Implications of Scottish Independence

[Darat]

If the SNP was promising utopia that might be a point, but as they aren't, it isn't.

Rolfe.

Have you ever thought that nuScotland will not be as the SNP wishes? The yes campaign seems to be nothing but the SNP's manifesto.

 

[Rolfe]

That's not actually the case. There are other groups setting out alternative proposals for the future which I find in some cases more attractive than the SNP's rather "don't frighten the horses" manifesto. For example the Green Party, Common Weal, the Jimmy Reid Foundation, Radical Independence and others. There are also a couple of right-wing groups I'm less enamoured with, for example Wealthy Nation and the Scottish Democratic Alliance.

These groups get no mainstream publicity even in Scotland, so no wonder you've never heard of them in England.

Robin MacAlpine of the Common Weal project is very influential and is touring the country speaking in village halls. He speaks of a concern that the SNP will be got at by big business and will write a tax code that has loopholes and avoidance built in. He's urging everyone to get involved to make sure our new constitution and what new laws we need are what we want and not what some lobbying group wants. I wish him every success.

Of course, with the SNP being the government and rather likely to win the 2016 election after a Yes vote, the probability is that much of their vision will find its way into the new Scotland. I do hope, however, that the current calls by non-party-political players to allow others to participate and help shape our new future won't fall on deaf ears.

This is part of what I'm talking about. There is a vibrant debate going on here and it's drawing in people from all walks of life. The problem is that anyone who simply consumes TV and newspapers won't be aware of a word of it.

Rolfe.

 

[Craig B]

Not really. Do you think every region of every country should be able to wake up and declare UDI, as long as most of them want to? Do you think anybody has a right to secede by force? And assorted non-sequiturs . . . .

Bottom line--this playing field is just about as level as they ever come, and ever have come in centuries of world history. Get over yourself.

So, Scotland is a "region of a country" is it?

 

[funk de fino]

Nobody has mentioned Barack Obama siding with the Better Together campaign. Why ever not?

A lot of the Unionists do not mention he said UK should stay in the EU.

Funny that eh?

 

[funk de fino]

No but the SNP are making pseudo-economic promises they have no idea they can meet. I think they have raised expectations that all will share in iScotlands wealth, I think they probably will but as contributors rather than receiving. The rich will become more so, everyone else? not so much.

Status Quo then but without most of the rich being in London?

 

[funk de fino]

Not really. Do you think every region of every country should be able to wake up and declare UDI, as long as most of them want to? Do you think anybody has a right to secede by force? And assorted non-sequiturs . . . .

Bottom line--this playing field is just about as level as they ever come, and ever have come in centuries of world history. Get over yourself.

I have highlighted your utter fail here. You need to get over yourself if you think you can compare us to a region.

The playing field is far from level.

 

[funk de fino]

All the lies are on the "No" side, and all the straightforward logical neutral unemotional discussion is on the "Yes" side. I see.......

There must be a word for that sort of delusion. Other than racist, or one-eyed, of course.

I can give you 2 bare faced lies Darling has put out in recent times Straight off the bat.

Can you do the same with Salmond or Sturgeon?

 

[Craig B]

I have highlighted your utter fail here. You need to get over yourself if you think you can compare us to a region.

Great minds have even derided the union for reducing Scotland to the status of a "province". Seems they were right. Here's Burns

Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

And Voltaire.

Les peuples d’Écosse sont nés guerriers et spirituels: d’où vient que leur pays est devenu, sous le nom d’union, une province d’Angleterre?

 

[LondonJohn]

Great minds have even derided the union for reducing Scotland to the status of a "province". Seems they were right. Here's Burns And Voltaire.

Perhaps you fail to see/understand the difference between

a) describing Scotland as a province/region of England - which is indeed an insult and entirely incorrect; and

b) describing Scotland as a province/region of the United Kingdom - which is absolutely correct.

The UK is the only entity that can be described as a sovereign nation under the proper definition - it's fashionable to refer to the "nations and regions" of the UK, but that's technically nonsense. Scotland is no more a "nation" at the moment (under the proper definition) than is Bavaria or Catalonia.


What was it that Swift once wrote? Oh yes: "There are none so blind as those who will not see".......

 

[LondonJohn]

I can give you 2 bare faced lies Darling has put out in recent times Straight off the bat.

