Scottish Independence Debate.

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.

**Orlanth**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK will only cease to exist if Scotland holds a referendum to depose the Queen as monarch.

Evidence suggests this will happen. The SNP manifesto says the monarchy will remain as long as the people want to to remain, this is jargon for, 'we will canvass this opinion and force and abolition if the vote goes our way'.
The SNP also has a very vocal republican movement within it, which has been silent even after Salmond 'insisted' the monarchy will remain. RThe complete lack of dissent on this issue leads me (and others) to believe that Salmond's promises to keep the crown are just telling people what he wants them to hear with the actual policy appearing after separation. The republican movement in the SNP might not get their way but I so not consdier rthe monarchy secure in a post independence Scotland.

In any case a Scottish republic would not end the UK so long as the monarchy persistsd elsewhere.

Kilkrazy wrote:

As for the UK as a nation, obviously the nation of England Wales and Northern Ireland would continue to exist in international affairs, in the same way that it continued after the independence of the USA, Canada, Australia, Eire, India, Pakistan, Burma, Uganda, Malaya, South Africa, etc, etc. The status of the Queen as monarch of Scotland would not affect that.

Agreed. Though if Scotland goes Wales will kick off as will Northern Ireland. Also the word Scotland appears in the name of the UK with regards to its important assets in particular the seat on the UN Security council, there are strong indications the UK may be replaced if this occurs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Orlanth, I apologise for replying like this, and not using the quotes (like you did) because even after years of being a member of dakka, I'm still struggling to get the hang of certain features!

Find some posts, quote them and look at what appears in the text box you type in.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1) Scotland can not default on its debt. It would be a brand new nation - it has no debt. The UK treasury confirmed this back in February, when it guaranteed the UK's debt. Scotland could agree to take on a share of 10% of the UK's debt, but has no legal obligation to do so. Like trident, the debt issue could be a useful bargaining chip for Scotland to get a CU

Currency Union will not happen. As for the UK's debt yes the Bank of England underwrites that, but Scotland is part of ther Uk, if it leaves it leaves with a portion of the debt. If Scotland refuses the UK can sell assets that Scotland would otherwise inherit while still part of the UK.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

2) If Scotland were booted out of the EU, it would cause massive upheaval. Thousand of EU citizens from other countries would be in limbo, the bulk of the North Sea fishing areas would be up in smoke because of uncertainty, and a massive hole would be carved into NATO's northern zone. Politics is compromise, it is not unlikely that the EU and NATO would make exceptions for Scotland.

EUY membership and NATO membership are not the same thing. So one doent efect the other, however some NATO partners are not happy with Scotland seceeding from a NATO point of view.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

3) Where are the options for re-housing Trident in another part of the UK? I'm pretty sure that Portsmouth is unsuitable due to a lack of facilities, and also because the people down there don't want nuclear weapons near major population centres (although Westminster is happy to have them next to Scotland's largest city!)

I am sure the government doesn't tell Dakka where is intends to store its nukes.
For all the rhetoric about bases in Scotland, Salmond complained at every cut because it meant less jobs in the local community. Faslane helps Scotland's economy.

Also remember that the UK used to have the worlds largest navy, naval facilities are underused , there are a large number of candidate sites to send the boomer fleet, all would need extensive work, but m ostly it will just entail a shift of existing infrastructure which can be done in the transition period.
The government may the slow to adopt new rail links, but they can cut through the red tape very quickly when it comes to nukes. Understandable really.

As some SNP politicians have made it clear they want to use Faslane as an opportunity to force the UK (not just Scotland) to abandon the nuclear arsenal there is an incentive to move quickly.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

4) If Scotland breaks away, would the UK exist any more? I'm pretty sure that the union is only between Scotland and England (Wales and NI don't count ) so wouldn't England, Wales, and NI, be in a very strange, pre 1707 situation?

Yes it would. AFAIK the nation would just be renamed the United Kingdom and not specify component territories. Even the flag will remain the same, this is agreed to happen within the UK, even though St Andrews cross is part of the flag. There are several historical precedents for this. While the Treaty of Union would be disbanded in the Scottish parliament, the 1706 treaty in Westminster may remain, and lie dormant. The Scottish parliament has claimed it would be 'appropriate' to repeal it, but Westminster is likely to just ignore that and carry on as normal. Thus leaving the door open for Scotland to apply to rejoin the UK at a later date.

**Da Boss**

Hmmm. The counter arguments here (on the EU and currency issues) are pretty strong. My mind is changed.

In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.

**Orlanth**

Allod wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

Rajoy said: "It's very clear to me, as it is for everybody else in the world, that a country that would obtain independence from the EU would remain out of the EU, and that is good for Scottish citizens to know and for all EU citizens to know."

In what reality does this translate to "I hereby vow to block any required unanimous decision to let Scotland accede to the EU"? Wait, scratch that, I'd rather not know.

Political reality.

Allod wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Article 48, is the SNP preferred option, and more likely because of Juncker than Article 49 which is the full process.

