of the UK fight you tooth and nail to ensure that we get the best deal for us. Not that I have anything particular against Scotland, just I don't want the rest of the UK to get shafted in any deal that is made.

Personally I think it is pretty stupid for Scotland to split and don't think the vote will come out in favour of independence.

We get the worst deal as it is along with open hostility south of the border....so whats the difference?

cadbren wrote:
Given that the concept of Scotland is arbitrary and that there is no recognised Scottish ethnic group beyond anyone who happens to be living there, shouldn't independence be done on a regional basis? Maybe not the whole of "Scotland" wants to leave the Union. What if the Isles wish to remain for instance, or the metropolitan area around Edinburgh?

New Scots aside, traditionally there have been three major cultural influences in Scotland, the Celtic, the Anglish, the Norse. There's also been over 300 years of Union where Scots played a huge role in the later Empire.
Are archaic borders, which don't actually recognise a specific culture, worthy of preserving in such an instance? Why should Scottish independence automatically mean the whole area that was "Scotland" in 1707?
Similarly, if nearby counties in England or Northern Ireland wished to join, should they be allowed to provided they were welcome?

Scotland is actually still a distinct nation within the UK, the four nations were not absorbed into a new entity, the new entity exists above them and including them but does not supersede them. Throughout the Union of the Crowns, Scotland has maintained its own distinct legal system, education system, and even the NHS has been a separate organisation in Scotland since its inception alongside the NHS in the rest of the UK. The SNP were elected to the devolved Scottish parliament with a majority on a left-of-centre platform with an independence referendum right at the top of their manifesto, that parliament represents the people who reside in Scotland, which includes the Islands, Edinburgh, and the rest. Since adopting successful systems and policies from various northern European states is a key proposal of the Yes Scotland campaign, as is a written constitution, Islanders have a far greater chance of finding the maximum possible autonomy for themselves as part of an independent Scotland, since less centralised government and special considerations for small offshore communities are common in such nations.

Regardless of which, this move for independence is not about culture, it's about politics. People are not advocating for independence out of some shortbread-tin, jimmy hat-wearing, whisky-swilling, kilt-wearing false-ethnicity; they're advocating independence because the Scottish electorate are essentially disenfranchised within the UK, our political voice is not heard. People point to the Scottish politicians who have had success in Westminster and claim that their existence rubbishes that claim, but in virtually every case they cease to represent the will of the Scottish electorate when they go to Westminster, because they are subsumed into it's London&SE England-centric structure. At the last Scottish parliamentary elections, which use proportional representation, the Tories took about 13% of the vote, and were the only right-of-centre party(at least notionally) that even had a chance of taking any seats. At the last UK General Election which is run on first past the post, Scotland elected just one single solitary Conservative MP.

Opponents of independence often say that breaking up the Union because we got one government we didn't vote for is childish, but they refuse to acknowledge that this is not an isolated incident, it is merely the latest incident in a long-standing pattern in which Scotland gets the government it votes for(and it has voted for a left-of-centre government of some description in almost every election since the inception of the Labour Party, although in recent times it is more accurate to say they have voted against the Tories rather than for Labour) only when England votes in the same way. If Scotland votes Labour and England votes Labour, we get Labour. If Scotland votes Labour and England votes Tory, we get Tory. Scottish votes have only affected the outcome of UK elections twice in nearly a century, in both of which cases the result was on a knife-edge regardless.

