Scottish referendum? Bring it on!

[andyandy]

Scottish Labour Party leader Wendy Alexander has called on the Scottish Government to "bring on" a referendum on independence.

Signalling a shift from previous comments, Ms Alexander said the SNP should have the "courage of its convictions".

First Minister Alex Salmond said those opposed to the independence referendum were beginning to "crack".

He said the government's referendum bill would be brought forward in 2010.

Next steps

Ms Alexander's comments followed reports in the Sunday Mail newspaper reports that she and Gordon Brown were "considering" supporting a

Snip

As recently as March, Ms Alexander stated her opposition to an independence referendum when she was questioned in a BBC Scotland news website webcast.

On BBC Scotland's Politics Show on Sunday, Ms Alexander seemed to have softened her stance, saying she had not ruled out a referendum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7383035.stm



I'm surprised that this has not generated more newspaper coverage (at least south of the border) as it represents a pretty fundamental shift in Labour's position, and seems to make the likelihood of a referendum much much higher. Indeed, if the SNP and Labour both back a referendum then it looks like there will be one, and the only question is going to be when it will take place.

And whilst at the moment Labour might be confident that the majority would not vote for independence, just to throw the question open to referendum is a monumental gamble. If a yes vote was achieved, it would be the messiest divorce proceedings in history - how the heck would the North Sea oil be divvied up?

I can only think that Labour have changed their tack in order to wrongfoot the SNP and try to press for an early referendum which they think they can win, thus undercutting one of the main tenets of SNP policy.

Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, announced her backing for a "Yes or No" vote on independence.

The U-turn was a further blow to the authority of the embattled Prime Minister who was not informed of Ms Alexander's announcement.

It also caused ruptures in Labour north and south of the Border with Westminster sources aghast at her move.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1929835/Wendy-Alexander-didn't-tell-Gordon-Brown-of-plan-over-Scots-referendum.html

Interestingly, it mentioned on the radio (and above) that Gordon Brown might not have known about Wendy Alexander's change of stance before she made her statement, which if true would be pretty amazing. If so I doubt she will be too popular in Westminster. :)

[andyandy]

More...

Gordon Brown is confident the Scottish people would reject independence from the United Kingdom if the question were put to them in a referendum.

The prime minister's spokesman said at a press briefing today that Brown was "confident it [a referendum] could be won" whenever a vote was held on whether Scotland should split from the union.

The prime minister is under growing pressure to support a referendum on Scottish independence after an unexpected volte-face by the Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander in which she supported nationalists' demands for a vote on Scotland's independence.

The spokesman would not be drawn on whether the prime minister had been given prior notice of Alexander's U-turn, but said the issue was a matter of debate in the Scottish parliament.

Alexander said there had been a "tactical discussion" with Labour leaders in London on the referendum issue but avoided questions on whether she had Gordon Brown's backing on the tactic.

But some Scottish Labour colleagues do not share their leader's bravado. Former first minister Henry McLeish warned that Alexander's calls for an early referendum could be counter-productive.

"If the name of the game is to try and shoot the fox by having an early referendum, the danger is it could backfire and we have a result which does not suit the unionist parties but will suit the SNP - because it will be the first recorded, proper vote on independence, which will only make their enthusiasm that much greater. That is the danger which all of us should be aware of." http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/06/scotland.labour

the other problem with putting a referendum on the table, is that it remains on the table as a legitimate call. Even if they were to achieve a no vote, five years later, or 10 years later they could find themselves called to follow the precedent by holding another vote. It seems that Labour have just made a rather uncomfortable rod for their back......

[Cleon]

Minor note from this side of the pond; the last time a political figure said "Bring it On," things didn't work out so well.

[andyandy]

Minor note from this side of the pond; the last time a political figure said "Bring it On," things didn't work out so well.

I presume that was Bush? It sounds like the sort of thing he would say :)

has there ever been much traction for any American states wanting independence? Obviously historically speaking there have been splits, but the states nowadays seem happy with the level of local autonomy they are afforded....

Although, does that extend to Alaska and Hawaii? They would both seem candidates for independence movements....... removed as they are from the rest of the mainland, and both with their own distinct cultural heritage.

[quixotecoyote]

I presume that was Bush? It sounds like the sort of thing he would say :)

has there ever been much traction for any American states wanting independence? Obviously historically speaking there have been splits, but the states nowadays seem happy with the level of local autonomy they are afforded....

Although, does that extend to Alaska and Hawaii? They would both seem candidates for independence movements....... removed as they are from the rest of the mainland, and both with their own distinct cultural heritage.

Hokuelle would be the better person to ask, but I think Hawaii's cultural heritage has been diluted and assimilated enough since the 19th century that, while it certainty exists, it is not strong enough to build a revolution on.

The Florida Keys did have a little rebellion back in 1982 where they set up the Conch Republic, but they weren't too serious about it and it didn't last long.

eta:As far as I can tell it still has some vestiges of the Conch Republic. They still fly the flag and issue passports, but I think the passports are an inside joke at this point.

[Cleon]

I presume that was Bush? It sounds like the sort of thing he would say :)

Yeah, right after the invasion of Iraq, some reporter asked him about potential insurgents, and that was his response.


has there ever been much traction for any American states wanting independence? Obviously historically speaking there have been splits, but the states nowadays seem happy with the level of local autonomy they are afforded....

Although, does that extend to Alaska and Hawaii? They would both seem candidates for independence movements....... removed as they are from the rest of the mainland, and both with their own distinct cultural heritage.


Well, aside from a minor incident in the 1860s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war), the only secessionist movement of any substance has been the Alaska Independence Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Independence_Party), who managed to get a governor elected about 20 years ago.

There's also a not-inconsequential desire for nationhood among native Hawaiians, but it's largely disorganized. However, one group has been making waves recently (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=4820a699d9c91fb7&ei=leAgSP_aNI6uygSj4-GsCQ&url=http%3A//kgmb9.com/main/content/view/6216/40/&cid=1155223717&usg=AFrqEzfLrE3FtxC1kcSXzCMYM8wWSQcn7Q).

Beyond that, there are wingnuts, like the Republic of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas_%28group%29) and the League of the South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_south) (who was protesting John McCain earlier this year).

[andyandy]

It doesn't look as though the USA will be facing down any serious independence movements any time soon......

Though I wonder whether people would be happier splitting the country into the Republican centre and Democratic coasts..... there seems such polarity in political ideology it might offer one solution :)

[Uzzy]

I think it's about time. Let's have a serious, rational debate about the issues around Scottish Independence. Sure, it might be messy, but surely it's better to bring the issue out into the open and deal with it now, rather then having it linger on for years?

[shemp]

Whatever, so long as the Scotch keeps flowing.

