If You Were Scottish How Would You Vote?

[Jack by the hedge]

I'd also like to hear a rational reason for voting No...

Do you think that people will vote for rational reasons? I've tended to assume people (on both sides) will go with their gut feeling, vote for what they want and damn the consequences.

 

[Rolfe]

You may be right, but Agatha did say her brothers had "good reasoning" behind their choices, and these are the only two reasons I have come across that make sense for a No vote. The former could classified as a "gut feeling" of course.

Rolfe.

 

[fuelair]

I say a team of 4 for yes and for no. Highland games rules, Caber toss redo if a tie.

 

[Delvo]

To me, it's always been quite apparent that the idea of this particular "union" has always been a lie. One entity conquers and subjugates another, then later tells it to act like that's a "union"... I'd vote for disunion just for the sake of not carrying on the silly pretense.

 

[angrysoba]

To me, it's always been quite apparent that the idea of this particular "union" has always been a lie. One entity conquers and subjugates another, then later tells it to act like that's a "union"... I'd vote for disunion just for the sake of not carrying on the silly pretense.

Is that actually what happened?

Could you give more details?

 

[LashL]

I'm Canadian, and I voted Yes because I believe Scotland has not benefited from being in the Union, especially for the last 50 years or so. And I'm not sure how enthusiastic the Scots were for the original union 300 years ago.

Which is strange, because as a Canadian I was very much on the side of Quebec staying in Canada the couple of times they held a referendum to leave. I suspect the issues Quebec had with the rest of Canada are very similar to the issues Scotland has with the rest of the UK. An exception is that Quebec speaks French instead of English, which only serves to widen the divide. Another interesting point is the Quebec separatists were trounced in the last provincial election, and that seems to have put off any talk of independence for a generation.

Overall I get the impression Quebec today is largely satisfied with its place in Canada. Other Canadians here may disagree, and I would be interested in seeing their comments. But perhaps in a separate thread.

I feel similarly. If I was Scottish, I'd probably vote for secession from the UK although, as a Canadian, I was not in favour of the proposed Quebec secession from Canada. I think the issues, details, and facts are quite different between the two different scenarios, though, and I also think that you're right that that discussion would be better placed in a separate thread.

 

[angrysoba]

I feel similarly. If I was Scottish, I'd probably vote for secession from the UK although, as a Canadian, I was not in favour of the proposed Quebec secession from Canada. I think the issues, details, and facts are quite different between the two different scenarios, though, and I also think that you're right that that discussion would be better placed in a separate thread.

How strange that both of you would say this.

Are you Quebecois or are you English-Canadians? Because if you are the latter it may well explain why you are in favour of keeping Canada as it is. I think you will find that most English want the Scots to stay part of the union, including me, and that many of the English who say they will be happy for Scotland to leave are saying it out of spite. Even relatives of mine have said something along the lines of:

"Cor blimey, the Scots cannot organize a piss-up in a whiskey distillery let alone a country even though they spend most of their time pissed and claiming money from good hard-working English people. Once they leave they won't be able to do anything, we'll see to it that Europe rejects them from having membership and the euro, I mean, Spain will because of the Basques and the Catalans, and also we'll not let them use the pound because of the effect it will have on our economy, and speaking of economy, if they leave this will affect us too, don't they realize how badly our economy will be hurt by those feckless welfare junkies who contribute nothing to our economy? As this will affect us so badly we deserve a vote too, not just the Scots otherwise that's secession and secession is not allowed. So give me a vote too and I'll vote for them to clear off, ha ha! That'll teach them!"

 

[Rolfe]

Point of technicality. It's ending the union, not secession.

First thing that happens is the Scottish parliament repeals the Act of Union of 1707, and invites Westminster to do likewise.

There were two acts of union, one passed by the Scottish parliament and one by the English. Both parliaments were then brought to an end, and a BRAND NEW union parliament created. The current Westminster parliament is the union parliament. (So much for the "mother of parliaments" guff.)

