If You Were Scottish How Would You Vote?

[NearlySane]

I will be voting Yes in the referendum but rather like Rolfe am refraining from voting here as my 'yes' has nothing to do with English oppression.
Unlike some who have posted I have seen some anti English sentiment posted by some who might vote yes but not as part of the main campaign, and there has been ino a quite serious campaign from Better Togther to cast such views a both more common by far than they are, and to try and portray it as a deliberate campaign from the central Yes team.


I have no interests in the emotional historic stuff, nor in any idea of a distinct Scottish identity in any sense (and specifically politically). Rather I believe that there is an imbalance in the UK system which might at one point been addressed by a consistent federal approach but years of ongoing centralization (in UK terms) combined with devolution becoming an ongoing process in Scotland makes that now impossible. The current situation where the tax raised is not linked to tax spend, and there is no actual responsibility in either the UK or Scottish govts needs to be changed. Devo Max might once have addressed that as a factor but I think that would have been unfair to the rest of UK and just a further imbalance.

A push to a smaller state in number terms seems to me a good thing in the general idea of subsidiarity and where it already has a distinct legal system and education system, one that only makes sense in an independent or fully federalized solution.

I have no idea if Scotland will be 'better' off, but it will in principle be a more rational solution.

 

[Soapy Sam]

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.

That is not what is proposed here. The referendum is about the creation of two nation states in the territory currently occupied by one.
If your essential argument is right, then you should vote "No".

 

[Rolfe]

There may be one state at present, but there is more than one nation.

Rolfe.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

That is not what is proposed here. The referendum is about the creation of two nation states in the territory currently occupied by one.
If your essential argument is right, then you should vote "No".

That is because it is the only political structure available at this time for a newly independent entity. This need not be the case in future!

By my reasoning, in the case of Catalonia (I am not familiar with the Scottish case) it makes perfect sense, and is what local leaders advocate. "Europe of the Regions" has been the mantra of the governing CIU party since the 1980s under Pujol.

The real point is that dissolution of current member states into their more locally configured regions paves the way for an EU central government and federated regions. The large member states all oppose this of course; it is the smaller regions dominated by other larger majorities that tend to favor this view.

That what I advocate is not a majority view, and is unlikely to prosper, is not the point. The point is that independence movements within the EU are healthy and not counter-points to further integration; rather, they lay the proper groundwork for it. On the contrary, it is the existing multi-regional nation-states that will guarantee the eventual collapse of the EU, or its permanent weakness, much in line with the purely mercantile position of GB, which ignores exactly how and why integration led to the euro, which in turn requires further integration to make currency union completely viable.

 

[Soapy Sam]

That is because it is the only political structure available at this time for a newly independent entity. This need not be the case in future!

By my reasoning, in the case of Catalonia (I am not familiar with the Scottish case) it makes perfect sense, and is what local leaders advocate. "Europe of the Regions" has been the mantra of the governing CIU party since the 1980s under Pujol.

The real point is that dissolution of current member states into their more locally configured regions paves the way for an EU central government and federated regions. The large member states all oppose this of course; it is the smaller regions dominated by other larger majorities that tend to favor this view.

That what I advocate is not a majority view, and is unlikely to prosper, is not the point. The point is that independence movements within the EU are healthy and not counter-points to further integration; rather, they lay the proper groundwork for it. On the contrary, it is the existing multi-regional nation-states that will guarantee the eventual collapse of the EU, or its permanent weakness, much in line with the purely mercantile position of GB, which ignores exactly how and why integration led to the euro, which in turn requires further integration to make currency union completely viable.

I never held a majority view on anything much.
I agree that the existing nation states are an impediment to further European integration, with the UK (whose politicians persist in a 1930s view of Britain's "world role") arguably the worst offender.
You may be correct in this case, as the Conservative Party is promising a national referendum on EU membership which, in the case of a Scottish "Yes" majority for independence, could result in rUK pulling out of the EU, just as nScotland is negotiating (re-)entry.
I'm curious to know what makes you feel you are correct generally.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I never held a majority view on anything much.
I agree that the existing nation states are an impediment to further European integration, with the UK (whose politicians persist in a 1930s view of Britain's "world role") arguably the worst offender.
You may be correct in this case, as the Conservative Party is promising a national referendum on EU membership which, in the case of a Scottish "Yes" majority for independence, could result in rUK pulling out of the EU, just as nScotland is negotiating (re-)entry.
I'm curious to know what makes you feel you are correct generally.