[richardm]

Even if they were to achieve a no vote, five years later, or 10 years later they could find themselves called to follow the precedent by holding another vote.

Well, I suppose she believes that they could point to the "No" vote 5 or 10 years ago and ask what's changed to make it worth having another vote.

I can't quite see where she's going with the idea though. I assume she believes that the SNP will need to work on the population for another couple of years to get the result they want, and wants to pre-empt it and present them as being dithering and uncertain, much as Gordon Brown has been presented for vacillating over a general election.

Seems like a fairly high-risk strategy to me, because with the current political climate I wouldn't be that certain that the SNP wouldn't simply say "OK." And then possibly elaborate with "We'll have one this summer and we'll have another one in 2010 like wot we promised". Although mind you I suspect that even if a decision to hold a referendum was held today it would take until 2010 for all the arguments about exactly how to phrase the question to get ironed out.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm really impressed by the Scottish politicians of the current day.

Scotland is gradually turning into a model of democracy, and despite my hatred of being called 'English' rather than 'British', I'll support their independence all the way.

[Lothian]

According to the radio at the weekend the wording of the question is the key.

When it is “Should Scotland have independence from the thieving English parliament and stop giving up its valuable resources to subsidise the Sassenach bastards” the polls are quite positive.

When the question is “Should Scotland leave the union which has brought sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, public health and peace” the polls are less enthusiastic.

[albion]

Half-listening to the PMQ's earlier Cameron asked a question about this to which Brown claimed that "isn't what she said" or something along those lines. The transcripts aren't available yet but it seemed to me he was trying to distance himself from her statement.

I have also been very impressed by the SNP. If we had anyone as progressive down here I'd be well pleased.

[Darat]

Distance himself! - I suspect if he could deport her to Australia he wouldn't consider that enough distance between them. The woman's a disgrace, never mind seemingly having the political astuteness of Noddy!


I must admit that although in principle I'm all for self-determination (and would be happy if a referendum of people living in Scotland wanted to form a new country), I would like it to be achieved via democratic means; which does not mean that only ten percent of the population of the country are asked to vote on whether to break-up the UK!

[albion]

Distance himself! - I suspect if he could deport her to Australia he wouldn't consider that enough distance between them. The woman's a disgrace, never mind seemingly having the political astuteness of Noddy!


I must admit that although in principle I'm all for self-determination (and would be happy if a referendum of people living in Scotland wanted to form a new country), I would like it to be achieved via democratic means; which does not mean that only ten percent of the population of the country are asked to vote on whether to break-up the UK!

To be fair, he ain't that popular himself ;)

Both Gordon and Wendy should perhaps look into the option of a man/woman-on-the-street name change. It has worked so well for David "Dave" Cameron and Anthony "Tony" Blair. Gordy? Wend? :D

I really haven't given independence enough thought to feel strongly either way. I guess I'd be generally favourable if as you say it was a democratic decision.

[Undesired Walrus]

I have also been very impressed by the SNP. If we had anyone as progressive down here I'd be well pleased.

Indeed. Their recent MP that gave that speech calling for the right-to-die when she got sick enough was very brave.

[andyandy]

If there was a referendum which voted for independence, wouldn't that mean that all Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster would have to leave? So couldn't that lead to a situation where Gordon Brown is forced to step down as Prime Minister given that he would no longer be eligible to sit in the House of Commons?

Suddenly this independence idea doesn't seem too bad :)

[andyandy]

Distance himself! - I suspect if he could deport her to Australia he wouldn't consider that enough distance between them. The woman's a disgrace, never mind seemingly having the political astuteness of Noddy!


I must admit that although in principle I'm all for self-determination (and would be happy if a referendum of people living in Scotland wanted to form a new country), I would like it to be achieved via democratic means; which does not mean that only ten percent of the population of the country are asked to vote on whether to break-up the UK!

We could of course therefore end up with a situation where Scottish people want to leave the union and the rest of the UK doesn't want them to go... It could get a bit like one of those slightly pathetic relationships where one partner wants to leave, and the other promises "to change", to bring more flowers, to help with the washing up... etc etc..... I suppose we could promise to let the Scots win at football sometimes, maybe that would be enough :)

[Rolfe]

The reason I've not been here for a few days is that I've been following this issue like a bloodhound in my spare time. As you guys will know, I've been an SNP member for many years, and have been a Branch Secretary in the past. To see my own country an independent state on a par with Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and others is my dearest wish.

Well, I suppose she believes that they could point to the "No" vote 5 or 10 years ago and ask what's changed to make it worth having another vote.

I can't quite see where she's going with the idea though. I assume she believes that the SNP will need to work on the population for another couple of years to get the result they want, and wants to pre-empt it and present them as being dithering and uncertain, much as Gordon Brown has been presented for vacillating over a general election.

Seems like a fairly high-risk strategy to me, because with the current political climate I wouldn't be that certain that the SNP wouldn't simply say "OK." And then possibly elaborate with "We'll have one this summer and we'll have another one in 2010 like wot we promised". Although mind you I suspect that even if a decision to hold a referendum was held today it would take until 2010 for all the arguments about exactly how to phrase the question to get ironed out.


Richard, what on earth "no" vote are you on about? There has never been a referendum on Scottish independence!

You may be thinking of the debacle in 1979 when there was a referendum on a very dilute form of devolution. The "yes" vote won. Why did we not get devolution then? Because for the first and only time in this country's history it was decreed, on an amendment tabled by a Labour member sitting for an English constituency, that the vote would not pass unless 40% of the entire electoral roll voted yes. The 53% of the vote (ish, this is from memory) didn't trigger that threshhold. Callaghan refused to put the devolution bill forward, and this was the reason for the SNP members refusing to support him in the subsequent vote of confidence, which he lost.

It's actually very hard to interpret that vote, as there were a number of confounding factors. First, it's possible that some "no" voters didn't bother to turn out, because abstention and a no vote were in effect the same thing. (Being dead gave you an automatic no vote, as did being on the electoral register in two constituencies, as were some students.) Second, a part of the SNP was campaigning for a "no" vote because of the very weak powers on offer in the draft bill. (Madness, in my opinion, but that's fundies for you.) Third, the Conservative party also campaigned for a "no" vote, but not as you'd expect because they were opposed to devolution at the time, but because they also agreed that the proposed powers were insufficient, and the party (led at the time by Margaret Thatcher) promised a new referendum on a much stronger set of powers once they were in power.

This last in my opinion was the biggest betrayal of all, as the Conservatives were duly elected after Callaghan lost the vote of confidence, and promptly buried the whole idea for the next 18 years.

