If You Were Scottish How Would You Vote?

[uke2se]

What's going to happen if there's - as it seems likely to be given recent polls - a "No" victory?

 

[Rolfe]

That's a big question. I guess the answer is, we wait and see.

I predict no usable powers for Holyrood, instead the parliament will be tied up in pointless red tape and administration labelled "new powers", and actual powers will be removed - some to Westminster, some to local authorities. I predict we will be forced to privatise our NHS the way the English NHS is being privatised, and there will be moves to end personal care for the elderly. Scottish Water will undoubtedly be privatised.

People will either lie down and take this, or they won't. If they don't, I predict trouble, as the principle aim of the reforms to the devolution settlement will be to prevent another independence referendum ever happening again.

I hope I'm wrong.

I also don't think that will happen, because I anticipate a Yes vote. This is going exactly as I expected, right down to the fact that I am currently a nervous wreck about it all.

Rolfe.

 

[Giz]

I predict no usable powers for Holyrood, instead the parliament will be tied up in pointless red tape and administration labelled "new powers", and actual powers will be removed - some to Westminster, some to local authorities. I predict we will be forced to privatise our NHS the way the English NHS is being privatised, and there will be moves to end personal care for the elderly. Scottish Water will undoubtedly be privatised.
.

Rolfe.

Ah, project fear. Not just on the "no" side.

 

[Skepticemea]

I'm an ex-pat Scot living in the south of England so I don't have a vote but do feel affected by the debate. I started out very much on the fence but have gradually become more convinced that, not only would Scotland benefit from independance but, like many marriages that end in divorce, this one may be in the interests of both parties.

 

[Skepticemea]

Ah, project fear. Not just on the "no" side.

The difference being that we can see it happening in the rest of the UK and statements have been made that Scotland should be following suit.

Project Fear as espoused by the No campaign has no basis for many of its assertions, a fair number of which have been repudiated by the very people the arguments have been attributed to.

Voting for the status quo in Scotland would to my mind sit more comfortably within a "yes" vote. There are likely to be greater changes to the lives of Scots by staying within the Union - many of which may be rather uncomfortable as experienced in the rUK.

 

[Giz]

The difference being that we can see it happening in the rest of the UK and statements have been made that Scotland should be following suit.

Project Fear as espoused by the No campaign has no basis for many of its assertions, a fair number of which have been repudiated by the very people the arguments have been attributed to.

Voting for the status quo in Scotland would to my mind sit more comfortably within a "yes" vote. There are likely to be greater changes to the lives of Scots by staying within the Union - many of which may be rather uncomfortable as experienced in the rUK.

The defense of partisans everywhere: It's different when we do it.

 

[angrysoba]

I find it intriguing that this sort of extreme, absolutist pacifism is coming from somebody in a country with only one neighbor, to the south, which has a peaceful relationship with them and is bigger, more powerful, and more invested in defense of both of them. It seems... familiar...

Ah! Delvo, now that you're back, and now that you have presumably alluded to Scotland having a benevolent protector country to the south, I wonder if you could help me out with the question I had for you earlier. You said that the peaceful neighbour to the south "conquer[ed] and subjugat[ed]" Scotland here:

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.

But I was not sure that was true, as I pointed out here.

Is that actually what happened?

Could you give more details?

Did England really "conquer and subjugate" Scotland?

Now I know that there has been some controversy of how the union was made attractive to those in Scotland who entered into it (a little similar to how some people talk about the EU, in fact), but to call it conquest and subjugation seems to be stretching the meaning of the words beyond breaking point.

 

[Skepticemea]

The defense of partisans everywhere: It's different when we do it.

Because material differences don't matter, hey?

BTW, if you've made a decision yourself you are also partisan. It's not necessarily a pejorative.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Rolfe.
The OP asked not "IF" you were Scottish how would you vote, as I understand it I could move there tomorrow and be able to vote because it's limited to people living there and nothing more.