Because of Juncker? Huh?

On what terms Scotland has to apply is undecided. Either as an inrternal process via artcle 48 or a full external provcess article 49. Juncker is AFAIK pro-Scotland and can influence this.

Allod wrote:

How about because Art. 48 TEU would indeed allow to skip the whole accession procedure, if a certain legal viewpoint prevails, which has absolutely nothing to do with Juncker? But I gathered you don't even want to know what the debate is about, because you already heard the opinion you like, read Art. 48, 49 TEU on a Wiki and have now cemented your own personal truth.

You should try reading.

Spain and France have already categorically stated from high level sources that Scotland would have to apply, you even quoted the quote from the Spanish Prime Minister saying as much. it is moronic to assume that Scotland would bypass the entire application process, you make it sound like the EU members have no choice.

Allod wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

So even under optimum conditions, using article 48 Scotland still runs the risk of someone on the European Council saying no. you can dress that up however you like, those are the facts.

Apart from you having not the slightest idea what the optimum conditions are, if you read my posts, you would have noted that I repeatedly said that a veto is a possibility. But don't let that get into the way of a good rant.

As your posts contradict open statements from very senior EU officials it is little surprise I don't actually put a lot of store by your input, and your optimum conditions are 'skip the whole accession procedure'under Article 48, which nevertheless on reading the article includes a parliament vote and a council unanimity/veto opportunity.

Allod wrote:

The UK doesn't have to do what? Negotiate in good faith after *not* vetoing the opening of the Chapters of the Acquis, which is the prerequisite of getting to this stage? I don't follow, but since your idea of political procedures seems to be lifted straight from the Victorian era, I won't bother.

The Uk need not have any input into the Scottish EU bid, there is no 'negitiation' needed, Scotland secedes, Uk accepts the referenda and says nothing on ther grounds that it would be interference. UK then doesnt vote on the EU admission neither preventing Scottish membership nor hindering it.
there are historical precedents fro this also. During the 1948 UN resoltion on the foundation of Israel the UK formally abstained because it had held the Palestine Mandate.
In the same way as Scotland was part of th UK the UK can choose to abstain in Scotlands EU admission as a point of non-interference.
That cant be read as anything other than what it is.

Allod wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
While some nations have expressed displeasure about Scottish entry into the EU, I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it.

I'll not even ask you to provide sources on this anymore.

I wonder if you are semi-literate. Try reading the comment, go on, try.
I am yet to hear of any nation state actually wanting to propose it.
means there are no sources found, so it stands to reason that I wont provide any.

i have provided sources already of Spain, and in other threads France stating that Scotland would have to apply as a fresh member state. This was a blow as Salmond was hoping France would back the ideology that Scotland need not apply and can inherit membership of the EU. You can find these sources yourself also.

Allod wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

However your comment is interesting as Salmond has stated Scotland will get EU admission, and within a certain timeframe, March 2016 I hear. Which is he: lying through his teeth, or deluded?

No idea, you're the Brit, you tell me. I already stated I don't have a horse in the race, and Salmond is probably talking out of his ass most of the time, like most politicians./quote]

The former. Salmond is saying a lot of things which he knows are patently untrue, all he needs is the Yes vote. The consequences don't matter, if Scots are hoodwinked into voting Yes then when they realise Salmond lies it will be too late. Thankfully enough people see through this.
If Salmond was not SNP leader the changes of a Yes vote would be much higher IMHO. Yes other politicians lie, but most stick to some sort of truth for tactical reasons if nothing else. Salmond has told a pack of lies from start to finish, in fact he is using the 'big lie' technique, which is surprisingly effective: lie so much and so often people believe you.

This goes both ways. I hear it said that people vote No because of Salmond and Yes because of Westminster and those are the two main issues.

Allod wrote:

Anyway, since you aren't interested in anything that might challenge your opinion, we're done here, aren't we?

I am happy to have my opinion challenged by facts and reasoned arguments.
Trouble is you are yet to provide anything substantial of either.

**Kilkrazy**

Obviously Scotland would have to apply for membership to the EU. I doubt there would be a lot of opposition. A fully integrated democratic westernised country that already has been part of the EU -- what on Earth would be the objection? Countries don't just issue vetoes willy-nilly, it is politically damaging.

**SilverMK2**

However, there may be issues regards the stability of the newly independent country politically and financially. Membership may be delayed until such point that the dust from the split settles and Scotland has shown what direction it is heading in.

**motyak**

Ok, so this is probably a dumb question, but what time is this expected to happen? Because my dad's from Glasgow and I want a passport that'll get me all over the place, should I pull my finger out and get to it? Or do I have a while to go

**Allod**

Orlanth wrote:

I am happy to have my opinion challenged by facts and reasoned arguments.
Trouble is you are yet to provide anything substantial of either.

Oh really? Funny you would say that.