No, I tell a lie. The biggest betrayal of all was the lying done by the Labour government to the Scottish people, playing down the viability of Scotland as an independent state. We were told that we'd be cast out into the outer darkness, poverty-stricken and friendless. One MP compared an independent Scotland to Bangladesh (which was at the time suffering from a dreadful famine). Documents (Google "McCrone report") have since emerged showing that official advice was that in fact Scotland would have "an embarrassingly large budgetary surplus". The best the current Labour party could manage when that came out under the 30-year rule was to declare that it should have been obvious to Scots that that was the case, no matter what lies they were told!

So, that was in 1979. Almost 30 years ago, not "5 or 10". And not about independence at all, but about a slightly inflated town council for Scotland. And in fact the vote was a "yes". Apart from that, Richard, you were about right!

The 1979 debacle was resoundingly laid to rest on 11th September 1997 when another devolution referendum got the landslide to end all landslides. The Labour party thought it was "killing nationalism stone dead" by offering limited self-government. Instead it provided a platform for the case for genuine independence to be advanced, and we're now seeing the consequences. They repeatedly referred to the devolution settlement of 1997 as "the settled will of the Scottish people", but how could it be when the independence question was never asked? In fact it might have made better sense (from the unionist point of view) to ask it then, in a three-way choice, when it would certainly not have achieved as much support as the half-way compromise of devolution, but even then Labour were too scared to put the question.

Labour campaigned last year on a platform of no increase to the powers of the Scottish parliament, and absolutely no way would they endorse a referendum on independence.

They lost. Narrowly, but they lost.

They have behaved since then like the proverbial chicken with its head cut off, in between trying to limit the damage caused by revelations of illegal acceptance of illegal donations. This is where it's got them.

Rolfe.

[richardm]

It appears (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7387669.stm) that even if she really wanted to, she'd be unable to push through the legislation for a referendum, since:

the lawmaking process cannot be started if the Holyrood government of the day plans its own legislation on the same proposal within the parliament's four year term.

[andyandy]

Richard, what on earth "no" vote are you on about? There has never been a referendum on Scottish independence!
Rolfe.

I think he's referring to the hypothetical future vote in my post :)

An interesting article in the Guardian, written by an ex-SNP adviser,

The political story due to become the biggest in the UK, and the one that should really strike fear into Gordon Brown and the entire British Labour movement, is nothing to do with Boris or Ken or Dave, but Wendy.

The Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, in a genuinely jaw-dropping moment, has signalled support for a referendum on Scottish independence. And she wants it now. The calculation is that the SNP would lose a popular vote on the constitution, putting to bed any debate over independence for a generation and skewering Alex Salmond into the bargain. It's also precisely the opposite of what Alexander has been arguing ever since she assumed the leadership.

And what makes this announcement truly surprising is not just the scale of the U-turn but that it was clearly done without the say-so, and to the apparent irritation, of the prime minister. Nothing is supposed to happen in Scottish Labour politics without the agreement of Gordon Brown. The fact that Alexander, often derided as the Tony Blair figure to the prime minister's George Bush, has decided to ignore Brown, says more about his dwindling authority than any Westminster backbench rebellion.

But regardless of what it says about the state of the Labour party, one thing is now certain - there will be a referendum on whether the British political state should cease to exist, probably in 2010. That, of course, is also the probable date for the next general election.

That coincidence of dates underlines just what a gamble Labour in Scotland is taking. After the wreckage of last week's local council elections, it seems clear that the Conservatives will be in with a genuine shout of taking power in two years' time. So far the Scottish electorate has proved impervious to David Cameron's charms; the Tories in Scotland are still spoken about with real distaste by a significant majority of the electorate. It is hard to believe the brand will ever be truly decontaminated north of the border. The referendum therefore offers the Scots a neat way of escaping a Tory government - leave the union.

Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Des Browne and other Labour MPs could then be in a curious position; elected to a British House of Commons, they would have to leave because their country is no longer represented at Westminster. And if Labour is deprived of its Scottish contingent it seems unlikely that the party will form a majority in the rest of the UK for years to come.

But of course the Alexander argument is that none of this will happen. She and the Labour leadership in Scotland appear to believe they have called the SNP's bluff - that the nationalists are actually running scared of a vote they know they will lose. As such, this is the greatest miscalculation in modern British political history.

The SNP believes that a referendum in 2010 offers perhaps the best possible prospect for a "yes" vote. At present, opinion polls are fluid. What seems clear from the polls is that the preferred current option for most Scots is a parliament with greater powers - for example over tax and benefits - but within the UK. But crucially, when the option of greater powers is removed, the polls show virtually an even split for and against independence. Oddly, Alexander wants the referendum to be on the straight yes/no question, which dramatically increases independence support.

In two years, the situation should be more favourable for the nationalists. Not only will there be the feared prospect of a Tory government, but Salmond will have had two more years of (so far) popular SNP government, and the "no" campaign will be led by a divisive and weak Labour party. And how much stomach will the Conservatives really have for a "Save the union" campaign when they spend much of their time complaining about subsidy junkies and Scots MPs abusing the West Lothian question?http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/07/scotland.scotland

[Rolfe]

I think he's referring to the hypothetical future vote in my post :)


OK, I see what you mean. Sorry for the derail.

Thanks for the great link, by the way.

Rolfe.

[WildCat]

Time for the Atholl Highlanders to put down their bagpipes and pick up some arms!

:runaway:

[andyandy]

OK, I see what you mean. Sorry for the derail.

Rolfe.

No it was interesting to get some historical perspective on the independence movement in Scotland :)

[FreeRomanian]

Scotland has the moral and the historical right to be independent!

Kosovo, where the albanians killed and forced the serbs to move away from there, was recognised independent.

Scotland is the land of scots,and have always fought againgst the english to keep their independence.But they were conquered :(

Now they have the chance to once again win their FREEDOM(like Whilliam Wallace cried while beeing savagely tortured and before he was killed by the English...)

Watch Braveheart movie , and learn about William Wallace!

You will understand!

Scotland would be fair to be independent, but it isn't...

Kosovo isn't right to be independent, but it is...


To free Scotland!

in Romanian:

SCOTIA libera!

[Rolfe]

The Herald has seen its comments going ballistic on this issue, to the point where they didn't even enable comments on the relevant stories published this morning. There are a couple of threads those interested might find illuminating. Though I would caution that the unionist posters seem to have given it all up as a bad job, and the posts are mainly nationalist.

Alexander turns up heat on Salmond, saying 'bring it on' (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2248193.0.Alexander_turns_up_heat_on_S almond_saying_bring_it_on.php)

Alexander: Cameron accuses Brown of losing control (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2253613.0.0.php)

I copy here a post of mine in the former thread, to save typing it all out again. My thesis is the apparent lack of reporting on this from a nationalistic perspective, or indeed of any neutral reporting. Even the Herald, the best of the bunch, is a Labour fan-boy organ.