I'm surprised nobody corrected this. You can't just move to Scotland and vote, you have to be in one of the following categories.

The following groups of people can register to vote in the referendum:
British citizens resident in Scotland.
Qualifying Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland. This means Commonwealth citizens who either have leave to remain in the UK or do not require such leave, and are resident in Scotland.
Citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other EU countries resident in Scotland.
Members of the House of Lords resident in Scotland.
Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the Armed Forces or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

I was in the above in 1997 and voted yes/yes. Were I still there I'd vote Yes again.

 

[Rolfe]

There's also the definition of "resident". I don't believe you can come to Scotland for a three-week holiday in September and just register to vote. Though I imagine some people might be intending to try and it will be interesting to see what the Registrar does about that.

Rolfe.

 

[Delvo]

You said that the peaceful neighbour to the south "conquer[ed] and subjugat[ed]" Scotland... Did England really "conquer and subjugate" Scotland?

It's not something I have any interest in debating.

* * *

I'm pondering the assignment of non-divisible assets. The UK as we now know it has some things that were paid for with money from both of the countries that would result from a split. If Scotland is as pacifist or anti-military as we're told, then they might not care about losing an aircraft carrier or what fraction of the destroyer & submarine fleets are theirs, but just "let WENI have them" isn't a solution. If Scotland partially paid for them, does WENI pay back Scotland's part of the investment, and if so, how much? And what about bases that are on Scottish ground but full of hardware that was obtained by the current UK using mixed funds? If Scotland doesn't want them to keep operating as military bases, does it owe WENI money to buy the property? Would it continue to operate them for a Scottish armed service but shuffle the Scottish members back to Scottish bases and the WENI members back to WENI's bases? If Scotland ends up without counterparts to certain parts of WENI's armed services, can the Scots who are already serving in them continue to?

And non-military stuff... if Scotland's government assumes ownership & control of present-UK property in the form of office buildings and state/national parks and civilian government vehicles, what becomes of the part of the investment that went into them from WENI? Do y'all just figure it's balanced out close enough by the Scottish money that went into equivalent properties in WENI and not bother trying to calculate how much is where?

And large infrastructure items like electrical power generation & distribution, roads, and rail systems... are those owned by governments over there or private companies? If governments, the same questions apply; if private companies, then a whole new set of problems is introduced for the ones that are based in Scotland and used to operating under UK laws but would now be responsible for adjusting to Scottish laws; have those even been written yet? I know that infrastructures that cross international borders can work, but they're regulated by international agreements, and right now, one of the parties that would be needed to sign such an agreement doesn't exist yet.

It seems like "Do we leave or not" is, in the case of a "yes" result, only the first of a long series of questions to answer.

 

[angrysoba]

You said that the peaceful neighbour to the south "conquer[ed] and subjugat[ed]" Scotland here...Did England really "conquer and subjugate" Scotland?

It's not something I have any interest in debating.

Really? Because you named this specific issue as the reason for voting for independence and dissolving the union:

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.

Perhaps some other posters would like to chime in and give their opinion on whether or not it could be accurately said that England conquered and subjugated Scotland, particularly given that one of the options in the polls is "Yes, break the chains of English oppression".

Now, of course, this does not mean that there were not wars of conquest. England certainly did fight to conquer Scotland at various times, but calling the union itself "conquest and subjugation" is hyperbolic at best, I would think.

 

[Jules Galen]

How would I vote re Scottish Independence?

Well...if I were a Scott, I would vote wearing a Kilt...but with no underpants! i would want to be well-ventilated when I voted.