The Scottish parliament wasn't dissolved, it was formally adjourned. In 1999 when the new Scottish parliament was created at Holyrood, Winnie Ewing who had been appointed Presiding Officer made a point of declaring that the Scottish Parliament, adjourned in 1707, was hereby reconvened. Many people thought this was just a romantic gesture, but it was more than that. It laid a claim (which was never disputed) for Holyrood to be the successor parliament to the 1707 one. It can therefore repeal the Act of Union if it likes.

The English situation is a bit hazy. There is no English parliament. Westminster is the union parliament. So whether it would be competent to repeal the Act of Union passed by the English parliament before it was dissolved is debatable. I'm sure something can be worked out though.

But that's how it will work. Dissolution of the union, not secession.

Rolfe.

 

[Bad vibe]

How strange that both of you would say this.

Are you Quebecois or are you English-Canadians? Because if you are the latter it may well explain why you are in favour of keeping Canada as it is. I think you will find that most English want the Scots to stay part of the union, including me, and that many of the English who say they will be happy for Scotland to leave are saying it out of spite. Even relatives of mine have said something along the lines of:

"Cor blimey, the Scots cannot organize a piss-up in a whiskey distillery let alone a country even though they spend most of their time pissed and claiming money from good hard-working English people. Once they leave they won't be able to do anything, we'll see to it that Europe rejects them from having membership and the euro, I mean, Spain will because of the Basques and the Catalans, and also we'll not let them use the pound because of the effect it will have on our economy, and speaking of economy, if they leave this will affect us too, don't they realize how badly our economy will be hurt by those feckless welfare junkies who contribute nothing to our economy? As this will affect us so badly we deserve a vote too, not just the Scots otherwise that's secession and secession is not allowed. So give me a vote too and I'll vote for them to clear off, ha ha! That'll teach them!"

I'm not sure where you live but here the referendum vote is a non-event, nobody cares or mentions it. Other than the occasional BBC news item you wouldn't know it was happening. In other words, total apathy.

I suspect many would sympathise with the view that the London centric political bias has got to change before everything north of Watford becomes a economic desert.

Personally, the SNP idea about an iScotland re-balancing the country economically is attractive. I don't think the economic case for iScotland is even close to the rosy picture the SNP paint but many of the ideas appeal to me so even though I think its a disaster in the making I'd probably vote yes.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I am in favor of the trend toward dissolution of traditional nation-states in the EU in favor of greater regionalism. This is in line with the principle of subsidiarity. If the end-game for the EU is true union, this makes a lot of sense, as eventually nation-states would be a more artificial structure that would stand in the way of this principle. Breaking up nation-states into more regional and identity-based political structures is a good way to pave the way for a better union.

Unlike the US, Europe's multiculturalism is far more geographically based. If a Europe of regions emerges, local identities may yet flourish under the EU. As things stand, we still have some cultures and languages under threat from centralized majority thinking.

Don't know much about the Scottish case, but I totally support Catalan independence. Apart from the foregoing, Catalonia basically is fully integrated culturally into modernity, while most of the rest of Spain remains mired in tradition and authority for guidance. An independent Catalonia would be a much more dynamic and productive member of the EU without all the gaming done by the central govt to hamper its performance.

OTOH, most member states are flat against this idea, and adamantly oppose it, with Madrid being the most obviously retrograde in its ideas about self determination.

And GB is clearly far removed from any sort of political union, hoping to retain a mere common market for goods. Too bad GB has totally forgotten all the problems with the 'snake in the tunnel' approach to exchange rates that system had as a "feature," and which made the euro necessary, which in turn makes political union more necessary. Either compete totally or integrate; half measures have no stable equilibrium.

It is either full steam ahead or scrap the whole EU. But the former was seriously placed in threat by the overly hasty incorporation of the wildly differing economies in places such as southeast Europe, making integration far harder than it would have been with 10-12 core member states.