Hmmm. We're all discussing the blindingly obvious, but has the blindingly obvious (to us) actually been given a media airing?

Wendy has been panicked into this move in the first instance by the absolute meltdown of her party in the English (and Welsh) elections. She now sees little prospect of being able to approach either a 2010 referendum or the 2011 Holyrood election on the back of a strong Labour party in power at Westminster.

Despite her earlier rhetoric that popular support for independence is low, she has seen the polls we've seen (the 41% for 40% against one in particular), and realises that in fact support is strong and rising. She may not have a brain the size of a planet, but even the very hungry caterpillar could work out that a referendum held in 2010 is now likely to be against a backdrop of Scotland staring at another 10 years of Conservative rule from Westminster, with all the scaremongering that is capable of supporting.

I think the plan until this month was to get the Calman commission up and running, formulate a proposal tasty enough to blunt the support for complete independence, and then push through an amendment to the SNP's referendum bill including these proposals as a third option - or even as the straight alternative to independence. Frankly, I thought that would work. We'd lose the independence vote but we'd still advance down the slippery slope, so it wouldn't be all bad.

However, it seems as if Wendy has come to the conclusion that a delay until 2010 is too risky even with the Calman stratagem. This I find fairly astonishing, but her behaviour can have no other explanation. She has decided that the only way to get a no vote for independence is to railroad a vote in the immediate future, while there is still at least the theoretical prospect of appealing to Labour voters to support Labour in the union and keep the Tories out at Westminster.

There are two reasons for this conclusions. First, as noted above, the Labour meltdown last week. But second, there is the SNP's competence and popularity. Wendy is a great one for "argument by blatant assertion", but simply stating that the SNP is unpopular or on the back foot or in disarray doesn't make it so, and I think she knows it. She must have been hoping for a short honeymoon, followed by SNP unpopularity approaching 2010. She no longer believes that will happen. (A third reason might be the recent business survey that showed business people warming to the Independence prospect, which of course is good for SNP campaigning.)

However, there is no prospect of Calman reporting in time to force a vote significantly earlier than 2010. In particular, Calman has barely started, so can povide no input into or support for immediate calls for a referendum now. Thus, any such calls have de facto got to be based on a straight yes/no to independence. Wendy thinks that railroading such a vote now has a better chance of achieving a no than if independence is run off against the Calman proposals in 2010.

This is breathtaking. Cynical manipulation at its finest. Where is the journalist who will put these points straight to Wendy, or even explain them to the public?

And let's look at Wendy's own stated reasons for the U-turn. To be fair, some public analysis has emerged of these. Principally that "uncertainty" about the looming prospect of a referendum was "damaging Scotland". Well, what damage? She has specified nothing. And, most importantly, if matters are inded as she has stated, that there is no support for independence, then why should any such damage occur? If the union suporters aren't worried, then they aren't worried, by definition. If indeed any such damage were occurring, that in itself would be evidence of a lot more support for independence than she has ever been prepared to concede.

So, just for the sake of argument, can we consider that maybe the "uncertainty" engendered by the prospect of a too-close-to-call referendum in 2010 is causing some economic ripples. Even though in fact the SNP haven't been saying a lot about it and haven't been banging the drum. Given that situation, what do you do about it?

Yes, you start banging the drum yourself, loudly and in public. You raise the stakes to the point where the entire UK is now talking about the matter, and soon it will be the entire world. Rather than soft-pedalling the issue, reassuring business that it's all a storm in a teacup and even if the SNP do manage to pass a referendum bill (which they won't because all the unionist parties will vote it down), then there's so little popular support that there's no realistic chance of a yes vote, what does she do? She rams the loud pedal to the floor, gives clear signals that she's panicking because a yes vote is a real possibility, and while she's at it, removes the last obstacle to a vote going ahead by removing her party's commitment to voting down a referendum bill. She thinks that even this astounding stratagem has a better chance of success (in her terms) than a measured "Calman or independence" vote in 2010.

This is exactly what's going on. You know this, I know this. However, where are the articles explaining this to the non political wonks in the population? This is cynical manipulation at its worst, by a panicking leader who has completely lost control of events. In any normal society, this would be dissected under the microscope.

Oh yes, and note the unspoken assumption that behaviour designed to minimise the chance of a yes vote is all fine and dandy. Have we no members of the fourth estate in this country with any vision at all?


Of course. events have moved on. We now realise that Wendy cannot table a referendum bill herself, because of the parliamentary rules. And there is no chance Gordon Brown will bring one forward at Westminster, even if for no other reason than that that would immediately trigger huge demand for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

So she's left doing nothing but shouting "Bring it on! The SNP are runing scared!" This will get her nothing but a bright smile and happy acceptance of her support when the bill is introduced, exactly to the timetable in the SNP manifesto. (She seems to have mistaken that, because on TV she accused the SNP of having promised a referendum immediately after it was elected, but the actual manifesto, which she obviously couldn't bring herself to read, a bad mistake if you're going to shout "broken promise", says 2010 quite clearly.)

I love Wendy.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Free Romanian, give us a break. William Wallace was murdered - 700 years ago. The Braveheart film is not historically accurate - in fact the "real" legend is even more hair-raising. Look up "The Barns of Ayr". If Scots act today because of something that happened 700 years ago, they will, I hope, at least act on what is generally regarded as the story of these times, and not on an American screenplay.

But this isn't about the Wars iof Independence. These times are part of what has got us here, but this is about 2008 and the future.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Just to summarise.

They said the SNP would never get elected.
It did

They said the SNP could never form a government.
It did.

They said the SNP could never get its budget passed.
It did.

They said the SNP could never sustain a minority government.
It's doing OK so far.

And finally, they said the SNP would never gets its independence referendum bill through the parliament.

I think the SNP rather thought so too, because the Tories, the Lib Dems and Labour all swore they'd vote it down. And that grouping would have a majority, no question. There was hope of embarrassing them into abstention, as happened with the budget, by criticising the blocking of the people's right to choose. However, the main hope was that the Scottish people wouldn't be too happy about having a referendum denied, and, also encouraged by decent governance from the SNP, would put them back in in 2011 with a big enough majority to get the bill passed in a second term.

Now all bets are off. Even if Wendy is kicked out as Labour leader at Holyrood, as she well might be, she had publicly committed the Labour group to supporting the referendum bill - or at least to not voting it down. Any further U-turn on that would be monstrous, and there is no doubt at all her party would pay the price in 2011.

It now looks as if the SNP will indeed get its referendum bill passed, just in time to put the vote to a population staring another 18 years of Tory government in the face. And believe me, that is not a popular prospect in Scotland.