Generally? Generally I have a hard time with everything!

As for the dynamics of the euro itself: The Common Market (tariff-free trade) could only hold if nation-states did not compete with each other by devaluing their currencies to gain a competitive edge. This led to the need for the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). Instabilities and speculation on financial markets eventually made the system inherently untenable, making either the euro or abandonment of the CM necessary.

However, the timing and extent of the euro introduction, imo, was mistaken. The euro was Mitterand's tit-for-tat for agreeing to the unification of East and West Germany, in order to avoid having the Deutschmark and the German economy dominate Europe. The rush, too, was to integrate faster in the face of the collapse of the Soviet Union, in order to tie former member states to the EU.

It would have been better to set up a two track system, with the EU core states in rough parity alone (Germany, Austria, Benelux, France, Denmark) adopting a single currency, and continued use of the ERM for southern Europe until greater parity in those economies would be reached. History has born out this view, which unfortunately lost out to the euphoria back in the day. Further, the way things have turned out, Germany does indeed dominate, and to the detriment of all, given its penchant to define political economics in moral terms.

As for Catalonia, it is by far the most industrialized area of Spain, with a high concentration of advanced research, top universities, and leading innovations. The Catalan culture, by nature and necessity, has traditionally looked north for guidance, while making many attempts at modernizing Spanish policy. The Castillians, otoh, culturally bear many resemblances in their political philosophy to Franco's Spain, and have yet to perceive that authority and tradition are horrible arbiters of truth. Catalonia was defeated in 1714 by the invading absolutist monarchy of the time (Borbon dynasty), and has been trying to recover ever since.

For a single potent example of rampant incoherent centralism: Madrid is pushing for a high-speed rail link through the center of the Pyrenees to link Madrid with Europe. This makes no economic sense, and ignores the Mediterranean and Basque corridors, which more effectively and efficiently can link major ports, manufacturers and export/import firms with the north. No one, and I mean no one in Europe supports Madrid in this, but they bring it up twice a year to the consternation, embarrassment and wonder of all.

An independent Catalonia would end a lot of the boondoggle idiotic spending that goes on under Spanish administration, and instead provide a vibrant region far, far more capable of contributing to the growth and integration of Europe. Not to mention an additional voice of reason.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I'd probably vote yes as long as Britain got to keep it's military bases only because of the infrastructure costs and the strategic locations that were picked. Those places hold importance in deployments. They can lease the location from Scotland like the US does in other places around the world (including Scotland at one point in the Holy Loch). If Scotland doesn't want to do that then I'd probably vote no because when push comes to shove you just know that Britain is going to be Scotland's military force.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, but the preveiling view in Scotland is that if these things aren't out of there in a fairly short time-scale, we're putting them on eBay.

The people who are going to be voting on this are the people of Scotland, not the people of the USA. The question in the OP isn't, how would you vote, as you are now, if you had a vote, it's how would you vote if you were actually Scottish. And being the storage dump for US (or poodle-UK) weapons of mass destruction isn't a popular standpoint.

A large number of people who are active in the Yes campaign are there because it's the best hope of getting rid of Trident. Nuclear weapons stored within 30 miles of our largest city? It's not a popular position. I can just see them agreeing to store the things within 30 miles of London - not. We're the expendable ones who can be handed the dirty end of the stick as usual.

Trident is a monumental waste of money and manpower. It will never, can never be fired. It makes white elephants look like a good economic proposition. And the notion that Scotland can be used as a repository for such an obscenity is a big driver in the independence campaign. If our government post-independence were to agree to a deal that saw it stay in Scotland for a month longer than absolutely necessary, no matter how popular that government was in other respects, there would be an angry mob with pitchforks marching on Edinburgh. And I'd be in it.

I did hear a suggestion the other day that Scotland should actually lay claim to the things because they are located in Scotland, though, rather than insisting they be removed soonest. Then decommissioning them. It's a nice idea, but it would never be agreed to unfortunately.

Rolfe.

ETA: There's another wee related point. There is a distinctly handy amount of oil off the south-west coast of Scotland. The area was explored but the potential oil boom for our west coast was scuppered by Westminster because the oil exploitation would have interfered with the submarines. We'll be having that, thank-you-very-much.

 

[Liam]

The question in the OP isn't, how would you vote, as you are now, if you had a vote, it's how would you vote if you were actually Scottish.