 

[Information Analyst]

To me, it's always been quite apparent that the idea of this particular "union" has always been a lie. One entity conquers and subjugates another, then later tells it to act like that's a "union"... I'd vote for disunion just for the sake of not carrying on the silly pretense.

I suspect that's Ireland you're thinking of.

 

[Information Analyst]

I am in favor of the trend toward dissolution of traditional nation-states in the EU in favor of greater regionalism. This is in line with the principle of subsidiarity. If the end-game for the EU is true union, this makes a lot of sense, as eventually nation-states would be a more artificial structure that would stand in the way of this principle. Breaking up nation-states into more regional and identity-based political structures is a good way to pave the way for a better union."

"We resolve to offer up our flags, our armies, our tariffs and our boundaries to the United States of the World. To that the world must come. Our crowns, our kingship, our honours and State will dissolve and pass away. Clavery and Saevia and Agravia will become simple States in one great Federation..." (H.G. Wells, The King Who Was a King, 1929)

 

[mumblethrax]

I'd vote yes, just because the idea of an English-speaking country adopting the Scandinavian model is appealing.

Other than Sweden, I mean.

 

[angrysoba]

I am in favor of the trend toward dissolution of traditional nation-states in the EU in favor of greater regionalism. This is in line with the principle of subsidiarity. If the end-game for the EU is true union, this makes a lot of sense, as eventually nation-states would be a more artificial structure that would stand in the way of this principle. Breaking up nation-states into more regional and identity-based political structures is a good way to pave the way for a better union.

Unlike the US, Europe's multiculturalism is far more geographically based. If a Europe of regions emerges, local identities may yet flourish under the EU. As things stand, we still have some cultures and languages under threat from centralized majority thinking.

Don't know much about the Scottish case, but I totally support Catalan independence. Apart from the foregoing, Catalonia basically is fully integrated culturally into modernity, while most of the rest of Spain remains mired in tradition and authority for guidance. An independent Catalonia would be a much more dynamic and productive member of the EU without all the gaming done by the central govt to hamper its performance.

OTOH, most member states are flat against this idea, and adamantly oppose it, with Madrid being the most obviously retrograde in its ideas about self determination.

And GB is clearly far removed from any sort of political union, hoping to retain a mere common market for goods. Too bad GB has totally forgotten all the problems with the 'snake in the tunnel' approach to exchange rates that system had as a "feature," and which made the euro necessary, which in turn makes political union more necessary. Either compete totally or integrate; half measures have no stable equilibrium.

It is either full steam ahead or scrap the whole EU. But the former was seriously placed in threat by the overly hasty incorporation of the wildly differing economies in places such as southeast Europe, making integration far harder than it would have been with 10-12 core member states.

Well, one of the problems that you have suggested here is that not everybody wants the same thing from the EU, and do not agree that a single principle is going to benefit everybody.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not sure where you live

I live in Osaka.

but here the referendum vote is a non-event, nobody cares or mentions it.

Well, you live in the UK. Do you live in the bit that will vote or the bit that won't?

Other than the occasional BBC news item you wouldn't know it was happening. In other words, total apathy.

Well, maybe I'm just interested in current affairs. It is strange to me that nobody cares about the vote at all where you are.

I suspect many would sympathise with the view that the London centric political bias has got to change before everything north of Watford becomes a economic desert.

Personally, the SNP idea about an iScotland re-balancing the country economically is attractive. I don't think the economic case for iScotland is even close to the rosy picture the SNP paint but many of the ideas appeal to me so even though I think its a disaster in the making I'd probably vote yes.

Well an independent Scotland is unlikely to rebalance the country if they would no longer be the same country.

I think that non-economic reasons might decide the referendum, and it will come down to whether or not people in Scotland want to be British or not.

 

[Hawk one]

I'd vote yes mainly to spite David Cameron. Which is a better reason than it sounds, because things David Cameron doesn't like are more likely to be good things.

 

[CTB]

As an ex-pat Scot without a vote I would whole heartedly vote Yes.

I follow the debate, as such as MSM would have you believe it, in a state of near exhausted incredulity.