You don't know under what circumstances Art. 49 or Art. 48 would apply, you don't know the full picture of legal questions that extends far, far beyond these two Articles, you don't know what can be changed by diplomatical accord and what can't (at least practically speaking), you don't understand where "negotiation" comes in or what precisely it means in regards to the accession procedure, you fail to understand the fundamental differences between TEU and U.N. vote processes, and you appear to have little concept of the relevance of officials' legal opinions because you are unsure which parts of the accession procedure are diplomatical in nature and which legal, not to mention who decides these things and how.

Yet, when confronted with a differing opinion from somebody in his own field of expertise, you not only didn't ask about the basis for these views (not to be expected on the internet), but continued to produce half-understood bits and pieces you read somewhere with the authority of absolute truth and deflect everything that didn't fit towards those again.

Should I ever voice my opinion on something I have absolutely no clue about, like, say, military tactics and hardware, and Seaward or Jihadin call me out on it, I will shut up and listen. Not because they are some kind of internet authority, but because from two sentences they write I can see that they are far more knowledgable in this field than me, so I can only benefit from upgrading "stuff I read somewhere" to "things that were personally explained to me by a professional".

But go on claiming that Allod thinks "Allod knows Spanish policy better than its PM", although I specifically said practically no one knows what Rajoy's policy decisions will be, and this includes you, who thinks to know what he will veto, because these types of people have to juggle more issues at once in their decisions than we as citizens even know to exist; go on claiming Allod's categorically ruling out a veto and go on suspecting Allod's just a pimply nerd in his mother's basement instead of somebody who worked with these very matters for five years during his legal career. Your loss.

**Orlanth**

Allod wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

I am happy to have my opinion challenged by facts and reasoned arguments.
Trouble is you are yet to provide anything substantial of either.

Oh really? Funny you would say that.

Allod wrote:

You don't know under what circumstances Art. 49 or Art. 48 would apply, you don't know the full picture of legal questions that extends far, far beyond these two Articles, you don't know what can be changed by diplomatical accord and what can't (at least practically speaking), you don't understand where "negotiation" comes in or what precisely it means in regards to the accession procedure, you fail to understand the fundamental differences between TEU and U.N. vote processes, and you appear to have little concept of the relevance of officials' legal opinions because you are unsure which parts of the accession procedure are diplomatical in nature and which legal, not to mention who decides these things and how.

No we dont know which exact articles will apply as the lawyers havwent decided.
However the Yes campaign has been insistinct through Salmond that Scotland will get an easy road into the EU, on Scotlands timetable. This doesnt match up with evidence of how the EU admissions work.
Furthermore there is strong evidence that some EUn countries dont want Scotland in for reasons of their own, those reasons were given.

Now the art of political analysis takes all these things into account. Spain has every reason and opportunity to put a spanner in the works, and has made comments to that effect from the highest level. I see no reason not to take their word for it.

Allod wrote:

Yet, when confronted with a differing opinion from somebody in his own field of expertise, you not only didn't ask about the basis for these views (not to be expected on the internet), but continued to produce half-understood bits and pieces you read somewhere with the authority of absolute truth and deflect everything that didn't fit towards those again.

The differeing of legal opinion matter relatively little, it could be significant as it shows what track the application goes under, but as we explore the path through Article 48 or Article 49, and even if we take a best case scenario for iscotland and take ther Article 48 route it still comes down to veto opportunities.

Allod wrote:

Should I ever voice my opinion on something I have absolutely no clue about, like, say, military tactics and hardware, and Seaward or Jihadin call me out on it, I will shut up and listen.

You have already voiced opinion on something you know nothing about, quotes were given to you, from multiple sources where necessary. Quotes from the EU law and quotes form senior politicians with the power and motive to put a stop to the application.
It was even given to you historical examples of how easy it was for a veto on application to occur, against a country more powerful than iScotland, from a source that had little reason except spite.

Allod wrote:

Not because they are some kind of internet authority, but because from two sentences they write I can see that they are far more knowledgable in this field than me, so I can only benefit from upgrading "stuff I read somewhere" to "things that were personally explained to me by a professional".

Why assume I just made it up, unless you go to the stretch that I just made up the links also.

Allod wrote:

But go on claiming that Allod thinks "Allod knows Spanish policy better than its PM", although I specifically said practically no one knows what Rajoy's policy decisions will be, and this includes you, who thinks to know what he will veto, because these types of people have to juggle more issues at once in their decisions than we as citizens even know to exist; go on claiming Allod's categorically ruling out a veto and go on suspecting Allod's just a pimply nerd in his mother's basement instead of somebody who worked with these very matters for five years during his legal career. Your loss.

If you are a professional, contribute like one. There is no evidence of quality in your thinking on this thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously Scotland would have to apply for membership to the EU. I doubt there would be a lot of opposition. A fully integrated democratic westernised country that already has been part of the EU -- what on Earth would be the objection? Countries don't just issue vetoes willy-nilly, it is politically damaging.

