Scottish Independence

conchubhar1

monarchy is key in this debate

ChocolateSauce

Scottish Independence? Well, if that's what they really want, they'll get it. I don't really see the point though. Some things are more important than being a nation-state, and Scotland has benefited enormously from union with England since 1707.

You could of course point out that it was subjugated by England in the middle ages, but I think this shouldn't have any bearing on the debate today. It isn't as though the Scots are being oppressed by their evil southern neighbour. They're free to leave if they like, but if they don't they get the security and benefits of being in a country with 60 million people and one of the largest economies in the world.

I'm not sure about that.

I mean, when one talks about the struggle for independance here, the issue was control by Westminister, not whether Queen Vic popped over for a visit every now and again. You could discuss the whole Irish struggle for independance and not consider the royal family angle.

Does Scotland want independance and a restoration of their monarchy?

ChocolateSauce

The Scottish monarchy has in the past been in charge. In 1603 when Elizabeth died, King James of Scotland became King Of England, and the two thrones were united under a Scottish house until Britain was formed. Indeed, one of the reasons Britain was formed was to keep the crowns united....As for monarchy being key, I don't see it as being important. The Queen is head of 15 independent states, she's probably just be head of Scotland too. Canada and Australia don't seem to mind.

Hookey

conchubhar1 wrote: »

monarchy is key in this debate

Not really. Scotland could easily be independent with the Queen as Head of State, and it would actually make independence more acceptable to most Scottish people. You won't find much strong republican sentiment in the UK (its been steady at about 16% for years) but its more strongly felt amongst the middle class urbanites of London than it is amongst the Scots. The Royal Family have done a masterful job of keeping their Scottish credibility alive since Queen Victoria's day.

There are benefits to having a Royal family as Head of State; its a figurehead role with just enough power to curb the worst instincts of politicians. One of the reasons Aussies keep voting against a republic is because they don't want to give their politicians US-style presidential power. Now I know we have a different (European except France) presidential model, but give a politician an inch...

This is not to say I approve of the Royal Family,(inherited position is...unpleasant) but its too easy to look at that as the problem with British democracy and it isn't really an issue.

Fratton Fred

There is about as much interedt in an independant scotland as there is in britain becoming a republic. Neither are important issues, everything works well the way it is so why change it?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

not a monarchy fan (or objector) debate...:P

Surely an independent Scottish Republic is on topic

Erin Go Brath

There is an interest in Scottish Independence but not from the Celtic supporting contigent as some have speculated earlier. Most of the Celtic fans from around Glasgow (that i've met anyway) oppose Scottish Independence as they feel their lot will be worse in a 'Protestant' dominated independent Scotland compared to within the Uk. They are all for a United Ireland free from British rule and indeed many are passionate about that, but less than enthusiastic about an independent Scotland. Saor Eire but not Saor Alba funnily enough.

The main Scottish Independence movement comes from the north, the highlands and islands as far as I can see with some growing support in the bigger cities in central scotland. The SNPs growing support and Conservatives in all probability coming to power in the UK if anything will help the Scottish Independence movement, although its hard to know if there is enough support or if their will be in a few years to win a referendum on this.

A Dub in Glasgo

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

There is an interest in Scottish Independence but not from the Celtic supporting contigent as some have speculated earlier. Most of the Celtic fans from around Glasgow (that i've met anyway) oppose Scottish Independence as they feel their lot will be worse in a 'Protestant' dominated independent Scotland compared to within the Uk. They are all for a United Ireland free from British rule and indeed many are passionate about that, but less than enthusiastic about an independent Scotland. Saor Eire but not Saor Alba funnily enough.

Interestly, I would agree with that. I have had fun and games with some of my workmates who agree with Irish Independence yet support Unionism for Scotland.

MikeC101

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly - the places with a positive difference (as it's public expenditure less tax) are actually the ones costing more money than they pay in taxes? (at first glance it seemed a bit counter intuitive, with the positive difference looking like they contributed more)

So essentially, on a strictly tax (is it personal tax, corporate tax, all of them?) versus public expenditure basis, London, the East and South East subsidise ALL the other regions in the United Kingdom?