Scotland has to be independent. It's nothing to to do with anti-Engllshness and anyone who suggests it is so merely stirs up the xenophobo-hornets' nest to deflect attention.

The 'Best of Both Worlds' catchphrase of the No campaign is outright hokum. Scotland has no influence at Westminster, so cannot hope to ever have control on policy.

Democracy for Scotland. Aye.

 

[Craig B]

Scotland has to be independent. It's nothing to to do with anti-Engllshness and anyone who suggests it is so merely stirs up the xenophobo-hornets' nest to deflect attention.

Absolutely. I'm very active in the campaign and I have never encountered the least sign of anti-English people sentiment among other campaigners. It's solely and entirely about the political system which imperatively requires to be changed.

We're a small European country ruled under constitutional arrangements worked out at the early stages of the development of a worldwide empire, which are now hopelessly outmoded; if indeed they were ever of any value, which I doubt.

 

[LashL]

How strange that both of you would say this.

Are you Quebecois or are you English-Canadians? Because if you are the latter it may well explain why you are in favour of keeping Canada as it is. I think you will find that most English want the Scots to stay part of the union, including me, and that many of the English who say they will be happy for Scotland to leave are saying it out of spite. Even relatives of mine have said something along the lines of:

"Cor blimey, the Scots cannot organize a piss-up in a whiskey distillery let alone a country even though they spend most of their time pissed and claiming money from good hard-working English people. Once they leave they won't be able to do anything, we'll see to it that Europe rejects them from having membership and the euro, I mean, Spain will because of the Basques and the Catalans, and also we'll not let them use the pound because of the effect it will have on our economy, and speaking of economy, if they leave this will affect us too, don't they realize how badly our economy will be hurt by those feckless welfare junkies who contribute nothing to our economy? As this will affect us so badly we deserve a vote too, not just the Scots otherwise that's secession and secession is not allowed. So give me a vote too and I'll vote for them to clear off, ha ha! That'll teach them!"

I live in Ontario, and I think Blue Mountain lives in Manitoba (but he/she can correct me if I'm wrong), but I think the two cases are different scenarios because in the Quebec secession case, that was a matter of one province seeking to secede from a single (broad and vast) country of multiple provinces and territories, and as a single country, we all had (and have) a vested interest in keeping it together, but in the case of Scotland leaving the UK, that's a matter of one country seeking to leave a union of multiple countries, which doesn't have the same flavour.

That said, I know that there were a lot of folks who spoke about Quebec in a manner quite like that which you attribute to your relatives in that last paragraph. I think it went something like this:

"Screw'em, Quebeckers cannot organize a piss-up in a brewery let alone their own independent "country" even though they spend most of their time whining in French and taking money from good hard-working English-speaking Canadians. Once they leave they won't be able to do anything, and we'll see to it that the U.S. rejects them as a trading partner, and we won't let them use the Canadian dollar as currency, and they'll have to repay their debt to the rest of the country and start paying their own way for once instead of relying upon welfare from the other provinces. So let 'em vote to secede and we'll laugh our asses off once they've gone because that's when they'll find out they can't succeed without the rest of the country, ha ha! That'll teach them!"

 

[Bad vibe]

I live in Osaka.
Well, you live in the UK. Do you live in the bit that will vote or the bit that won't?

Midlands, so no vote

Well, maybe I'm just interested in current affairs. It is strange to me that nobody cares about the vote at all where you are.

I don't think the majority of rUK have much interest, certainly never heard anyone mention it.

Well an independent Scotland is unlikely to rebalance the country if they would no longer be the same country.

I think the idea is iScotland moves much of its business south through England, with more revenue staying up north = more business opportunity for the north.

I think that non-economic reasons might decide the referendum, and it will come down to whether or not people in Scotland want to be British or not.

More than likely but some of that is simply because nobody really knows how a yes vote will change things like taxation, investment, border etc theres so much that cannot be determined until negotiated after the vote.