Which I find impossible to answer. I've never lived in Scotland so don't know what my experience and views on the Union would be.

Like others, I'm sort of hoping it's a Yes vote, just to see how things would pan out.

 

[Rolfe]

That's why it's such a stupid poll. I want to post a serious one, but someone will probably complain if I do it while this abortion of a thread is still active. I should stop bumping it.

Rolfe.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Sorry, but the preveiling view in Scotland is that if these things aren't out of there in a fairly short time-scale, we're putting them on eBay.

The people who are going to be voting on this are the people of Scotland, not the people of the USA. The question in the OP isn't, how would you vote, as you are now, if you had a vote, it's how would you vote if you were actually Scottish. And being the storage dump for US (or poodle-UK) weapons of mass destruction isn't a popular standpoint.

A large number of people who are active in the Yes campaign are there because it's the best hope of getting rid of Trident. Nuclear weapons stored within 30 miles of our largest city? It's not a popular position. I can just see them agreeing to store the things within 30 miles of London - not. We're the expendable ones who can be handed the dirty end of the stick as usual.

Trident is a monumental waste of money and manpower. It will never, can never be fired. It makes white elephants look like a good economic proposition. And the notion that Scotland can be used as a repository for such an obscenity is a big driver in the independence campaign. If our government post-independence were to agree to a deal that saw it stay in Scotland for a month longer than absolutely necessary, no matter how popular that government was in other respects, there would be an angry mob with pitchforks marching on Edinburgh. And I'd be in it.

I did hear a suggestion the other day that Scotland should actually lay claim to the things because they are located in Scotland, though, rather than insisting they be removed soonest. Then decommissioning them. It's a nice idea, but it would never be agreed to unfortunately.

Rolfe.

Ok. It's been a couple of decades since I've been in Scotland, but I have probably spent a grand total of a year a month or two at a time there so it's not like I'm an American totally unfamiliar with the people or places. 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 laid out the parameters on how I would vote in a yes or no vote. Based upon what you said above I would vote no. I clearly have no vote because I have no intention of living there and never claimed that I did. It's no different than asking you if you would have voted for Obama if you could and then you giving reasons why or why not you would or wouldn't.

Next:

Those nuclear weapons are less dangerous than a mousetrap that hasn't been set while they are "30 miles" from Glasgow. As to their use the entire damn point is to make it so unacceptable to hurt you that it's not worth it for them. And guess what, the "Them" from the bad old days still have them, are building and refitting more of them and other nations are building even more of "Them". Tensions have backed off but the proverbial gun is still pointed at all of our heads. It's the proverbial Mexican standoff and that only works as long as you don't drop your barrel. It's not a perfect system but it's better than all of the other alternatives.

Next:

The power plants are so safe that it's virtually impossible for anything close to a meltdown to ever happen. If they lose water for some reason, and none ever has in decades of operation starting with the Nautilus, they actually will start to cool off because the water isn't a coolant, it's a moderator. Neutrons hit the water, slow down as they hit the water molecules, and that's where the heat comes from. Friction from neutrons hitting the water. It's an inherent design feature of that type of reactor. It comes at a lesser amount of shaft horsepower which was the trade off for inherent safety. It's not Chernobyl, It's not Fufashima, it's not Three Mile Island. It's completely different in how it works.

ETA: There's another wee related point. There is a distinctly handy amount of oil off the south-west coast of Scotland. The area was explored but the potential oil boom for our west coast was scuppered by Westminster because the oil exploitation would have interfered with the submarines. We'll be having that, thank-you-very-much.

Are you aware that submarines have these things call navigation instruments and sonar and they can avoid those big, noisy, fixed in position oil rigs with ease? Are you aware that those oilfields are in shallow waters, shallow enough to be able to rescue people if, during training, something goes horribly wrong? I've been in those waters. We used to go into the North sea and Irish Sea all of the time to train, even with those oil rigs sitting around all over the place. They are noisy as hell and easy to avoid. We only stopped because we were hooking onto fishing nets and causing problems for the fishermen. We then moved our training over to the waters that you're talking about because there were less fishing boats.

Even "If" you start building oil rigs they will probably still train there because waters shallow enough to still be able to rescue people yet deep enough to safely operate and not hook fishing boats are not exactly easy to come by. It may make it harder (and it probably will impact trying to train as though you are in open waters which places people in danger when they actually have to do the job and get out alive) but doing it can be done. The objections were probably along those lines.

