Scotland's vote for Independence

georgesstreet

eire4 wrote: »

Probably due to slanted media coverage then if this is true. There are no verified facts that I have seen produced by either side that clearly show either that Scotland takes more from the UK pot or that Scotland puts in more to the UK pot.
To claim one way or the other as fact is false as it is not proven one way or the other at this point.

Yes, so much is down the the nasty old media

sfakiaman

Some figures here from BBC Scotland which show some of the headline data for the Scottish economy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266 . From my point of view they show a country well able to prosper as an independent State.

To return to my earlier point about the media campaigning for political parties, I was perhaps incorrect in my choice of words. As Scofflaw suggested the merely subtly influence the vote by promoting a particular point of view. The Record in Scotland does however donate to the Labour party is is none to subtle about who they support.

georgesstreet

sfakiaman wrote: »

From my point of view they show a country well able to prosper as an independent State.

I don't think anyone ever considered that Scotland could not "prosper" as a state. Ireland prospers as a state as does Greece, in that sense.

It's more how they might prosper, rather than if they can.

sfakiaman

I'm not sure what you mean. Possibly I should have said that Scotland could become a prosperous, more equal society with independence.

georgesstreet

sfakiaman wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. Possibly I should have said that Scotland could become a prosperous, more equal society with independence.

Scotland could become more prosperous or less prosperous after independence, and could become more equal or less equal as a society after independence.

Guessing what Scotland might become after independence is not useful.

sfakiaman

georgesstreet wrote: »

Guessing what Scotland might become after independence is not useful.

I prefer the term predicting rather than guessing and as we know in Ireland, neither are exact sciences. The data on BBC Scotland's website shows that Scottish GDP excluding oil, and UK GDP are roughly the same. Give Scotland control of its own resources and fiscal policy and it will be financially better off. What a post independence govt does with this extra wealth will depend on who is elected but chances are the mix will be much the same as now and the policies outlined in the white paper will be implemented. This will lead to a fairer society.

georgesstreet

sfakiaman wrote: »

I prefer the term predicting rather than guessing and as we know in Ireland, neither are exact sciences. The data on BBC Scotland's website shows that Scottish GDP excluding oil, and UK GDP are roughly the same. Give Scotland control of its own resources and fiscal policy and it will be financially better off. What a post independence govt does with this extra wealth will depend on who is elected but chances are the mix will be much the same as now and the policies outlined in the white paper will be implemented. This will lead to a fairer society.

While you may prefer the term predicting, it is still guessing. "This will lead to a fairer society" is a guess. The russian revolutionaries claimed that their revolution would lead to a fairer society also.

everdead.ie

ewan whose army wrote: »

So the White Paper seems to be a copt out - "We want independence but we still want to be in the Sterling oh and we want to keep the Queen"


It will be a disaster, they also want to keep UK passports but it looks like Westminster will not let that happen. The Yes vote is becoming increasingly desperate considering they have been hit by decreasing polls and the fact that they would be forced to join the schengen zone and there would be border controls since the CTA is only tolerated since it predates the EU.

My Entire family is Scottish but a load moved to England to find work and as a result being born in England I have no say in any of this mess.

They keep on going on about "The UK is dominated by England..." but England has by far the biggest population so its going to be that way, and IMO all the arguments they say can be said about the Northern 1/2 of England, but you don't see a Cumbric independence movement do you?

I would think that similar to how Ireland detached it's self from the UK Salmond is hoping to do the same thing.

First get those who want the Queen on side, then monetary concerns by keeping the sterling etc.

But as time goes on he would be planning on separating Scotland from the Union step by step just as Ireland did.

georgesstreet

everdead.ie wrote: »

I would think that similar to how Ireland detached it's self from the UK Salmond is hoping to do the same thing.

First get those who want the Queen on side, then monetary concerns by keeping the sterling etc.

But as time goes on he would be planning on separating Scotland from the Union step by step just as Ireland did.

From this vantage point, the how seems less important as do details as to whether or not the monarch will remain head of state as she is, for example, in independent Australia.

Fratton Fred

There are two queries I have with the figures the BBC quote.

Firstly, they compare Scotland's GDP figures with the UK's GDP figures. Is this the UK including Scotland? In which case the rest of the UK would have a higher GDP without Scotland. Does GDP include shipyards building RN ships? If so, how much?

Secondly, the average spending per capita in Scotland is higher. Does this include subsidies to companies that have relocated to Scotland and how would this affect the Scottish figures if this is taken on by the Scottis. Parliament?