AndyAndy, the aim of the SNP is to reduce the number of Scottish MPs in Westminster to zero, and increase Scotland's representation there to one ambassador. Why do you think the Scottish Labour MPs (in a party that was once firmly committed to Home Rule for Scotland) hate the idea so much? It throws them off the gravy train.

When Margaret Ewing was first elected to Westminster, a Labour MP asked her (quite kindly) how she was settling in. She replied that she hadn't come to settle in, she'd come to settle up. (Margaret died from breast cancer a few years ago, without seeing the SNP government, which is very sad.)

England did elect a Labour government in 1997. And I think again in 2001. In my opinion it's up to the English people who they elect, and they should not have a Labour government imposed on them by the Scottish votes swinging it any more than we have a Conservative government we didn't vote for imposed on us for all these years.

But the Labour party wants these Scottish MPs to boost its chances of a UK win, and many of its front bench sit for Scottish constituencies and fear being in a much smaller pond if their own country were independent. Hence the opposition.

Wendy has just holed the opposition below the waterline.

Rolfe.

[richardm]

Richard, what on earth "no" vote are you on about? There has never been a referendum on Scottish independence!


No, I know :) It's a hypothetical "No" vote that could come from a referendum held today:


Even if they were to achieve a no vote, five years later, or 10 years later they could find themselves called to follow the precedent

I was suggesting that if they had that hypothetical "No" today then it would probably hold good for that sort of period at least. It wouldn't so much be setting a precedent as drawing a line under it for a good few years.

Edit: As AndyAndy has already explained in very similar terms :D

[Darat]

We could of course therefore end up with a situation where Scottish people want to leave the union and the rest of the UK doesn't want them to go... It could get a bit like one of those slightly pathetic relationships where one partner wants to leave, and the other promises "to change", to bring more flowers, to help with the washing up... etc etc..... I suppose we could promise to let the Scots win at football sometimes, maybe that would be enough :)

The same of course could be said if say 60% of the people allowed to vote decided they wanted to leave but 40% didn't - that's the problem with democracies, compromises have to be made.

[Darat]

It appears (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7387669.stm) that even if she really wanted to, she'd be unable to push through the legislation for a referendum, since:

What you mean she doesn't understand how the Scottish Parliament works? I am so shocked I may just have to have a lie down whilst I recover.

Whilst I'm doing that could someone send her directions on how to find her own backside?

[zeno2712]

It seems to me that the rosy picture painted by the SNP of a prosperous independent Scotland is predicated primarily on having sole access to the UK's North Sea oil revenues - revenues that currently go into the UK's coffers and spread around the whole UK (fairly or unfairly, depending on your point of view).

However, the road to obtaining these revenues will be rocky and is by no means clear or certain. The oil is - like it or not - in UK waters, not Scottish, and I'm not sure what the process would have to be, who would have to agree and how long it would take to transfer them to solely Scottish control.

One thing is certain is that, if the SNP do manage to secure these substantial (but dwindling?) revenues, and increased prosperity in Scotland will be matched by a concomitant decrease in prosperity of our friends and family south of the border.

[Rolfe]

No, I know :) It's a hypothetical "No" vote that could come from a referendum held today:


I was suggesting that if they had that hypothetical "No" today then it would probably hold good for that sort of period at least. It wouldn't so much be setting a precedent as drawing a line under it for a good few years.

Edit: As AndyAndy has already explained in very similar terms :D


Sorry Richard, it was my fault. I read what you wrote too quickly. (I've too often read English commentators assert that the Scots rejected independence in 1979, and jumped to a very wrong conclusion.)

It's an interesting point you make. It's clearly Labour tactics at the moment to try to get an early vote before the tide of opinion sweeps beyond any likely continuation of the union. That itself is to a degree cynical and manipulative, but if you're a unionist then that's tactics. Such a vote might stem the tide, but on the other hand it might not.

Look what happened last time. We had that dreadful betrayal in 1979, when practically everybody seemed to be lying about something, most blatantly about the viability of an independent Scottish state. The nation seemed to go into mourning. It wasn't all that long before there was bitter regret, partly because Maggie failed to keep her promise to bring in a better devolution bill, but mostly because Thatcherism in general was cordially loathed in Scotland. The Poll Tax, the Sermon on the Mound, you name it. People were talking openly about another referendum by the early 1990s, mostly about a three-way choice between continued rule from Westminster, a devolution arrangement, and independence. However, this was simply ignored by the Tories, who thought (quite rightly actually, and in this at least most of the SNP agreed with them) that a devolved parliament would be the start of a slippery slope, provising both more demand for more home rule, and the means to accomplish it. Most of the people doing the talking were actually Labour supporters.

By the time Labour regained power in 1997, the received wisdom in that party was that if some sort of devolution wasn't granted, the country would declare UDI. So we got the second referendum, with the resulting landslide. (I discount the CT surrounding the "Scotland UN Committee", discussed elsewhere, on the grounds that if they had achieved a fraction of what they claim, it would have been reported somewhere, even if only critically.) Crucially, however, the independence option was dropped from that poll, because frankly Labour even then was too scared (they say now there was no demand but that's not true - a contemparary poll in the Scotsman put independence at 50% about then, and even if it was a rogue poll, that isn't "no demand"). So public opinion has never actually been tested on that one.

It took 18 years. But that second referendum was delayed much longer than need be by the sheer inability to do anything when the government of the day vetoed the idea. Certainly any time from 1992 on would have achieved the same result, and possibly before then.

Sometimes I wonder if we're doomed to repeat the whole thing again. Narrowly bottle an independence referendum, spend a long period bitterly regretting it, and then agree by a landslide when we finally get another chance.

But should that be necessary? Some unionists are saying not only, have the damn referendum next week, but include a clause in the bill saying that in the event of a no vote, there can be no repeat referendum for 20 years. However, if in say five years time there is clearly a high level of public support from a population who realise they've been conned (which was what effectively happened last time), is it right to say to the people, no, we do not intend to allow a vote at a time when the tide of opinion is running in a direction we don't like?

Mind you, having said that, I think the tide of opinion is running quite well as it is.

I know the SNP strategy surrounding the 2010 poll, because I was there when it was being discussed. First, there is the positive side, the public explanation, that the party needs time to show to the Scots how different a Scotland not dominated by the Labour party can be, and to show that it is possible to legislate to give people a better deal. But the second reason is that the SNP leadership understands that a referendum can be lost. It's not a sure thing. And if a referendum were lost early in an SNP term of office, then it would find it very difficult to govern, essentially being a lame duck. Therefore, better for the country to have a poll towards the end of a period of office, so that an election can stabilise the situation.

It was a bit of "softly softly catchee monkee". But Wendy is making such a pig's ear of it all that the incoming tide right now has the feel of a tsunami in the making. So my estimation of the chances of winning the referendum have gone up quite a bit.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

It seems to me that the rosy picture painted by the SNP of a prosperous independent Scotland is predicated primarily on having sole access to the UK's North Sea oil revenues - revenues that currently go into the UK's coffers and spread around the whole UK (fairly or unfairly, depending on your point of view).