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes and Yes but do not forget that the SE draws all the talent from most other areas of the UK like a magnet thus keeping this cycle going. The SE also has the Headoffice of a lot of national companies thus their corporation tax profits will be shown as the SE rather than a national split.

It is true that Scotland currently has a high % of workers in the public sector and this was allowed to happen to continue the Labour dynasty in Scotland.

With all that being said, it is nonsense to say that Scotland is an economic basketcase that relies on handouts from the SE English to function. There are areas of the UK that really are economic basketcases (hello NI).

Fratton Fred

The recent Bank bail outs should also be taken into acount. I read somewhere that the bail out that RBS required would have bankrupt the Scottish economy (or simply would not have happened) if Scotland were independant, however, there are a lot of RBS and ABN Amro employees in London, as there are lloyds etc. You could therefore argue, that the bail out benefitted the South east more than anywhere.

i think the current recession highlights why Britain needs to stay together, with maybe more autonomy pushed out to Wales, Scotland and NI.

Did anyone notice btw that the English Democrats have their first mayor, in Doncaster?

Dannyboy83

Was quite interested in it for a while and asked a lot of Scots about it.
Its seems up until the economic collapse, there was a growing appetite for it and the Scots were starting to become confident in themselves. There was the Northern arc of prosperity talk etc.

After the economic collapse, the bravery seems to have dried up.
It seems most Glaswegians are most strongly opposed to it. I believe they are also the biggest benefactors of SW in the UK apart from Northern Ireland.

There are bigger issues on the minds of most Scots, such as the surging alcoholisim.

the_dark_side

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

North Sea oil is pumping tens of billions into the UK treasury and equivalent billions are being spent on London projects such as Crossrail and the Olympics. Scotland would be better off going it alone. If that money was pumped into Scottish infrastructure and developing the economy there it would be far more beneficial to the people of Scotland. Scotland DOES NOT need to be part of the UK from whatever angle you want to look at it.

So enough of your reason v idealism bollix!

+1
This would also be my main argument for Scottish Independence (although I can imagine many the cringing Scot at the thought of an Irishman joining with their calls for independence)

Deedsie

the_dark_side wrote: »

+1
This would also be my main argument for Scottish Independence (although I can imagine many the cringing Scot at the thought of an Irishman joining with their calls for independence)

Why? What would Irish support have to do with it?

ART6

I don't have any mandate from the Scottish or English people to speak for them, but I did serve my engineering apprenticeship in a Glasgow shipyard and did spend many years living and working in England. Even now I visit there several times a month on behalf of my company, and I have a lot of friends and colleagues from each of the members of the union. So on that basis only, and listening to English friends, I get the impression that they are well tired of the winging of the Scots. They are fed up with being controlled by Scottish politicians, and being blamed for every human atrocity since the departure of the Romans. And they are especially furious about the Midlothian question. That of course is where Scottish MPs, representing Scottish constituencies, can vote in Westminster on matters that directly affect English citizens, while English MPs can't vote on matters that affect Scotland where they are devolved to the Scottish Assembly. Hence free medical prescriptions and free university places in Scotland but not in England. When the government applied those charges (and others) to England the scottish MPs voted in favour, but voted against in their own assembly.

That is the version of democracy that was introduced by the Blair Labour government, and was done because they needed the Scottish vote to remain in power and avoid being squeesed by the SNP. It was cynical and undemocratic politics at its worst, from probably the most incompetent, cynical, and corrupt political party in British history.

So, the impression I get is that the English people no longer have any interest in the Union and couldn't care less if it broke up tomorrow. In fact it feels as if a sizeable number would welcome it, particularly those who are the descendants of immigrants (like the Irish origin people who make up a much larger number than the population of Ireland), since they never really had a vision of empire or even a particular loyalty to it.