Even saying all that, I still wouldn't be voting Yes unless I genuinely thought that Westminster was past saving, at least within my lifetime. The Labour Party are still in the grip of Blairite neo-liberalism-lite regardless of the complete nonsense they peddle to their activists or tabloid rubbish about "Red Ed", and they continue to peg their place on the political spectrum to the Tories. Since the Tories are now lurching to the right in order to appease the portion of their base that is defecting to UKIP, Labour will follow them because they are terrified of having any values of their own in case they get savaged by our broadly right-wing print media, instead they say they'll do most of the same things, only a wee bit slower; I suspect they've been taking policy advice from French chefs and intend to boil the metaphorical frog slowly so we don't jump out of the pan. We had a referendum not long ago on the implementation of AV at general elections, a weak and half-hearted form of proportional representation admittedly but better than FPTP, but the lies of the anti-campaign shot that one down. All three of the "main" parties promise us "jam tomorrow" if we vote No; more devolved powers, more regional autonomy - but Labour and the Tories refuse to even engage in a discussion as to what those might be until after we've already voted No, and thus thrown away our only leverage. Only the Liberal Democrats have put forward any concrete plans, and even those are fairly insubstantial, not to mention the fact that they'd be worthless regardless of how concrete they were because the Lib Dems are finished electorally in the UK for at least a decade after their disastrous coalition with the Tories. When you contrast these vague non-statements and non-promises against the comments they make outside the context of the independence debate, you get an idea as to the veracity of their promises; Labour want to merge and normalise the health service across the UK(meaning our NHS, which we spent time, effort, and money taking entirely back into public ownership, would be part-privatised like the rUK NHS is being, and we would lose policies like prescriptions being free at the point of access), and they want to do the same for higher education(meaning Scottish universities would start charging fees). I forget his name, but a Tory peer recently commented that the "ideal outcome" of a No vote would be the rollback and eventual eradication of devolution across the whole of the UK.

I would genuinely love the idea of a federalised UK, with devolved governments for all the English regions, and strong local government beneath them, but I've realised that is a fantasy. It simply cannot happen within the current setup, so the choice for us is simple as I see it; we can vote Yes, and have the opportunity to reshape our politics and socio-economic systems to match our values, goals, and needs; or we can vote No, and accept that we will essentially be an electoral irrelevance for decades.

I get amused by the whole "If Scotland votes for independance, but the Islands don't, they should stay with the UK. Because they have the oil! Harr har har!" thing.

Because other specific bits of Scotland will vote against independance as sure as night follows day. So Glasgow would have to be split off as well, unless you're totally making up the rules as you go along.

Good luck with that! Partition has worked out SO WELL in the past.

(Says the man from Norn Iron )

 Yodhrin wrote:


Scotland is actually still a distinct nation within the UK, the four nations were not absorbed into a new entity, the new entity exists above them and including them but does not supersede them. Throughout the Union of the Crowns, Scotland has maintained its own distinct legal system, education system, and even the NHS has been a separate organisation in Scotland since its inception alongside the NHS in the rest of the UK.

Regardless of which, this move for independence is not about culture, it's about politics. People are not advocating for independence out of some shortbread-tin, jimmy hat-wearing, whisky-swilling, kilt-wearing false-ethnicity; they're advocating independence because the Scottish electorate are essentially disenfranchised within the UK, our political voice is not heard.

So what you're saying is that the current Scottish electorate is more socialist than the prevailing government at Westminster, so you want to separate in order to have a more socialist government. So if Tory strongholds like Dumfrieshire and Clydesdale and Tweeddale want to maintain their political representation then they'd be better peeling off from an independent Scotland and remaining a part of the UK.

On a related note, if Scotland becomes independent, does that nullify the "Union Jack" as an official flag of the UK? It seems to me that the new flag would be white with the cross of St George over the cross of St Patrick.

cadbren wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


Scotland is actually still a distinct nation within the UK, the four nations were not absorbed into a new entity, the new entity exists above them and including them but does not supersede them. Throughout the Union of the Crowns, Scotland has maintained its own distinct legal system, education system, and even the NHS has been a separate organisation in Scotland since its inception alongside the NHS in the rest of the UK.

Regardless of which, this move for independence is not about culture, it's about politics. People are not advocating for independence out of some shortbread-tin, jimmy hat-wearing, whisky-swilling, kilt-wearing false-ethnicity; they're advocating independence because the Scottish electorate are essentially disenfranchised within the UK, our political voice is not heard.

So what you're saying is that the current Scottish electorate is more socialist than the prevailing government at Westminster, so you want to separate in order to have a more socialist government. So if Tory strongholds like Dumfrieshire and Clydesdale and Tweeddale want to maintain their political representation then they'd be better peeling off from an independent Scotland and remaining a part of the UK.