However, the road to obtaining these revenues will be rocky and is by no means clear or certain. The oil is - like it or not - in UK waters, not Scottish, and I'm not sure what the process would have to be, who would have to agree and how long it would take to transfer them to solely Scottish control.

One thing is certain is that, if the SNP do manage to secure these substantial (but dwindling?) revenues, and increased prosperity in Scotland will be matched by a concomitant decrease in prosperity of our friends and family south of the border.


Hey, make up your mind! (I address the English electorate here, not just one poster.) I thought we were the subsidy junkies who were being bankrolled by the taxes of the hardworking Englishman!

This has all been gone into in great detail, and is settled by international law. Why do you think the Westminster government shifted the maritime border from its historical position, putting it as far north as it could, just two months or so before the Holyrood parliament first met?

And there is about 50% of the oil in the North Sea still there. And with oil heading to $200 a barrel, the tax take is not to be sneezed at. Certainly much more than the first half, which went for relatively knock-down prices. Of course one of the unionist ploys at every election has been to declare that the oil is almost gone, so don't even think about it Scotland, you'll be penniless (never mind the whisky duty and the financial services industry and the tourism and so on....). This could be rebounding now, as the English electorate sees no reason to keep Scotland because it believes she's been sucked dry. Not so. Oh, and there's also an awful lot of oil off the Atlantic coast too, though it's harder to exploit with present day technologies. Well worth it at $200 a barrel though. As the Westminster government knew when it sorted out the maritime border on that side some years ago to stop Ireland getting its hands on it.

The "don't be so selfish" card was played for all it was worth in the 1970s. Like Norway was going to give its oil revenues to Sweden and beg for a handout in return? I think it worked to some extent. We then saw the income from the North Sea squandered in Thatcher's tax-cutting spree, and foreign wars, and none of it has been retained to cushion future generations. And damn little of it was spent to improve the lives of the people in deprived areas of Scotland. Now Norway has an oil fund that will keep the country prosperous well after the oil really does run out, and we have nothing.

It won't work again.

Rolfe.

[petra10]

I have been hearing about this subject since I was at school (actually not that long ago :)) I must admit I have never treated it very seriously. It just seemed to me it was something some politician brought up now and again.

However I have been impressed by SNP's governmentship so far that I am only now taking it seriously. I too dont know why we have Scottish mps in London and Edinburgh. Oh and we also have an European mp. So I have three mps!


A lot of young people seem to be very keen to be independant which for some reason suprised me.They are very proud to be Scottish.


As for Braveheart, I find Liam Neelson's RobRoy much more believable than Mel Gibson's Wallace.

[Nogbad]

I was mildly surprised by Wendy's statement which I think might have been a little "on the hoof" bravado rather than a clearly thought out strategy (especially since she has set up a think tank with the Tories and Liberals specifically excluding an independence option). It was said directly after a fairly serious electoral failure on the part of Labour in the English local elections and very positive press for the SNP after their first year in office, so one might read it as a "felt nowt" statement rather than a genuine desire to hold a referendum.

That said, she might be right to be concerned about the SNP proposal to hold a referendum in 2010. This would most likely be after the next Westminster elections with the Scottish people staring down the barrel of a huge Conservative win. Whatever his popularity down south people have not warmed to Cameron in Scotland. A vote now would be a much easier proposition, albeit a tacit admission that Brown will lose the next election.

As to separation we already live in separate bedrooms so to speak. Resources like Oil and Gas would fall where they lie on the respective border lines (what is left of them) New areas off the North West are so far in Scottish waters as to be indisputable. The split off of Ireland in the 1920s was pretty painless and if such a break up were to occur I can't see it being a big deal unless people wanted to make it so. Travel and business pretty much transcends European borders these days.

[WildCat]

I must admit that although in principle I'm all for self-determination (and would be happy if a referendum of people living in Scotland wanted to form a new country), I would like it to be achieved via democratic means; which does not mean that only ten percent of the population of the country are asked to vote on whether to break-up the UK!
Why should they need the permission of the rest of the UK to leave? After all, while you need the permission of the members of a private club to join, you certainly don't need their permission to leave.

[zeno2712]

Rolfe

I'll try to answer your other points tomorrow, but...
Why do you think the Westminster government shifted the maritime border from its historical position, putting it as far north as it could, just two months or so before the Holyrood parliament first met?Wasn't this just to do with boundaries for fishing jurisdiction?

[Nogbad]

Rolfe

I'll try to answer your other points tomorrow, but...
Wasn't this just to do with boundaries for fishing jurisdiction?

You might think that ...I couldn't possibly comment

[Rolfe]

Wasn't this just to do with boundaries for fishing jurisdiction?


Er, no. There was nothing wrong with the historical line. It had been used to decide on maritime disputes (Scots vs. English law) for donkey's years with no trouble. However, they made up some fairy-tale to change the line, just before Scotland got its first self-government in nearly 300 years.

The excuse was that the existing line wasn't exactly how EU law said such lines should be drawn. However, EU law only relates to new boundaries when a new state is created. Existing historical borders actually have precedence.

It's not a coincidence that a lot of oil from Scottish territory actually gets landed in England, either.

And you may think this is paranoid delusion, but wake up and smell the British state at its self-serving best.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Why should they need the permission of the rest of the UK to leave? After all, while you need the permission of the members of a private club to join, you certainly don't need their permission to leave.

Because that's how democracies tend to work i.e. the people of the nation make decisions about the future of the nation. Why should only about 10% of the population of this nation have a say in its future?

[Rolfe]

Because that's how democracies tend to work i.e. the people of the nation make decisions about the future of the nation. Why should only about 10% of the population of this nation have a say in its future?


You've put this point before, but essentially it's academic. Nobody in any position of political power or influence is making that suggestion, and if it were to be suggested that the people of England could vote to keep Scotland in the union against majority Scottish opinion, there would be an outcry. I nearly said bloody mayhem, but I don't want to imply actual physical violence.

I imagine the people of England could themselves vote to leave the union if they wanted to, though I can't see it happening. But forcing a political partner to stay in a union against the will of its population isn't how things work. There are plenty recent examples in eastern Europe to serve as precedents.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

You've put this point before, but essentially it's academic. Nobody in any position of political power or influence is making that suggestion, and if it were to be suggested that the people of England could vote to keep Scotland in the union against majority Scottish opinion, there would be an outcry. I nearly said bloody mayhem, but I don't want to imply actual physical violence.