Can you do the same with Salmond or Sturgeon?

Well if Rolfe is channeling the official SNP line, then I submit pretty much all the ludicrous rhetoric about "Westminster stealing Scotland's riches and squandering it on bankers' bonuses" etc. as a toxic mixture of scaremongering and flat-out lies

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps you fail to see/understand the difference between

a) describing Scotland as a province/region of England - which is indeed an insult and entirely incorrect; and

b) describing Scotland as a province/region of the United Kingdom - which is absolutely correct.

The UK is the only entity that can be described as a sovereign nation under the proper definition - it's fashionable to refer to the "nations and regions" of the UK, but that's technically nonsense. Scotland is no more a "nation" at the moment (under the proper definition) than is Bavaria or Catalonia.


What was it that Swift once wrote? Oh yes: "There are none so blind as those who will not see".......

So Scotland is a "region", eh? And here's us Scots thinking our land is a "country". Why do we think that? Because the Office of National Statistics tells us so.

The top-level division of administrative geography in the UK is the four countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As well as the national government at Westminster, there are also devolved administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

The UK and its countries: facts and figures ... (etc)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...nistrative/the-countries-of-the-uk/index.html

 

[LondonJohn]

What level of support would be sufficient to confer legitimacy to either result, in your opinion? Would a 52-48 split do? 55-45? 60-40?

ETA: Assuming, say, 80% turnout.

In my opinion, the turnout may turn out to be the critical factor here, even to the exclusion of the actual split of the vote, but only if there's a "Yes" majority. If there's any sort of "No" majority, then irrespective of the turnout, this automatically implies legitimacy for "No", since "No" is the status quo.

To take extreme examples at either end: if there were a 95% turnout and a 51/49 split in favour of "Yes", then this would confer a decent legitimacy upon the "Yes" vote. But suppose there were only a 60% turnout? Would a 51/49 split in favour of "Yes" still confer sufficient legitimacy upon "Yes"? After all, it would mean that only 30% of those eligible to vote would have voted for independence.

I think that things might get extremely interesting (from a constitutional perspective) if something like the latter scenario above happened. Bear in mind that Westminster is not technically compelled to recognise/implement the outcome of the referendum - though it would be expected to do so on account of precedent and convention. To take the example to a massive extreme to illustrate the point, what if there were only a 10% turnout (yes, I know that won't be the case, but I am merely illustrating a point) with a 51/49 split for "Yes". Would that really be sufficient mandate to trigger Scottish independence? Personally, I think not.

Anyhow, in my view (objectively, based on poll readings), this is all pretty moot, since i predict a "No" majority.

 

[LondonJohn]

So Scotland is a "region", eh? And here's us Scots thinking our land is a "country". Why do we think that? Because the Office of National Statistics tells us so. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-met...nistrative/the-countries-of-the-uk/index.html

It's not a nation.

And clearly yes, you did fail to see/understand the difference between describing Scotland as a province of England and as a province of the UK. I note that you chose to gloss over that one

 

[funk de fino]

Yes. I was talking to a lovely lady from Quebec about this a week or so back.
She was fascinated by the local parallels here.

The important thing is to get out and vote.
If naught else, 50% of a 90% turnout carries a lot more weight than 50% of 30%.

Interesting unofficial thing going on the Oil & Gas People Facebook page. They are counting the responses now but from first glance it seems a massive Yes. Strange that isnt it?

 

[funk de fino]

Well if Rolfe is channeling the official SNP line, then I submit pretty much all the ludicrous rhetoric about "Westminster stealing Scotland's riches and squandering it on bankers' bonuses" etc. as a toxic mixture of scaremongering and flat-out lies

That's a no then. Anyone else?

 

[funk de fino]

Perhaps you fail to see/understand the difference between

a) describing Scotland as a province/region of England - which is indeed an insult and entirely incorrect; and

b) describing Scotland as a province/region of the United Kingdom - which is absolutely correct.

The UK is the only entity that can be described as a sovereign nation under the proper definition - it's fashionable to refer to the "nations and regions" of the UK, but that's technically nonsense. Scotland is no more a "nation" at the moment (under the proper definition) than is Bavaria or Catalonia.


What was it that Swift once wrote? Oh yes: "There are none so blind as those who will not see".......