Then, of course, there's RBS.

Lemming

Regards ship building, if Scotland voted for independence, they would immediately lose all RN contracts as the MoD would be legally obliged to move all of their ship-building to dockyards within the UK.

Also, faslane (as in the Trident submarine base) gets a fair chunk of cash from the US. Getting rid of that puts a further dent to the tune of tens of millions in incoming revenue for Scotland as all of those facilities would also be moved elsewhere within the UK.

But whatever about faslane, the clyde losing the RN contracts would be absolutely crippling. Not just monetarily, but also in terms of jobs as there would be thousands of jobs lost over that alone.

Anyway, the bottom line is - and its obvious already -that Salmond really hasn't thought much of what he wants through other than on the back of a beer mat.

georgesstreet

Lemming wrote: »

Regards ship building, if Scotland voted for independence, they would immediately lose all RN contracts as the MoD would be legally obliged to move all of their ship-building to dockyards within the UK.

Also, faslane (as in the Trident submarine base) gets a fair chunk of cash from the US. Getting rid of that puts a further dent to the tune of tens of millions in incoming revenue for Scotland as all of those facilities would also be moved elsewhere within the UK.

But whatever about faslane, the clyde losing the RN contracts would be absolutely crippling. Not just monetarily, but also in terms of jobs as there would be thousands of jobs lost over that alone.

Anyway, the bottom line is - and its obvious already -that Salmond really hasn't thought much of what he wants through other than on the back of a beer mat.

How do you know the USA would get rid of faslane? How do you know Scotland won't need to build ships for its own navy? Or use the facility to build ships for greek shipping companies?

Fratton Fred

georgesstreet wrote: »

How do you know the USA would get rid of faslane? How do you know Scotland won't need to build ships for its own navy? Or use the facility to build ships for greek shipping companies?

Salmond wants all nuclear.weapons out of Scotland. Faslane is the submarine base where trident is based. Trident goes, the base closes.

Lossiemouth would probably follow suit.

georgesstreet

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Salmond wants all nuclear.weapons out of Scotland. Faslane is the submarine base where trident is based. Trident goes, the base closes.

Lossiemouth would probably follow suit.

I didn't realise that Scotland plans to become a dictatorship with everyone having no say and having to do as Alex Salmond wants. Alex Salmond wants many things, but Scotland still plans to be a democracy. Things may well look different the other side of an election and I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet about Trident.

Fratton Fred

georgesstreet wrote: »

I didn't realise that Scotland plans to become a dictatorship with everyone having no say and having to do as Alex Salmond wants. Alex Salmond wants many things, but Scotland still plans to be a democracy. Things may well look different the other side of an election and I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet about Trident.

I'm not sure Alex Salmond knows that.

georgesstreet

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure Alex Salmond knows that.

Thanks - your post actually made me laugh out loud!

Lemming

georgesstreet wrote: »

How do you know the USA would get rid of faslane? How do you know Scotland won't need to build ships for its own navy? Or use the facility to build ships for greek shipping companies?

As Fred has already pointed out, Salmond has never made it a secret that he wants rid of Trident, and the SNPs policy of being a non-nuke country. That means saying goodbye to US warheads, goodbye local economy around faslane and its surrounds, and goodbye to a rather sizeable amount of cash and jobs; it is as simple as that.

As regards the Clyde shipyards - from what I recall recently reported - the only orders on the books ARE for the RN, as British shipyards now struggle to compete with developing nations with lower cost bases on fulfilling run of the mill shipping. Even with those orders, the Clyde needs to be careful on how it plans its order fulfillment schedule to justify keeping the lights on.

On top of that, nobody has a clue how large any fledling Scottish naval fleet would be, but I sincerely orders for it alone would be enough to keep the Clyde in business.

georgesstreet

Lemming wrote: »

As Fred has already pointed out, Salmond has never made it a secret that he wants rid of Trident, and the SNPs policy of being a non-nuke country. That means saying goodbye to US warheads, goodbye local economy around faslane and its surrounds, and goodbye to a rather sizeable amount of cash and jobs; it is as simple as that.

It might appear simple, but there's many a slip between cup and lip.

Lemming

georgesstreet wrote: »

It might appear simple, but there's many a slip between cup and lip.

Sorry but what part of "non-nuclear" does not seem cut and dried? It's a black or white scenario. And in any case, trident would need to be relocated regardless as I do not see the MoD handing it over to Scotland.