Non
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/27/newsid_4187000/4187714.stm

De Gaulles motive for blocking the UK admission to the EEC twice. He hated Les Anglais. The UK had to wait until he was dead and gone.

Those who want to block Scotland have stronger motives than that, no less selfish, but important to them. Secession is a disease that spreads, best if it fails.
Just as the Arab Spring toppled many regimes, both those that needed to go and others, but generally the stirring made things worse.
Scottish independence is expected to set of grumblings across Europe. Spain and Italy need this like a hole in the head.

The UK will have it worse, as enough Welsh will want iWales next to demand a referndum there and the Troubles might kick off again in Northern Ireland.

The sooner this is over the better.

motyak wrote:
Ok, so this is probably a dumb question, but what time is this expected to happen? Because my dad's from Glasgow and I want a passport that'll get me all over the place, should I pull my finger out and get to it? Or do I have a while to go

but what time is this expected to happen? It isnt. On the balance the vote is most likely to be No.
Or do I have a while to go. If there is a yes vote there will be a UK until 2016 at least. There will likely be an open border also.
Because my dad's from Glasgow and I want a passport that'll get me all over the place, should I pull my finger out and get to it? Go ahead, travel and see the world. You dont need to wait for this circus to stop. Be in Scotland for the vote though, whichever way you feel it should go, this is likely the most important ballot of your life.

**Ketara**

Da Boss wrote:

In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.

I believe that this is the case, with a few caveats. The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) and the general upheaval. In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term.

Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span.

This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. If the Shetlands/Orkneys voted to stay with Britain/change to Norway(taking the oil with them), or the split is actually democratic (i.e., only regions that actually voted 50% for independence actually get split off), then a new Scotland would be shafted economically from the word go. And as someone who believes in democracy, I would be fully in favour of British leaning Scottish regions being retained altogether, or ruled as enclaves Gibraltar style.

**Orlanth**

Ketara wrote:
Da Boss wrote:

In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.

I believe that this is the case, with a few caveats. The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) and the general upheaval. In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term.

Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span.

This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. If the Shetands/Orkneys voted to stay with Britain/change to Norway(taking the oil with them), or the split is actually democratic (i.e., only regions that actually voted 50% for independence actually get split off), then a new Scotland would be shafted economically from the word go. And as someone who believes in democracy, I would be fully in favour of British leaning Scottish regions being retained altogether, or ruled as enclaves Gibraltar style.

intelligent analysis deserving a close look.

The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) - Scotland would probably eventually gain EU membership, France couldn't keep the UK out forever, but it would shatter the short term dreams of iScotland, as the policies are entirely short termist this is a big problem.
There is a second ancillary problem attached to that. There is a movement in the EU to downsize ansd kick out weaker economies, how serious it is I do not klnow, but its plausible and the major players have good reason for the downsize. The idea is to knock the EU to stronger economies only. France Germany UK (or rUK), Benelux and and Scandinavian economy that wants to join. Weaker economies can have associate status, but wont be guaranteed by the EU anymore. The Germans are big behind this as they end up bankrolling 'club med' economies and are sick of it.
As the crunch happens, see below, it may be necessary to hack off diseased limbs and rebuild from the core.

In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. - Here is the first bugbear, the Uk in general, and that includes Holyrood is trapped in a very short term thinking mindset. Everyone says long term, but that means at most 'next election' sometimes it means 'next quarter' or even 'next week'. This is not just Scotland's problem though.
You need to compound this with Salmonds agenda of borrow now spend and squander, he is in it for the moment of history and a time with the toys as first leader of iScotland. The future be damned.

Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term. - Depending on which oil figures you read Scotland either has massive reserves or very few. The reality is both are true, almost all the easily accessible oil is gone, there are large reserves but they are not easily accessible and may not be profitable to extract. As for the other long term prospects they are not Scotlands fault, they are the fault of the entire system which has long overlooked the long term consequences of policy. Basically we are all fethed long term.
That being said the UK has enough infrastructure that it may rise phoenixlike from the ashes, as can the other core European economies, others will likely just burn. Europe as a whole has been living well beyond its means for too long, and the world is changing.

Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span. - This is actually getting more likely, though more like two decades, and will happen to all parts of what is currently UK regardless of which split off. The question is how much can be put together again after the collapse.

This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. - The current referendum was Scottish parlaiment orchestrated, as a result no speration deal is possible, Salmond will not allow it. By most accounts the Orkneys and Shetlands would want to stay in the UK, and will drag the oil with them, so Salmond wants independence choice for some, but not for all. In a way there is a fairness to it.
One of the advantages of letting the Scottish parlaiment entirely run the referendum campaign is that they cant blame anyone else when Scotland votes No. As parts of Scotland now has a taste for referenda on this issue the SNP will clamour for another vote if a No result occurs. While technically the result on 18 Sept will last for a 'generation', I do not see the SNP accepting that. Most contacts I speak to beleive the SNP may demand a referendum every parliament, at least until successful.
So the answer will be to allow a new referendum, but not allow the Scottish parliament full control. So Sheltands and Orkneys will have the denocratic right to remain in the UK. SNP wont want that, but they had their one referendum and they had it their way, if they want to disavow the binding result and demand another one they can have one our way.
This gives SNP two options, a referendum for an iScotland in all likelihood without much of the oil, or keeping to the results of 18 September 2014.
It's a gamble, but it looks like it may pay off.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes, there are reasons why the Westminster government has given Holyrood free rein to run the referendum, and there is a reason why the UK government itself has kept out of it.