On a related note, if Scotland becomes independent, does that nullify the "Union Jack" as an official flag of the UK? It seems to me that the new flag would be white with the cross of St George over the cross of St Patrick.

No, what I'm saying is that I'm in favour of independence because it gives us an opportunity to have a system which truly represents ALL the views in Scotland; on a national level the broad left-of-centre consensus, and on a local level whatever people prefer in their particular region. That is not an opportunity we have at the moment under the Westminster system, nor is it one we can achieve under that system for the foreseeable future as genuine UK-wide constitutional reform is not on the table.

As I've said, repeatedly, my preference is actually for a federal model for the UK, with strong local government underlying that federal system. Ideally it would also feature an elected non-political head of state who's role would be limited to diplomacy and ceremonial duties, rather than the Royal Family. But that isn't going to happen. The absolute best we can hope for if we vote No is that we keep the status quo, with partial powers residing in the devolved parliament, still subjected to whatever policies Westminster governments believe will get them the most votes in key English marginals regardless of whether those policies are appropriate for other parts of the country. The far more likely outcome of a No vote is that Westminster uses that vote to justify clawing powers back from all the devolved parliaments and assemblies, turning them into pointless talking shops with no real ability to make and enact useful policy.

Even Scottish Tory voters could find better representation under an independent Scotland which adopts the strong localism of northern Europe, since they would have proportional representation in the national government and a strong local government that lines up with their values. Remember, it isn't just Scottish Labour voters who are disenfranchised by the Westminster system; votes for any other party are just as irrelevant, because the simple fact is that England elects the government, the rest of us are just along for the ride.

As for the flag, I haven't a clue, they could probably keep using it if they wanted to, or it might become the flag of the royals or somesuch. It's hardly the most pressing issue.

Under a proportional system those tory voters would not have much of a look in if the larger parties don't need them to govern. I realise not all proportional systems will be the same but that is how it works here. The smaller parties only get a look in at the decision making level because the two major parties are similar in size meaning that they need coalition parties to form a government.
What is good in such a system is that you get a much better idea of who supports who and where as the first past the post system (that we used to have) tends to hide the smaller "losers" and becomes a face off between the big parties only.
We still have people complaining about MMP after 20 plus years but it's a better system by far.
I also agree that a state system like they have in Australia and the USA (and Canada?) is a good one if that is what you meant by federal system.

cadbren wrote:
Under a proportional system those tory voters would not have much of a look in if the larger parties don't need them to govern. I realise not all proportional systems will be the same but that is how it works here. The smaller parties only get a look in at the decision making level because the two major parties are similar in size meaning that they need coalition parties to form a government.
What is good in such a system is that you get a much better idea of who supports who and where as the first past the post system (that we used to have) tends to hide the smaller "losers" and becomes a face off between the big parties only.
We still have people complaining about MMP after 20 plus years but it's a better system by far.
I also agree that a state system like they have in Australia and the USA (and Canada?) is a good one if that is what you meant by federal system.

I know what you mean about Tory voters in a pro-rep system, but a proportionate amount of representation is surely better in the long run for the democratic process than the system we have at Westminster right now, where the norm is one party takes absolute power and enacts their agenda with weak opposition - sometimes Scottish Tories might be happy with that if the Conservatives get in, but when England vote in Labour their votes are just as worthless as lefty Scots who vote for Labour when England elects the Tories. Outside of the independence debate the Scottish parliament actually functions remarkably well - all the parties cooperate with each other at least some of the time, and everyone's voice is heard - again contrast that with Westminster where the hung parliament delivered the first coalition government in decades, and it's a complete shambles.

Regarding a republic; similar yes, but as that's never going to happen, I'll settle for an independent Scotland running some variation on the German system, as that seems to provide the fairest balance between local autonomy and the overriding national sentiment. It's my hope, as it is with regards to moving away from neo-liberal economics, that an independent Scotland could serve as an example to other parts of the UK so that Wales, Northern Ireland, and the various English regions would begin to push for similarly decentralised politics, whether that actually happens we'll have to see.


On a more general point, the Fiscal Commission Working Group has put out its latest report, this time on pensions, so I'll try and find a decent summary of it online to post here as it's a real chore to wade through.