Where there may have been possibility was - if Salmond & the SNP were not so black and white on the issue - in any break-up of the armed forces, that Scotland might have negotiated the hosting of nuclear weapons and thus either re-tasked faslane or set up elsewhere within Scotland. As matters stand by open delcaration by the SNP, this would never happen; so the issue really is black and white ...

... unless of course Salmond doesn't intend to stand over his declared points of action, in which case what else is he fudging besides the nuclear issue?

georgesstreet

Lemming wrote: »

Sorry but what part of "non-nuclear" does not seem cut and dried? It's a black or white scenario. And in any case, trident would need to be relocated regardless as I do not see the MoD handing it over to Scotland.

Where there may have been possibility was if Salmond & the SNP were not so black and white on the issue, was in any break-up of the armed forces, that Scotland might have negotiated the hosting of nuclear weapons and thus either re-tasked faslane, or set up elsewhere within Scotland. As matters stand by open delcaration by the SNP, this would never happen; so the issue really is black and white ...

... unless of course Salmond doesn't intend to stand over his declared points of action, in which case what else is he fudging besides the nuclear issue?

Things in politics are rarely black and white. Would you be shocked if a politician said things which he judged would get him voted, then quietly long fingered or abandoned them once elected? Or could would find that completely shocking?

sfakiaman

Scotland getting rid of Trident could work to Ireland's advantage, I'm sure there are many suitable locations on the west coast of Eire that could be sold to rUk.

Lemming

georgesstreet wrote: »

Things in politics are rarely black and white. Would you be shocked if a politician said things which he judged would get him voted, then quietly long fingered or abandoned them once elected? Or could would find that completely shocking?

Considering that Salmond has made getting rid of Trident a cornerstone of Independence; given his repeated insistence (despite NATO statements to the contrary) to local voters & his own party members that Scotland can be both a member of NATO AND eject Trident from Scotland; and given that removing Trident and making Scotland a non-nuke country has been something the SNP have long pursued as a political goal; for Salmond to walk away from that would destroy both his and the SNP's credibility. By "destroy" I refer you to the PDs and the Green party and ask where are they now?

There is considerable objection to Scotland negotiating NATO membership from within the SNP owing to allegience to CND and because NATO members must support - or not object at any rate - the organisation's "nuclear first strike policy". On one hand Salmond has to contend with that dissent, and on the other he's dealing with the fact that NATO are telling him that what he's saying at home is b*llocks and they will not entertain membership on such terms, whilst he seems to think he can remove Trident (thus making the issue contested between two potential NATO members, which is not permitted under membership) and just "turn off the lights on the radar" to make NATO come running to offer membership.

The likelihood of the SNP rowing back on the cornerstone policy of both party & Salmond's independence "manifesto" of removing Trident - and surviving as a credible political entity - are remote to say the least.

So Salmond either removes Trident and thus fails to meet the requirements to attain NATO member status; and consequently loses a pile of cash and jobs both directly and indirectly. Or he rows back on a cornerstone statement of the SNP for decades by allowing faslane to remain, or relocating it to somewhere else within Scottish waters, and risk a very real threat to his party's survival and certainly his own political career. Either way he doesn't win.

So it is quite a black & white issue all told.

alastair

Lemming wrote: »

Considering that Salmond has made getting rid of Trident a cornerstone of Independence; given his repeated insistence (despite NATO statements to the contrary) to local voters & his own party members that Scotland can be both a member of NATO AND eject Trident from Scotland; and given that removing Trident and making Scotland a non-nuke country has been something the SNP have long pursued as a political goal; for Salmond to walk away from that would destroy both his and the SNP's credibility. By "destroy" I refer you to the PDs and the Green party and ask where are they now?

There is considerable objection to Scotland negotiating NATO membership from within the SNP owing to allegience to CND and because NATO members must support - or not object at any rate - the organisation's "nuclear first strike policy". On one hand Salmond has to contend with that dissent, and on the other he's dealing with the fact that NATO are telling him that what he's saying at home is b*llocks and they will not entertain membership on such terms, whilst he seems to think he can remove Trident (thus making the issue contested between two potential NATO members, which is not permitted under membership) and just "turn off the lights on the radar" to make NATO come running to offer membership.

The likelihood of the SNP rowing back on the cornerstone policy of both party & Salmond's independence "manifesto" of removing Trident - and surviving as a credible political entity - are remote to say the least.