I imagine the people of England could themselves vote to leave the union if they wanted to, though I can't see it happening. But forcing a political partner to stay in a union against the will of its population isn't how things work. There are plenty recent examples in eastern Europe to serve as precedents.

Rolfe.

I always smile when I see it put as "leaving the union"; that's being rather disingenuous when what is being proposed is the ending of the UK.

I've yet to see any argument that convinces me that, given the actual circumstances that we are in today, there is any reason why the future of my country should be decided by less than 10% of the country with the rest of the population being excluded from any part of that decision.

[Rolfe]

I always smile when I see it put as "leaving the union"; that's being rather disingenuous when what is being proposed is the ending of the UK.

I've yet to see any argument that convinces me that, given the actual circumstances that we are in today, there is any reason why the future of my country should be decided by less than 10% of the country with the rest of the population being excluded from any part of that decision.


I stand corrected. It is in fact ending the union. I suppose, in deference to Wales and Northern Ireland, one tends to phrase it so as to imply acknowledgement that the Principality and the Province also exist.

Yes, we've had this discussion before. I merely pointed out that yours is not a view supported by any political party, or even by international law, so it's really an academic point.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

...snip...

Yes, we've had this discussion before. I merely pointed out that yours is not a view supported by any political party, or even by international law, so it's really an academic point.

Rolfe.

Thankfully I am not a political ideology so whether my view coincides with a particular political party is totally irrelevant to me forming my opinion. You are aware that a referendum if it found in favour of a Scottish "independence" would have no legal standing as far as the constitution of the UK is concerned?

And I do wonder why it doesn't seem possible to come up with a convincing argument why a decision regarding the future of our country should be able to be decided by less than 5% of of the population is somehow democratic or even reasonable?

[Architect]

Darat

On that basis the UK could never leave the EU without the agreement of the other nations? Methinks not.....

[Rolfe]

Thankfully I am not a political ideology so whether my view coincides with a particular political party is totally irrelevant to me forming my opinion. You are aware that a referendum if it found in favour of a Scottish "independence" would have no legal standing as far as the constitution of the UK is concerned?

And I do wonder why it doesn't seem possible to come up with a convincing argument why a decision regarding the future of our country should be able to be decided by less than 5% of of the population is somehow democratic or even reasonable?


As regards the strict matter of "legal standing" you are of course correct in terms of UK law. However, strict interpretation of the law is one thing, but practical politics is often something else. In addition, the EU recognises that a fair and proper referendum conducted in one part of a composite state such as the UK is sufficient grounds for that part becoming independent if that is the result of the referendum. As I said, the precedents in eastern Europe are clear. The "rump state" does not have to recognise such a referendum for it to be valid in international law.

Why that applies to Scotland but would not apply to the People's Republic of Pimlico, for example, depends on the historical status of the part of the state. Scotland is historically a country in its own right, with its own legal system, established church, education system and so on. It was induced to enter into the Treaty of Union in 1707 by a combination of threats and bribery. Despite that, its individual identity has persisted, along with said legal system, established church, education system and so on. This gives it a standing in EU and international law which would not be accorded, say, to Shropshire.

This is also the core of the reason why the people of Scotland, despite making up only about 8.3% of the population of the UK, have the right to self-determination.

This seems to me to be a fundamental difference in viewpoint. You have previously stated that nothing that happened before an individual is born should have any bearing on their decisions in the present day. (I might suggest telling that to the Jewish and Palestinian lobbys....) You have also stated that you believe that as soon as a smaller country is taken over by a larger one, by whatever means, its inhabitants become part of a unitary state and no longer have any right (or can seek any right) to self-determination by virtue of their own votes.

I hear what you are saying, I'm simply saying that not only do I not agree, I doubt if you'd find more than a handful of Scots who would agree, I suspect the majority of English people would not agree, the UK legal and political systems do not agree, and international law does not agree.

If you reject the arguments relating to over 900 years as an independent country, the circumstances of the formation of the UK, the persistence of Scottish law, church, education, language and identity even within the UK, and the opinion of a large majority of the population that their Scottish identity is more important to them than a British identity, then so be it. However, as I said, neither UK law, nor UK politics, nor international law, reject these arguments.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Darat

On that basis the UK could never leave the EU without the agreement of the other nations? Methinks not.....


Ah. I could have saved all these electrons....

Rolfe.

[Darat]

And as always just to save the strawman building I'll add that in principle if a significant majority of people living in Scotland wish to form a new country than they should do so. That however does not detract from my point.

I do wonder if one of the reason the people who are for new country based on the current Scottish borders is that they've spent so long trying to sell the idea primarily to people in Scotland based on "You'll be better financially off...." and that tends to backfire when the obvious ending to that is pointed out "and the rest of you will be financially worse off!" :)

[Architect]

I didn't even mention Tibet...ooops.


In all fairness, though, Tibet was invaded.

[Darat]

Darat

On that basis the UK could never leave the EU without the agreement of the other nations? Methinks not.....

That's comparing apples and pears.

[Phaedrus74]

Apart from the interesting legal issues, I am interested to know what the position of the SNP is on the EU.

Can we, if Scottish independence comes about, welcome a new member in the EU or is it likely that Scotland "pulls a Norway" i.e. become a member of the European Free Trade zone but not a member of the EU?

[Darat]

As regards the strict matter of "legal standing" you are of course correct in terms of UK law. However, strict interpretation of the law is one thing, but practical politics is often something else.

...snip...

I never said it wasn't, remember it was you that brought up "international law", I was merely pointing out that there is currently not a constitutional method for what you want to happen.



...snip...

The "rump state" does not have to recognise such a referendum for it to be valid in international law.

...snip...

Citations?



...snip...

Scotland is historically a country in its own right,

...snip...



As are many parts of these islands, you may be romantically attached to a particular view of history however I am not so your appeal to emotion doesn't sway me.

(Albeit I am attached to the shared heritage I have in common with the vast majority of this country so I'm found of my Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish, Wessex and so on history, but history belings in history books and period dramas on a Sunday evening not the politics of today!)




...snip...

This is also the core of the reason why the people of Scotland, despite making up only about 8.3% of the population of the UK, have the right to self-determination.

...snip...

I do understand your emotionally based reasons, however as I said they do not sway me anymore than other romantic attachments to pastimes do.


...snip...

This seems to me to be a fundamental difference in viewpoint. You have previously stated that nothing that happened before an individual is born should have any bearing on their decisions in the present day. (I might suggest telling that to the Jewish and Palestinian lobbys....)

...snip...

I have said that to people in the real-world and this Forum that wish to state things like "god gave us this land" and so on.



...snip...

You have also stated that you believe that as soon as a smaller country is taken over by a larger one, by whatever means, its inhabitants become part of a unitary state and no longer have any right (or can seek any right) to self-determination by virtue of their own votes.

...snip...