Also, IIRC the Perisher course was last being done there and there's not only submarines but also destroyers chasing them down, that's just as much, if not more of a danger if the visibility is bad. Still it can be done but it greatly increases the odds of some small supply boat getting run down and people getting killed, along with some scratched paint on the destroyers. Those are some not insignificant reasons to not want oil rigs there.

You have no idea what you're talking about other than spouting talking points.

Sam.I.Am

 

[Rolfe]

Well, very few people are inclined to vote to remain in a position to be forced to host the US's weapons of mass destruction, and that's the way it is. If you like them so much, and you're so happy about safety, then you're welcome to them.

Rolfe.

 

[Magic Pancake]

While I am Canadian, I was about to be in Glasgow for a masters program for the time of the referendum (now I'm going to London). I wasn't sure how I would vote, part of me wanted to vote no due to the history of the separatists in Quebec, but the SNP seems a damn sight less bigoted than the PQ. I probably would have not voted to leave the decision to people who had studied the issue.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Well, very few people are inclined to vote to remain in a position to be forced to host the US's weapons of mass destruction, and that's the way it is. If you like them so much, and you're so happy about safety, then you're welcome to them.

Rolfe.

Well first of all the Trident submarines are wholly owned by the UK as are the warheads that sit on top of them. Built in UK yards, refitted on UK soil. There is some coordination just to make sure that we don't nuke each others troops or ships should the worst happen but we don't control Britain's weapons. They are not "US weapons of mass destruction" anymore than Ford owns every Ford branded car in Scotland.

The design is mostly US based ( there are some substantial differences between the US Trident and the British ones) because it's a good system for what it does and it's always easier and cheaper to buy a complete design than start from scratch, it wasn't forced upon the UK anymore than the guy down your street who bought a Ford was forced to buy it. He bought it because it got him from point A to point B. The missile bodies themselves are leased from the US because the UK has no way to do long term maintenance on them because the facilities to do that aren't cost effective given how few missiles they actually have, so I guess you got me there. You should be happy that costs were kept down because you could have built your own at three times the cost.

I don't like them but I recognize that necessary evils exist for the greater good. If I was emperor of the planet they would be gone, but that's not ever going to happen. So we worked with them and kept other people safe while we did. Glasgow isn't a smoking hole so I guess we did something right in the design and handling of them.

As to safety are you implying that the safety of your own citizens at sea is not important? This isn't a binary situation. There are several layers to consider, not just drill baby drill and damn everyone else that might get in the way. It's very much many shades of grey and not black and white.

I'm not trying to make a fight but I do get irritated when people don't know the history and why some things are done that are actually intended to prevent bad things from happening in the first place are a bone of contention for others.

As I said, I've been in your country several times. I have no idea if you've been in mine. Yours is fairly diverse but not as diverse as mine which is to be expected considering its size. Glasgow is more industrial. Edinburgh is more historical. The food is either very good or enough to make me sick (although to be honest the sick part was a Fish and Chips Haggis, but the best was a restaurant Haggis so it was more the preparation than the Haggis itself but if you are ever in Dunoon go to Anselmo's for their fish and chips provided it's still there. The best fish and chips I've ever had (not where I got the bad Haggis), The Argyle Hotel was where I had that delicious Haggis). The people mostly were pleasant enough but there were a couple of times where the entire pub shut up when "The Americans" walked in (Greenock and Gurrick especially while on our way to Glasgow) so your people are not perfect either. My overall experience was positive. I liked being in Scotland, weather not withstanding.

 

[Giz]

Sorry, but the preveiling view in Scotland is that if these things aren't out of there in a fairly short time-scale, we're putting them on eBay.

The people who are going to be voting on this are the people of Scotland, not the people of the USA. The question in the OP isn't, how would you vote, as you are now, if you had a vote, it's how would you vote if you were actually Scottish. And being the storage dump for US (or poodle-UK) weapons of mass destruction isn't a popular standpoint.

Do you think that the USA having nukes makes the world safer (by deterring nuke armed tyrants) or not?

I kinda see three options:

1- It makes the world safer, and we'll help by providing a base. (sensible and responsible)
2- It makes the safer but I sure dont want to be a target, so no bases here (sensible but cowardly)
3- It doesn't make the world safer (extremely naive)

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Do you think that the USA having nukes makes the world safer (by deterring nuke armed tyrants) or not?