So Salmond either removes Trident and thus fails to meet the requirements to attain NATO member status; and consequently loses a pile of cash and jobs both directly and indirectly. Or he rows back on a cornerstone statement of the SNP for decades by allowing faslane to remain, or relocating it to somewhere else within Scottish waters, and risk a very real threat to his party's survival and certainly his own political career. Either way he doesn't win.

So it is quite a black & white issue all told.

There are already 25 NATO member nations with no nuclear weapons. It's not a stretch to believe it could be 26.

NATO's position on an independent Scotland's place within NATO?:

A new state would not be a party to the North Atlantic treaty, and thus not a member of NATO. If it were to choose to apply for NATO membership, its application would be subject to the normal procedure, as outlined in article 10 of the treaty

Nothing there about a Scottish requirement to 'house, base or possess' nuclear weapons.

Lemming

alastair wrote: »

There are already 25 NATO member nations with no nuclear weapons. It's not a stretch to believe it could be 26.

NATO's position on an independent Scotland's place within NATO?:

Nothing there about a Scottish requirement to 'house, base or possess' nuclear weapons.

The issue not about Scotland having or not having nukes whilst being a member of NATO. Nowhere have I said anything of the sort. The issue is Scotland making the matter of existing NATO member-owned nuclear "resources" contested by insisting that faslane be removed.

It's the same in principle as to why the EU will not entertain membership applications from nations with internal strife. In this case NATO will not entertain applications from nations who are in a state of contest with another member. NATO have said this publically and categorically in response to Salmond's insistence to his own party that they can remove faslane and still become a member at the same time.

Manach

Scotland had prior to the Union some major divisions and was fairly regionised, based on one or two historical books I've read about the country. Once this decentralisation begins to historical perceived baselines then agreement on how far this goes should prove an interesting political spectator sport, from a distance.

Scofflaw

Manach wrote: »

Scotland had prior to the Union some major divisions and was fairly regionised, based on one or two historical books I've read about the country. Once this decentralisation begins to historical perceived baselines then agreement on how far this goes should prove an interesting political spectator sport, from a distance.

From personal experience those divisions are only about as strong as the provincial distinctions here, and unlikely to form the basis for further splits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

Not in the immediate future perhaps, but given:
-The global trend of decentralisation and re-emergence of older political identifies previously overwritten by the centralised state.
-The EU's own policy of regionalisation and promotion of sub-political entities within that polity.
-Questions of allocation of resources, which in part make up the initial impetus for Scottish independence, with wealthier areas perhaps unwilling to subsidise poorer areas (as per the current debate ongoing in Belgium).

So having read Walter Scot's poetry, Scotland has an interesting, rich and diverse history - but unfortunately a bloody one as well.

Reekwind

ewan whose army wrote: »

They keep on going on about "The UK is dominated by England..." but England has by far the biggest population so its going to be that way...

So the solution might be to end the political link with a larger neighbour to which its interests will inevitably, given size and population, be subordinate, no?

...and IMO all the arguments they say can be said about the Northern 1/2 of England, but you don't see a Cumbric independence movement do you?

That's quite likely because Scotland is a country, one with a long history of independence, and Cumbria, well, isn't. There's not much in the ways of a national identity through which such dissatisfaction can be channelled

Manach wrote:

Not in the immediate future perhaps, but given:
-The global trend of decentralisation and re-emergence of older political identifies previously overwritten by the centralised state.
-The EU's own policy of regionalisation and promotion of sub-political entities within that polity.
-Questions of allocation of resources, which in part make up the initial impetus for Scottish independence, with wealthier areas perhaps unwilling to subsidise poorer areas (as per the current debate ongoing in Belgium).

Yes, it's terrible the way that Ireland has dissolved into petty feuding kingdoms since independence. I mean, the odds that... actually, sorry, have to dash. The Connacht men are raiding my cattle again!

sfakiaman

Manach wrote: »

Scotland had prior to the Union some major divisions and was fairly regionised, based on one or two historical books I've read about the country. Once this decentralisation begins to historical perceived baselines then agreement on how far this goes should prove an interesting political spectator sport, from a distance.

Not even the labraTory no campaign has come up with the Balkanisation of Scotland as part of their scare tactics.

Fratton Fred

Reekwind wrote: »

So the solution might be to end the political link with a larger neighbour to which its interests will inevitably, given size and population, be subordinate, no?