**SilverMK2**

As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

SilverMK2 wrote:
As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.

Your understanding is wrong. The myth of Orkney and Shetland wanting to remain in the UK or breakaway in the event of a Yes vote, has been peddled by the better together campaign since the start.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Orlanth wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Da Boss wrote:

In that case, I see less uncertainty in the move towards independence. I do think it would result in a decline in living standards for a while though. Perhaps not a steep decline, but it would probably happen. And being a small, relatively powerless nation with a large, powerful neighbour has both advantages (no real need to spend on the military, for example) and disadvantages.

I believe that this is the case, with a few caveats. The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) and the general upheaval. In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term.

Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span.

This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. If the Shetands/Orkneys voted to stay with Britain/change to Norway(taking the oil with them), or the split is actually democratic (i.e., only regions that actually voted 50% for independence actually get split off), then a new Scotland would be shafted economically from the word go. And as someone who believes in democracy, I would be fully in favour of British leaning Scottish regions being retained altogether, or ruled as enclaves Gibraltar style.

This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

intelligent analysis deserving a close look.

The economy would suffer in the short term (due to a transition period of applying to/entering the EU - I don't seriously believe it would be blocked) - Scotland would probably eventually gain EU membership, France couldn't keep the UK out forever, but it would shatter the short term dreams of iScotland, as the policies are entirely short termist this is a big problem.
There is a second ancillary problem attached to that. There is a movement in the EU to downsize ansd kick out weaker economies, how serious it is I do not klnow, but its plausible and the major players have good reason for the downsize. The idea is to knock the EU to stronger economies only. France Germany UK (or rUK), Benelux and and Scandinavian economy that wants to join. Weaker economies can have associate status, but wont be guaranteed by the EU anymore. The Germans are big behind this as they end up bankrolling 'club med' economies and are sick of it.
As the crunch happens, see below, it may be necessary to hack off diseased limbs and rebuild from the core.

In the mid-term, the oil funds, if invested wisely, would permit the maintenance of current living standards. - Here is the first bugbear, the Uk in general, and that includes Holyrood is trapped in a very short term thinking mindset. Everyone says long term, but that means at most 'next election' sometimes it means 'next quarter' or even 'next week'. This is not just Scotland's problem though.
You need to compound this with Salmonds agenda of borrow now spend and squander, he is in it for the moment of history and a time with the toys as first leader of iScotland. The future be damned.

Unfortunately, the long term is a little bleaker, with a declining birth rate, an ageing population, and the fact that oil is an entirely finite resource. It might twenty years, or fifty, but the odds are that the economy would suffer in the long-term. - Depending on which oil figures you read Scotland either has massive reserves or very few. The reality is both are true, almost all the easily accessible oil is gone, there are large reserves but they are not easily accessible and may not be profitable to extract. As for the other long term prospects they are not Scotlands fault, they are the fault of the entire system which has long overlooked the long term consequences of policy. Basically we are all fethed long term.
That being said the UK has enough infrastructure that it may rise phoenixlike from the ashes, as can the other core European economies, others will likely just burn. Europe as a whole has been living well beyond its means for too long, and the world is changing.

Conversely though, it's difficult to predict economics even one decade in advance, and the rest of Britain could crash and burn economically for entirely different reasons within that time span. - This is actually getting more likely, though more like two decades, and will happen to all parts of what is currently UK regardless of which split off. The question is how much can be put together again after the collapse.

This is however, assuming that all separation is conducted in line with historic borders, and the Shetlands/Orkneys included. - The current referendum was Scottish parlaiment orchestrated, as a result no speration deal is possible, Salmond will not allow it. By most accounts the Orkneys and Shetlands would want to stay in the UK, and will drag the oil with them, so Salmond wants independence choice for some, but not for all. In a way there is a fairness to it.
One of the advantages of letting the Scottish parlaiment entirely run the referendum campaign is that they cant blame anyone else when Scotland votes No. As parts of Scotland now has a taste for referenda on this issue the SNP will clamour for another vote if a No result occurs. While technically the result on 18 Sept will last for a 'generation', I do not see the SNP accepting that. Most contacts I speak to beleive the SNP may demand a referendum every parliament, at least until successful.
So the answer will be to allow a new referendum, but not allow the Scottish parliament full control. So Sheltands and Orkneys will have the denocratic right to remain in the UK. SNP wont want that, but they had their one referendum and they had it their way, if they want to disavow the binding result and demand another one they can have one our way.
This gives SNP two options, a referendum for an iScotland in all likelihood without much of the oil, or keeping to the results of 18 September 2014.
It's a gamble, but it looks like it may pay off.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes, there are reasons why the Westminster government has given Holyrood free rein to run the referendum, and there is a reason why the UK government itself has kept out of it.