Meanwhile most of the Scots I know don't seem to be interested in leaving the Union, but why should they? They control it!

mrtaylor1981

The Scots are not interested in the break up of the union. Now and again a SFer starts a thread about Scottish independence, it's just silly, wishful thinking from them, it is not going to happen

conchubhar1

oh rly?

why has snp support risen?

A Dub in Glasgo

mrtaylor1981 wrote: »

The Scots are not interested in the break up of the union. Now and again a SFer starts a thread about Scottish independence, it's just silly, wishful thinking from them, it is not going to happen

Are you calling the OP a SFer?

IRISHSPORTSGUY

mrtaylor1981 wrote: »

The Scots are not interested in the break up of the union. Now and again a SFer starts a thread about Scottish independence, it's just silly, wishful thinking from them, it is not going to happen

Sinn Fein? Never voted for them in my life nor do I intend to.

LordSutch

Scottish independence would be really bad news for the Irish economy, with a New State of five million people on our doorstep, vying for the same industries, vying for the same jobs, pulling more people & skills just a couple of hundred miles North East of us . . .

Surely Scottish independence would be very bad economic news indeed for the Republic!

conchubhar1

ye - whereas now they dont exist.......

and the scots work the same type of jobs as us?

MiniDriver

The essential problem with the Union is that England and Scotland are in many ways not a good fit. The huge population imbalance between the two countries means they can never really have meaningful equality, and both countries have very different ideas on how a country should be run, with the Scots preferring a more socialistic model, whereas the English tend more to the small state/conservative model.

It's pretty clear though that nowadays the English tend to poll higher results for the idea of Scottish independence than the Scots themselves do. I tend to suspect the end result will be that the Scottish parliament will be given ever more tax-raising powers, resulting in a de facto federation.

futurehope

The Union is secure. North, South, East, West.

Guy:Incognito

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if any area or people want to be independent and vote on such, yes they can split off.

How big exactly should an area be to be able to declare independence? Should I be able to start my own country with just my house and garden (Petoria anyone?:)) or maybe my housing estate? How will we generate wealth to live? Who will rule us? Do we automatically own any public land that falls between the boudaries I decide to draw up for this new country I decide to start?

Should Ireland be split into hundreds of new little countries, all independently funded and self sufficient?What happens when it all goes tits up? Can they just decide to wander back and be part of Ireland again and get money and a job?.

jank

futurehope wrote: »

The Union is secure. North, South, East, West.

conchubhar1

Stekelly wrote: »

How big exactly should an area be to be able to declare independence? Should I be able to start my own country with just my house and garden (Petoria anyone?:)) or maybe my housing estate? How will we generate wealth to live? Who will rule us? Do we automatically own any public land that falls between the boudaries I decide to draw up for this new country I decide to start?

Should Ireland be split into hundreds of new little countries, all independently funded and self sufficient?What happens when it all goes tits up? Can they just decide to wander back and be part of Ireland again and get money and a job?.

if you want to make pointless scenarios which you know i didnt mean

then yes - yes yo can

it has to have

1 - support
2 - big-ish population
3 - funding or prospect of working as a nation
4 - some sort of reason for a split - mainly historical, linguistical, political or cultural
5 - form of government or none
6 - police force blah de blah
7 - international recognition or any recognition from other states
8 - on a lighter note - ''what happens when it goes tits up?'' act like we are all fine and keep voting the party that got us in the bad posistion - give them a 25% vote....


you know all to well these things.......

Guy:Incognito

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i8 - on a lighter note - ''what happens when it goes tits up?'' act like we are all fine and keep voting the party that got us in the bad posistion - give them a 25% vote....

.

So what you mean is "blah blah blah, this is all ill thought out rubbish but I'll throw in a cheap anti-ff line to distract people and everything will be fine"

T runner

futurehope wrote: »

The Union is secure. North, South, East, West.

The insecurity of that statement is quite obvious.
Will be a tricky one for Irish Unionists in the North though. Are we British or Scottish?;)