I kinda see three options:

1- It makes the world safer, and we'll help by providing a base. (sensible and responsible)
2- It makes the safer but I sure dont want to be a target, so no bases here (sensible but cowardly)
3- It doesn't make the world safer (extremely naive)

I would add to number 2: ...and the Clyde would be a target anyway because of shipping and the shipyards on it's shores. Strategically speaking starving your enemy and preventing them from fixing things is a good move. A naval base would just be a bonus even though odds are that all of the ships that could move were long gone when the "Lead up to War" first started.

I talked to a longtime friend who was on a boat in Norfolk VA on 9/11 (SSN) and they were firing it up long before the orders came to surge out. Like at 9:05 am they were starting the process. Submariners aren't dumb, they plan ahead and they are well trained. I'm not disparaging other types of ships, they get the same credit and several Destroyers were doing the same on the same piers (Submarines and Destroyers often share the same facilities and actually the crews get along pretty well). My point is that a surge is a planned ahead sort of evolution. It's going to be chaotic compared to the usual orderly evolution of leaving port, but it's going to be an ordered chaos because it's already been discussed and basic priorities set.

We had a plan to surge out of the Loch and we were just a few miles down the river from Faslane. Six hours and we were all gone and underwater (careful navigation was sort of out of the window if that happened and a bump and grind with small craft was not going to be a concern given the situation), six more hours until were were fully ready to launch, less if it was some sort of crazy situation and we started to arm the missiles (meaning connecting the umbilicals more than anything else) while still in the Clyde. We never practiced that on the surface though. 4SQ to 2SQ was always done underwater.

Cold iron to hot iron on the run. Powered on the diesel, EPM, maybe the SPM and using tugs and other small craft with the anchor really ready to be dropped if we were about to collide or run aground (that was my job). Even with half a crew on board. There were no plans to return to reload or otherwise revisit the tender in the Loch. They had their own surge plan. Short of a complete surprise attack everything of importance that could move would have been gone from the Holy Loch and at sea in 12 hours as far as the US went. I seriously doubt that Faslane would be much different. I have no reason to think that those guys were not just as serious and just as prepared as we were.

If it were that TV show *MASH* it would be called a "Bug out".

 

[Information Analyst]

I talked to a longtime friend who was on a boat in Norfolk VA on 9/11 (SSN) and they were firing it up long before the orders came to surge out.

A relative of mine, a civilian consultant, was on board one of the (at the time still operational) British carriers in port on 7/7. He said he genuinely thought WW3 had started....

 

[Delvo]

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...

Other than that: Rolfe, I believe I detect projection--not that nobody else in Scotland thinks as you do, but that it probably isn't the big single dominating motivator above other considerations all over Scotland as you depict. It's pretty common for people to expect others around them to think the same way, especially on the subjects we're particularly extreme or vehement about ourselves.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, it's not quite like that. I'm picking up the anti-Trident attitudes from the people around me. I agree with them, but I'm neither a leader nor an opinion-former in that department. To me, getting rid of Trident is just another desirable side-effect of independence, but for many people I meet in the independence movement it's their main and overriding driving force. The number of people declaring that, for them, it's "all about Trident", has surprised me.

Case in point. Some people may remember "that hat", that I was wearing in the interview I did for Al Jazeera TV in December 2013. It more recently acquired a jaunty Yes pin to enhance its coolness factor. I had bought it from a lady in Carlops at the Christmas market in 2012. I hadn't put two and two together to realise that she was the person who lived in the cottage on the Kitleyknowe road with the same name as the hat brand.

Then a conversation among Yes activists about visible poster sites brought up that cottage, which overlooks the main road, as a possible site, and I found the hat lady among a sheaf of communications I was given to deliver to identified SNP supporters at the time of the Euro elections. Well, I thought, at least the hat's maker won't be objecting to the extra decoration on the hat!

Finally I went to her house with an invitation to the Yes public meeting on 23rd June. I reminded her about my hat purchase and she said she'd seen me wearing it. She accepted the invitation to the meeting, then said, "Of course for me it's all about Trident. This is the only way we can possibly get rid of that obscenity."

Right out of the blue. And she's not the only one by a long way. The independence movement is partly fuelled by ladies of a certain age who cut their teeth in a camp at the Holy Loch.

Rolfe.

 

[Information Analyst]

Obviously the money spent on Trident could be spent better elsewhere, even if it remains within the MoD budget, but it's highly unlikely that Scottish independence will "get rid" of it except in the sense of "not in Scotland." This is displacement, not disarmament.