This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

**motyak**

Cheers for the clarity. I don't want it so much for travel (done all that) as in case I need to work/live there for a while with no visa hassles etc if family get sick, that sort of stuff. And then eventually retiring to somewhere outside Edinburgh or something like that with one of every book I've ever missed out on reading.

**Ketara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[

This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

The moral case for Scotland staying in the Union is the same as the moral case for England staying in the Union. Ultimately, it doesn't benefit/disable either of the two disproportionately. Both bring in roughly what they spend, both were initially sovereign countries, but now are part of a greater Union, and both are democratically represented roughly in line with the population based in both.

The arguments from economics are really quite peripheral when you get down to it. Neither side is likely to be worse or better off in the mid-term, and the long term is too far away to predict. What the question really is, is whether or not a short term period of economic pain, and a substantial amount of hassle/effort is worth a quite frankly minimal shift in the level of democratic representation. I spoke to a chap from the highlands yesterday, who wove me a tale of how the only reason they get any funding at all is because Edinburgh is compelled by the UK Government to spread funding evenly across the regions.

Whilst I have no idea whether or not that is currently the case, I'm of the opinion that all that independence would bring would be a shift in the majority of funding from one other capital to another (as wealth focuses on the capital in every country), a Lab/Lib coalition (which may actually happen here next election anyway), and a majorly decreased role in defence spending/world relevance (which is a good or bad thing depending on your political perspective).

To quote the words of someone I can't quite recall at the moment, 'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'. Instead of fatcat out of touch English politicians running the islands, you'll have fatcat out of touch Scottish politicians running one section of the islands. Hardly seems worth the bother.

**SilverMK2**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.

Your understanding is wrong. The myth of Orkney and Shetland wanting to remain in the UK or breakaway in the event of a Yes vote, has been peddled by the better together campaign since the start.

Erm... You might want to check in with the people who actually live there then. There is a reasonable amount of debate surrounding how the islands will react in the event of a yes vote, or even if they will want to break away on their own in the event of a no vote.

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[

This is all very well, but where is the moral case for staying in the union. All I've ever heard from BT is problems with the EU, problems with currency, problems with this that and everything else.

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

The moral case for Scotland staying in the Union is the same as the moral case for England staying in the Union. Ultimately, it doesn't benefit/disable either of the two disproportionately. Both bring in roughly what they spend, both were initially sovereign countries, but now are part of a greater Union, and both are democratically represented roughly in line with the population based in both.

The arguments from economics are really quite peripheral when you get down to it. Neither side is likely to be worse or better off in the mid-term, and the long term is too far away to predict. What the question really is, is whether or not a short term period of economic pain, and a substantial amount of hassle/effort is worth a quite frankly minimal shift in the level of democratic representation. I spoke to a chap from the highlands yesterday, who wove me a tale of how the only reason they get any funding at all is because Edinburgh is compelled by the UK Government to spread funding evenly across the regions.

Whilst I have no idea whether or not that is currently the case, I'm of the opinion that all that independence would bring would be a shift in the majority of funding from one other capital to another (as wealth focuses on the capital in every country), a Lab/Lib coalition (which may actually happen here next election anyway), and a majorly decreased role in defence spending/world relevance (which is a good or bad thing depending on your political perspective).

To quote the words of someone I can't quite recall at the moment, 'Here comes new boss, same as old boss'. Instead of fatcat out of touch English politicians running the islands, you'll have fatcat out of touch Scottish politicians running one section of the islands. Hardly seems worth the bother.

A federal solution along the lines of Canada/Australia/USA or even Switzerland, and a written constitution (which is long overdue for UK citizens) would probably have killed Scottish independence stone dead. Another solution would have been full fiscal responsibility for Scotland, with a separate English parliament, and everybody coming together for defence/foreign affairs.

Unfortunately, Westminster will never relinquish power of that magnitude, which is a shame, because believe a federal solution would have saved the UK

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
As far as I understand it, the islands will get to opt out of independence in the event of a yes vote if enough people there want to remain part of the UK. Though I do agree with you that the SNP will make this as difficult as possible. I also agree that in the event of a no vote the SNP will also continue to throw their toys out of the pram until there is a low enough turn out that the die hard yes voters eventually get their way... And I then expect a huge argument about whether it is valid from the no camp and the UK in general.

Your understanding is wrong. The myth of Orkney and Shetland wanting to remain in the UK or breakaway in the event of a Yes vote, has been peddled by the better together campaign since the start.

Erm... You might want to check in with the people who actually live there then. There is a reasonable amount of debate surrounding how the islands will react in the event of a yes vote, or even if they will want to break away on their own in the event of a no vote.