 

[Information Analyst]

I'm pondering the assignment of non-divisible assets. The UK as we now know it has some things that were paid for with money from both of the countries that would result from a split. If Scotland is as pacifist or anti-military as we're told, then they might not care about losing an aircraft carrier or what fraction of the destroyer & submarine fleets are theirs, but just "let WENI have them" isn't a solution. If Scotland partially paid for them, does WENI pay back Scotland's part of the investment, and if so, how much? And what about bases that are on Scottish ground but full of hardware that was obtained by the current UK using mixed funds? If Scotland doesn't want them to keep operating as military bases, does it owe WENI money to buy the property? Would it continue to operate them for a Scottish armed service but shuffle the Scottish members back to Scottish bases and the WENI members back to WENI's bases? If Scotland ends up without counterparts to certain parts of WENI's armed services, can the Scots who are already serving in them continue to?

This outlines what the Scottish government envisages:

Chapter 6 International Relations and Defence

The defence bit starts just over half-way down, with the sub-heading "Why we need a new approach". In navy terms, no submarines, no destroyers, but two frigates and a number of smaller craft, plus "a command platform for naval operations and development of specialist marine capabilities (from the Royal Navy's current fleet, following adaptation)..."

 

[metacristi]

OK, there are lots of comments online from Scots as to whether they want to stay or leave the union, I'd like to hear from non-Scots. If you were Scottish would you vote to leave the union or stay in it?

I think I'd vote yes for independence - due to the following reasons:

1) Whitehall barely knows or cares the north of England exists - let alone Scotland. Independence would actually mean being governed by politicians who care about the region.

2) There are many small countries around the world which are viable - no reason that Scotland can't be one of them

3) The economic arguments for and against are massive unknowns - but then any predictions made by the same dismal science that utterly failed to predict or understand the global financial crisis needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Economists only seem good at predicting things once they have already happened.

4) It would be an opportunity to have a genuine centre-left government.

What do you reckon and why? Yes or no to independence?

If I were a Scot I would vote NO. What point is there to live in a small country when you can live very well inside a free, and influential worldwide, country like UK. It may seem a good idea now for some but in the future they will see prima facie the results of being a small country without any word at world level, I don't think is that easy as some think.

It's true I'm looking from afar and make some connections with the situation in my country but it seems to me that all these so called economic justifications (allegedly bad rule from Westminster) are actually a red herring, in reality NOTHING counts other than a narrow nationalism cunningly used by some to gain even more power (no concession other than independence is really enough for those who initiated this process).

When you already have a large autonomy (and as far as I understand more autonomy is en route) and are respected as a nation, you have a rich history inside UK, you know that oil is not enough to fulfil the lavish promises of Salmond, prices may raise, big businesses will probably move to England and so on it seems to me at least odd to vote for the ambitions of Salmond who wants now to have also an army and more money under control. It seems to me that a better future on long run is more likely inside the UK.

But that's just me of course, the people of Scotland will vote how they feel fit.

 

[Craig B]

When you already have a large autonomy (and as far as I understand more autonomy is en route) and are respected as a nation, you have a rich history inside UK, you know that oil is not enough to fulfil the lavish promises of Salmond, prices may raise, big businesses will probably move to England and so on it seems to me at least odd to vote for the ambitions of Salmond who wants now to have also an army and more money under control. It seems to me that a better future on long run is more likely inside the UK.

But that's just me of course

Its not you of course. It's a collection of scary stories churned out by the unionist propaganda machines. The Salmond thing is nonsense. Following the establishment of a sovereign parliament there would be an election, and if you don't like the SNP, don't vote for them.

 

[Dcdrac]

what has amazed me in this whole process is commentators and politicians who argue against the EU using the same arguments that pro EU people use to argue that the UK should stay in the EU.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

If I were a Scot I would vote NO. What point is there to live in a small country when you can live very well inside a free, and influential worldwide, country like UK.

What's the point of being part of something influential if its influencing against your interests?

 

[Mudcat]

Speaking as an American, I understand that the Scottish desire independence but I have to say that I'm provisionally against it the same way I'm against the secessionists here in the states.

Sorry.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Speaking as an American, I understand that the Scottish desire independence but I have to say that I'm provisionally against it the same way I'm against the secessionists here in the states.

Sorry.

Can you expand on that?