That's quite likely because Scotland is a country, one with a long history of independence, and Cumbria, well, isn't. There's not much in the ways of a national identity through which such dissatisfaction can be channelled

Yes, it's terrible the way that Ireland has dissolved into petty feuding kingdoms since independence. I mean, the odds that... actually, sorry, have to dash. The Connacht men are raiding my cattle again!

Are you claiming that Carlisle and Gretna have.vastly different needs because they.are in different countries and that Edinburgh and Lerwick have the same needs because they are in the same country?

Reekwind

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are you claiming that Carlisle and Gretna have.vastly different needs because they.are in different countries and that Edinburgh and Lerwick have the same needs because they are in the same country?

Not in the slightest. What I'm pointing out is that any dissatisfaction in Gretna with the current economic balance within the UK can be channelled into a nationalist movement. That is an option not available in Carlisle, where there is no equivalent mass movement or history independence

Disagree with it or not but the SNP have an answer to Scotland's woes. It's a national answer with independence at its centre. There is no such alternative, as yet at least, for those areas of the north of England that are often suffering similar problems

georgesstreet

Reekwind wrote: »

Not in the slightest. What I'm pointing out is that any dissatisfaction in Gretna with the current economic balance within the UK can be channelled into a nationalist movement. That is an option not available in Carlisle, where there is no equivalent mass movement or history independence

Disagree with it or not but the SNP have an answer to Scotland's woes. It's a national answer with independence at its centre. There is no such alternative, as yet at least, for those areas of the north of England that are often suffering similar problems

How about is there an alternative in the west of scotland for those who dont want to be ruled from Holyrood? Should they start an independence movement too?

Reekwind

georgesstreet wrote: »

How about is there an alternative in the west of scotland for those who dont want to be ruled from Holyrood? Should they start an independence movement too?

Do those in 'the west of Scotland who don't want to be ruled by Holyrood' have a distinct national identity? If not, then on what basis would they found their newly independent nation?

Or, to put it another way: the principle of national self-determination doesn't apply to every man and his dog

Manach

Reekwind wrote: »

Yes, it's terrible the way that Ireland has dissolved into petty feuding kingdoms since independence. I mean, the odds that... actually, sorry, have to dash. The Connacht men are raiding my cattle again!

Instead we are divided into a Northern and Southern sections.
This is a potential in Scotland based on their history (and to extend present in all nations) a subject you seem to seems to be somewhat lacking in.

sfakiaman

georgesstreet wrote: »

How about is there an alternative in the west of scotland for those who dont want to be ruled from Holyrood? Should they start an independence movement too?

A glance at the election results from 2011 tends to suggest that support for the SNP, and therefor a Scottish Parliament is very evenly spread across Scotland so it is unlikely that an alternative in the west of Scotland would gain much traction. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/may/06/scottish-parliament-election-results

Scofflaw

Manach wrote: »

Instead we are divided into a Northern and Southern sections.
This is a potential in Scotland based on their history (and to extend present in all nations) a subject you seem to seems to be somewhat lacking in.

But, rather importantly, we didn't divide ourselves into North and South following independence. The analogy is inapt.

The historical divisions in Scotland - say, between the Neast and the Lowlands, or Fife and the Highlands - have a similar strength to the division between Northern and Southern England. There's no recent enough tradition of separation to feed into a 'nationalist' vision - which is vital for the formation of separate polities.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

Whilst the separation of Ireland is a differing topic, there was in the War of independence enough internal clashes between differing communities.

That depends on how far back the tradition goes and that the concept of nationality is one that, according to theorist, is both malleable and imagined. During the Covenant Wars there was a great measure of division between the regions of Scotland as well as during the time of the Jacobite wars. This can be used as a template to map latent divisions with that country - but notas a blueprint for a future dissolution along those lines. Using present day treads there is nearly zero chance, using a loaded term as a prior poster mentioned, of violent Balkanisation. Instead, a more useful analogy would be the possible further peaceful regionalisation based on either Spain's current regions or the division of Czechoslovakia into compenant parts.
So once the principle of devolution of powers is in play it might prove a difficult process to start.

Scofflaw

Manach wrote: »

Whilst the separation of Ireland is a differing topic, there was in the War of independence enough internal clashes between differing communities.

That depends on how far back the tradition goes and that the concept of nationality is one that, according to theorist, is both malleable and imagined. During the Covenant Wars there was a great measure of division between the regions of Scotland as well as during the time of the Jacobite wars. This can be used as a template to map latent divisions with that country - but notas a blueprint for a future dissolution along those lines. Using present day treads there is nearly zero chance, using a loaded term as a prior poster mentioned, of violent Balkanisation. Instead, a more useful analogy would be the possible further peaceful regionalisation based on either Spain's current regions or the division of Czechoslovakia into compenant parts.
So once the principle of devolution of powers is in play it might prove a difficult process to start.