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/

It's my understanding that the debate has been instigated by lib dems seeking to stir up a distraction. I could be wrong (I usually am

) but seeing as they are wedded to the conservatives, I'm suspicious of this.

**Da Boss**

If I was a left wing scottish person, I'd definitely want to cut myself off from England. It's a pretty right wing place by EU standards, especially the South East.

This would be more about self determination than economics though.

Perhaps I'm just getting fatigued at every bloody thing boiling down to economics since 2008. Seems like there's no room for any other form of analysis of complex issues any more, in the media at least.

**Orlanth**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

Laughable bollocks.

Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.

Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.

**Ketara**

Da Boss wrote:
If I was a left wing scottish person, I'd definitely want to cut myself off from England. It's a pretty right wing place by EU standards, especially the South East.

This would be more about self determination than economics though.

Perhaps I'm just getting fatigued at every bloody thing boiling down to economics since 2008. Seems like there's no room for any other form of analysis of complex issues any more, in the media at least.

I think that's because the vast majority of people are actually generally content with the status quo. All the average person wants is for tomorrow to go on more or less like today. No wars, no unexpected taxes, a fair shot at carving out a living, and the ability to have a drink and bitch about the government/celebrities/youth of today/whatever else takes your fancy.

Because of that, scoring a 'Yes' vote is actually quite difficult. You're pushing against the voting populations natural apathy, and so one way of getting them into the polling booth is to promise them that everything will be golden gravy after independence, and they'll have a few more grand a year in their pockets. It's all complete tosh of course, but if you can harness enough greed you might be able to convince the average apathetic voter to vote for independence.

The result being that the primary line of attack is on economics, the primary line of the opposition is economics, and all the pundits talk about is economics. They all throw technically true but misleadingly worded financial statements at each other, and the crux of the issue (do you want this batch of fatcat politicians who were born slightly closer to you in charge instead of this other batch who were born forty miles further south?) gets more or less pushed to the sideline.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Orlanth wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

Laughable bollocks.

Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.

Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.

Whats more, we had a Scottish Prime Minister, and a government with strong Scottish representation not too long ago.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Orlanth wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

Laughable bollocks.

Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.

Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.

In an earlier post, I asked: where is the moral case for the union? I think you just proved my point - there is no moral or positive case, otherwise it would have been made ages ago.

You miss a major fundamental point about US states - they have more rights within the USA than Scotland does within the UK.

You are aware of the major democratic defieciet that exists within the UK? Scottish votes have only made a difference in general elections since 1945. Like I said, a federal system is what the UK really needs, but Westminster will never consider it. Shame...

Speaking of colonies, has any former colony ever expressed an interest in re-joining the UK? Do Americans yearn for the days of London rule? Australians? New Zealanders?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Fundamentally, the referendum boils down to this: should Scotland govern itself ( like most countries on this planet) or should it be governed by another country.

It's about democratic self-determination, and the Unionists/BT have no answer for this.

Laughable bollocks.

Scotland is not governed by 'another country' it is a full component of a larger country called the UK.
You make it sound like a colonial situation, I can see why some nat' extremists would like to spoonfeed you that garbage, but it is garbage.
Scotland already has self determination, it elects MP's to Westminster and they vote as part of the UK. And vote they do, we have had Scottish leaders even Prime Ministers. Both Blair and Brown were born in Scotland.
By your viewpoint all the US states are colonies of Washington, get real.
Our answer to your claims of 'democratic self-determination' are that No voters keep it just as strongly as Yes voters will, because its what they have already got.

Scotland is not on any list of occupied countries or oppressed peoples, except the one in your head.

Whats more, we had a Scottish Prime Minister, and a government with strong Scottish representation not too long ago.

And before that, Scotland had 18 years of Conservative rule, even though it consistently rejected the Conservatives at the ballot box. What's your point?

**SilverMK2**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And before that, Scotland had 18 years of Conservative rule, even though it consistently rejected the Conservatives at the ballot box. What's your point?

Maybe the SNP should start campaigning south of the border then. There are more than enough Scottish people living and working here for them to have a firm base of support I am sure...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And before that, Scotland had 18 years of Conservative rule, even though it consistently rejected the Conservatives at the ballot box. What's your point?

Maybe the SNP should start campaigning south of the border then. There are more than enough Scottish people living and working here for them to have a firm base of support I am sure...

A federal system would nip this kind of thing in the bud.

For example, take Texas. Nobody down there voted for Obama as president, but they're stuck with him. However, this is offset by Texas having Republican senators and congressmen and a state legislature which is probably Republican, as well. Scotland never had that in the 1980s.

**SilverMK2**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For example, take Texas. Nobody down there voted for Obama as president, but they're stuck with him. However, this is offset by Texas having Republican senators and congressmen and a state legislature which is probably Republican, as well. Scotland never had that in the 1980s.

I've just checked my clock and it is not the 1980's anymore... And you have SMP's as well as MP's down in London who, I would imagine, were voted in by the will of the local people and who represent them both within Scotland and the UK as a whole. Kind of like you have MEP's to represent Scoland in Europe - hell you have 6 of them!