England is just a region then?

 

[Darat]

Of course.

 

[LondonJohn]

To be quite specific, any idea that Scotland could or would credibly threaten to not pay "its share" is utterly fanciful, and likely only believed by the clueless. It is a non-threat. Something that looks cool in pro-indie commentary "Yeah we can just kick the English in the nuts if we want"

Bluster, pure and simple. (Get real )

The standard pro-independence position on macro-economics appears to be based upon either gross ignorance, willful deception, or a combination of the two.

Let's get a few things set out properly in this area. Firstly, the UK (which is the only sovereign nation involved) holds all UK sovereign debt, and if Scotland were to become independent, then rUK would continue to hold, service and refinance all of this current debt.

But...... contrary to some economically-illiterate "analysis", this doesn't mean that iScotland will have the ability to simply walk away from its share of obligations to the current debt. Just as in any common-or-garden domestic divorce, incomes, assets and liabilities are apportioned fairly. In the case of a divorce, a court does that job if the two parties are not able to do it amicably themselves. If Scotland were to vote for independence, then there would be a similar divide (on a gargantuan relative scale, obviously). If the two parties (i.e. rUK and iScotland) cannot reach consensus in any given area, then there will have to be an independent arbiter.

And regarding sovereign debt allocation post-independence, what will happen is what I have outlined before: iScotland will have to accept (either by amicable consensus or on the say-so of an independent arbiter) responsibility for a certain share of the UK national debt. This share is likely to be something between 7% and 11%. That number having been declared, iScotland will then be required to set up "mirroring" debt agreements with rUK to represent this proportion of the debt. This will be necessary because rUK will continue to be the entity holding the original debt.

What I have outlined in the above paragraph will, beyond all doubt, have to happen if Scotland declares independence. There is zero chance that iScotland will be able to walk away from its share of the debt, or even to use any threat to do so as some sort of negotiating tool. It's absurd and economically-illiterate to believe that this could be the case. Just as a man who divorces his wife cannot "threaten" to withhold a share of mortgage payments on the house. The only interesting thing for me in this whole non-debate is whether those claiming this sort of nonsense are just ignorant or whether they're intentionally trying to deceive.

 

[LondonJohn]

England is just a region then?

Uh, yes.

(I think I see the problem here.....)

 

[Craig B]

The UK is the only entity that can be described as a sovereign nation under the proper definition - it's fashionable to refer to the "nations and regions" of the UK, but that's technically nonsense. Scotland is no more a "nation" at the moment (under the proper definition) than is Bavaria or Catalonia.

I can't answer for the Catalans or Bavarians, but in the 2011 Scottish Census a question on the respondents' national identity elicited this response.

62 per cent of the total population stated their identity was ‘Scottish only’. That proportion varied from 71 per cent for 10 to 14 year olds to 57 per cent for 30 to 34 year olds.

The second most common response was ‘Scottish and British identities only’, at 18 per cent. This was highest in the 65 to 74 age group, at 25 per cent.

British identity only’ was chosen by 8 per cent of the population. The highest proportion stating this identity was the 50 to 64 age group (10 per cent).

Here are the corresponding figures for England and Wales.

English identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was the most common identity respondents chose to associate with, at 37.6 million people (67.1 per cent). English as a sole identity (not combined with other identities), was chosen by 32.4 million people (57.7 per cent).

British identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was a common identity chosen by 16.3 million people (29.1 per cent). 10.7 million people (19.1 per cent) associated themselves with a British identity only.

Welsh identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was chosen by 2.4 million people (4.3 per cent). 2 million people (3.7 per cent) associated themselves with a Welsh only identity.

So what you call fashionable nonsense regarding nations is the majority view in Great Britain, it is clear.

Even unionists in Scotland do not presume to say that Scotland is not a country, and that it's mere fashionable nonsense to call the Scots a nation. What they say is that the interests of the Scottish country and nation, and of other countries and nations, are best served by the Union with England.

We passionately believe the best choice for our future is to remain a strong and proud nation while benefiting from the security and opportunity we can take advantage of as part of a bigger United Kingdom.

http://bettertogether.net/pages/about

This I disagree with, but that is what they say. If they said what you are saying, the outcome of the referendum would not be in doubt.