I'd say you could certainly start a "regional assembly" movement which might well gather sufficient support.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

This is a potential in Scotland based on their history (and to extend present in all nations) a subject you seem to seems to be somewhat lacking in.

Let's be clear: there are no divisions in Scotland of a similar nature to those of Spain or Czechoslovakia or Belgium. To suggest otherwise is mere hyperbole. Unless you can show me the very distinct ethnic groups - with their own language, culture and history - within Scotland?

And that's what's missing. Scottish today exists as a coherent and relatively unified national identity. Regional differences within that are just that: regional differences and not competing national allegiances. Things have changed somewhat since the 17th C

If you want a more apt comparison then it would be the various regional identities and patois of France, a nation welded together from a wide array of different fiefdoms and provinces. Yet who suggests that the 'One and Indivisible' French Republic is about to fall apart at the seams?

sfakiaman

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd say you could certainly start a "regional assembly" movement which might well gather sufficient support. cordially,
Scofflaw

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar as a possible starting point, Apart from Orkney or Shetland it would be hard to get further from Holyrood.

Manach

Reekwind wrote: »

Let's be clear

Great. ... and your secondary source materials on Scotland that you base this on is because I've already mentioned I'm drawing mine from such because your premise seems to be we are unable to draw such lessons from history, even to map out potential fault lines.

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

Great. ... and your secondary source materials on Scotland that you base this on is because I've already mentioned I'm drawing mine from such because your premise seems to be we are unable to draw such lessons from history, even to map out potential fault lines.

You don't seem to understand that this is not a discussion of history. That there were faultlines in the past is of no relevance when they are not present today. You might as well argue that England could someday split again into Roundheads and Cavaliers

What keeps these movements alive is the presence of competing national identities. Spain's various autonomous regions didn't disappear and then suddenly emerge in the 20th C; the Slovaks didn't vanish as a distinct ethnicity during the existence of Czechoslovakia; and so on. This is not the case in Scotland

(Ironically, the greatest source of ethnic tension in Scotland today is a result of 19th C migrations, not 17th C civil strife)

Manach

To my mind, history influences all current events and while what has happen before will of course never happen again but it shows templates which effect the future - especially if one takes into account that those differing entities were tied to geographical factors that are still extant in Scotland.

I've no personal interest in Scottish independence per se and found it to be a great country from my time there. But it has a long historical tradition. So for instance, there are those for whom there is a golden age which drive their mythos. From my prior causal reading SNP (Home rule types which I'm neutral about) material - they seem to be greatly exercised over, to their eyes, the perfidious union of the 1706(?) and all the ills that flowed from that.
To those the Darien Disaster is still a cause for grievance.
That is just a few years, AFAIR, within limit of the 17thC.

France has been mentioned. It is one of the most centralised states in Europe. However only after many centuries of strict centralising of power, and even to-day ( offhand based on my reading of an ECJ case) French authorities are wary of proto-Nationist tendancies in the Basque region.

As far separate ethnic identity, then this certainly does not preclude splinting of a polity especially if there a matter of wealth involved.
Both the US war of Independence and that of the Civil war had strong economic roots (based on academic and other readings) in spite of the near common shared religious, ethnic and historical similarities (using Herodotus' criteria).
There are rich and prosperous areas of Scotland which might do better on there own, again I'm speculating here but it is a common thread in Belgian separatist dialogues. As mentioned previously, this type of breakup would be peaceful in Scotland's case.

Both as a policy of the EU and that of potential historical latencies, increase regionalisation is a possibility and one whose end result cannot be easily determined or stopped as a use of self-determination strategy which has no automatic self-termination switch. The oldest of historians, Thucydides is still honoured as the forerunner of International theory of the realist doctrine of though which in essence
: self interest (personal or State) is the key driver of political action and events can out-run their initial originator's wishes.

Fratton Fred

sfakiaman wrote: »

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar as a possible starting point, Apart from Orkney or Shetland it would be hard to get further from Holyrood.

Ask a Scotsman what a sassanach is and you'll get a different answer depending on where you ask the question.

To the majority, it is the English, to a highlander it is anyone who speaks English and the border for whom that applies is north of Stirling, not south of Gretna.