**Miguelsan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously Scotland would have to apply for membership to the EU. I doubt there would be a lot of opposition. A fully integrated democratic westernised country that already has been part of the EU -- what on Earth would be the objection? Countries don't just issue vetoes willy-nilly, it is politically damaging.

An independent Scotland won't be entering the EU at least for 6 or more years. Spain must and will veto. The current Catalonian regional government has lost control of their bluff for a more autonomous fiscal system, so the republican secessionist party ERC is expected to reach power come the next regional elections, and ERC truly believes in breaking away from Spain. If the Spanish government were to allow Scotland to immediately join the EU, Spain as a nation would be finished and at worst go into another civil war as not only the Catalans are playing the independence game, the Basque separatists are into the game waiting to see where the wind blows before making their move.

And that it's the reason why Spain won't be "bought" or appeased on the short term with some fisheries in the North Sea or some other economical bangles as some posters in this thread seem to think. Due to the severity of the economical crisis Spanish politics are bursting at the seams and new radical parties are gathering more and more votes. The old scratch my back and I'll scratch yours while we do as if we were fighting between the main parties is gone for now. An independent EU bound Scotland kicking the wasp nest is the last thing those traditional parties want currently. Spain is on the verge of a big political change and nobody knows how it's going to end.

After the dust has settled and if an independent extra-EU Scotland is still around and has not imploded negotiations to join might be feasible but it will depend on the relative balance of power inside Spain. If secessionist parties are still strong, Scotland might join the union just before Kosovo country btw that Spain refuses to recognize and will not for the foreseeable future for the same reasons above no matter the official pro-Kosovo position of the EU as a whole.

Judge yourself if Spain's veto would be willy-nilly then.

M

**Orlanth**

Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Orlanth wrote:
Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.

He never explained anything. To use a phrase you used earlier, it was utter bollocks from start to finish!

Civil war in Spain if Scotland goes independent!

As it has been said before - Scottish independence is a unique situation. No mechanism exists for stripping citizens of their EU citizenship and the idea that Scotland would be 'punished' for exercising its democratic rights, would go against everything the EU stands for. Like I said, it would be like the NRA expelling Frazz because he likes guns.

Other countries with separatist movements (Belgium) have not said anything to the contrary about Scotland.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For example, take Texas. Nobody down there voted for Obama as president, but they're stuck with him. However, this is offset by Texas having Republican senators and congressmen and a state legislature which is probably Republican, as well. Scotland never had that in the 1980s.

I've just checked my clock and it is not the 1980's anymore... And you have SMP's as well as MP's down in London who, I would imagine, were voted in by the will of the local people and who represent them both within Scotland and the UK as a whole. Kind of like you have MEP's to represent Scoland in Europe - hell you have 6 of them!

6 out of 2000 or something like that!

**Daba**

751 in total for the whole of the European Union.

**Miguelsan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Thanks Miguelsan, you explained the Spanish problem better than I could have.

He never explained anything. To use a phrase you used earlier, it was utter bollocks from start to finish!

Civil war in Spain if Scotland goes independent!

As it has been said before - Scottish independence is a unique situation. No mechanism exists for stripping citizens of their EU citizenship and the idea that Scotland would be 'punished' for exercising its democratic rights, would go against everything the EU stands for. Like I said, it would be like the NRA expelling Frazz because he likes guns.

Other countries with separatist movements (Belgium) have not said anything to the contrary about Scotland.

Yeah I didn't explain anything at all, not even the unimportant fact that a truly seccessionist party is expected to rule the Catalonian regional government in lieu of the current "we want independece but not really as long as you give us more money" one. (/sarcasm)
As independence of any part of Spain is ilegal under the Spanish Constitution that would end in an unilateral declaration of independence if ERC fulfills their promise. I didn't feel the need to point out what happens when a part of a country breaks away without the agreement of the rest but will link this for those that have not given it a thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

So another civil war would be the worse end possible but still within the realm of possibility, the economy is still very weak and there is over 24% unemployment currently. The situation is ripe for populist movements to turn the country in a copy of the one 70 years ago that ended in yet another civil war. (BTW in the period 1833-1936 we had 6 civil wars and major rebellions in mainland Spain and that's not counting the military coups or the wars we had in the Americas)

I do agree that the Scottish case is different to Yugoslavia because the London government agreed to have a vote for it but in Spain that vote would be imposible without an overhaul of the whole Constitution with the vote given to the entire population of 47 million not just to the 7.5 million living in Catalonia as the nationalist and separatists parties want. (Independent movements have about 49.12 of the catalonian popular vote currently, so about 3million)

So if Spain's central government wants to deal with the catalonian situation without it getting out of hand, they will have to veto an independent Scotland joining the EU for the next 6 to 10 years at least, enough time for a general economic improvement of the country and the EU to defuse the break away parties influence. Otherwise they will end the country as we know it right now.

M.