No I haven't.



...snip...

I hear what you are saying, I'm simply saying that not only do I not agree, I doubt if you'd find more than a handful of Scots who would agree, I suspect the majority of English people would not agree, the UK legal and political systems do not agree, and international law does not agree.

...snip...

None of what we are talking about is about the UK constitution or international law, it's about creating something new.

And whether many people agree or not with my view is rather irrelevant don't you think? What you are doing is an appeal to popularity and I know that in most other areas of life you are quite quick to dismiss such an appeal.... ;)



...snip...

If you reject the arguments relating to over 900 years as an independent country, the circumstances of the formation of the UK, the persistence of Scottish law, church, education, language and identity even within the UK, and the opinion of a large majority of the population that their Scottish identity is more important to them than a British identity, then so be it. However, as I said, neither UK law, nor UK politics, nor international law, reject these arguments.

Rolfe.

Another appeal to popularity mixed with an appeal to tradition Rolfe!

[Darat]

I didn't even mention Tibet...ooops.


In all fairness, though, Tibet was invaded.

Which I do think makes it a tad different! However I would say that if in 200 years Tibet is still part of China I would not be supporting "independence for Tibet" based simply on the fact that 200 years ago it was a separate country.

[Rolfe]

Apart from the interesting legal issues, I am interested to know what the position of the SNP is on the EU.

Can we, if Scottish independence comes about, welcome a new member in the EU or is it likely that Scotland "pulls a Norway" i.e. become a member of the European Free Trade zone but not a member of the EU?


The SNP's policy has been "Independence in Europe" since about the time Britain joined the EU.

One of the scaremongering tactics employed by unionists has been to raise the spectre of Scotland somehow being ejected from the EU, and having to crawl back with a new application. This has been debunked so often, but it keeps coming back.

There is in fact not only no way to eject a member state of the EU, there is no clear route for a member state to leave by its own volition. This applies to any and all new states formed by the breakup of a member state. (And in the event of Scottish independence it is likely that both new states would be treated in the same way.) When Greenland became independent, far from being ejected from the EU, it had to negotiate some sort of special release clause, because it wanted to ally itself more with North America.

The prospect of the EU ejecting and then refusing to re-accept a state with such a high percentage of the EU's natural resources (principally oil and fishing grounds, but also water and potential for renewable energy), is simply risible.

In general, Scots tend to be more Europhile than English people. This may partly be due to envy of the position of the small independent European states like Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and even Luxembourg, with their seats in the Council of Ministers and their much larger numbers of MEPs per head of population. It is understood that Scotland in the EU in her own right would have influence to a degree that is currently denied. However, it is also partly a historical thing. Pre-union, Scotland was on fighting terms with England for a fair proportion of the time, and as a result (and also as a result of sea travel being easier than land travel in the days before the internal combustion engine) had strong trading and social ties to continental Europe. These ties were severed forcibly in 1707, however the memory remains, on both sides.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Apart from the interesting legal issues, I am interested to know what the position of the SNP is on the EU.

The SNP intends to keep Scotland in the EU.

Can we, if Scottish independence comes about, welcome a new member in the EU or is it likely that Scotland "pulls a Norway" i.e. become a member of the European Free Trade zone but not a member of the EU?

One interesting point of legal discussion is the nature of Scotland's possible departure from the UK inasmuch as the UK would arguably have been dissolved and all the consituent parts would have to reapply for EU membership. For this reason it has always been assumed that the rump UK would seek a departure where Scotland cedes from rather than dissolves the UK.

But it's all a bit up for disucssion and debate, to be honest, as no-one has tested it (obviously).

[Nogbad]

That's comparing apples and pears.

Which just goes to show oranges are not the only fruit.





Actually following the signing of the Lisbon Constitution thing the comparison might be quite accurate. If the Scottish people had been given a referendum in 1707 the answer would have been No - just as a vote on the Lisbon Treaty would have probably been No. However, even after Lisbon, if Britain were to leave the EU I seriously doubt the other countries would have a say in the matter.

[Architect]

That's comparing apples and pears.

Well I disagree, it's more like cooking and eating apples, but to choose a simpler alternative let's look at Ulster. If the people of Northern Ireland voted on a majority to join with the Irish Republic, do you believe that the remainder of the UK would have the right to stope them doing so?

[Darat]

...snip...

There is in fact not only no way to eject a member state of the EU, there is no clear route for a member state to leave by its own volition.

...snip...

That's a bit of an overstatement, for example the UK could revoke its agreement to the various treaties and that's it we would no longer be part of the EU. (Granted for the countries that have adopted the Euro it would be a bit more messy.)

[Darat]

Well I disagree, it's more like cooking and eating apples, but to choose a simpler alternative let's look at Ulster. If the people of Northern Ireland voted on a majority to join with the Irish Republic, do you believe that the remainder of the UK would have the right to stope them doing so?

In principle yes, but personally no. Remember I'm for self-determination, however I'm for self-determination via reasonable democratic means (ETA) and that's based on pragmatic grounds.

[Rolfe]

I never said it wasn't, remember it was you that brought up "international law", I was merely pointing out that there is currently not a constitutional method for what you want to happen.

Citations?


Rather than trawl through the deliberations of the EU Council of Ministers and the UN, I'll just mention Kosovo. That one was questionable in the extreme, but in practical terms the vote of the Kosovar people alone was recognised internationally even though the Serbian government refused to recognise it.

As are many parts of these islands, you may be romantically attached to a particular view of history however I am not so your appeal to emotion doesn't sway me.

(Albeit I am attached to the shared heritage I have in common with the vast majority of this country so I'm found of my Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish, Wessex and so on history, but history belings in history books and period dramas on a Sunday evening not the politics of today!)

I do understand your emotionally based reasons, however as I said they do not sway me anymore than other romantic attachments to pastimes do.

I have said that to people in the real-world and this Forum that wish to state things like "god gave us this land" and so on.


If you wish to characterise these reasons as romantic and emotional then that's your prerogative. However, I might equally characterise adherence to the idea of a unitary "British" identity exactly the same way.

No I haven't.


Fair enough, I retract that point.

None of what we are talking about is about the UK constitution or international law, it's about creating something new.

And whether many people agree or not with my view is rather irrelevant don't you think? What you are doing is an appeal to popularity and I know that in most other areas of life you are quite quick to dismiss such an appeal.... ;)


Something new, yes, but not de novo.

I'm not so much appealing to populatiry as pointing out the futility of debating the issue given the current legal and practical situation. Since it is universally accepted that the people of Scotland have the right to decide their own future, I have to say I find it tedious to be drawn into this debate every time the subject is mentioned.

Rolfe.

[Francesca R]

And I do wonder why it doesn't seem possible to come up with a convincing argument why a decision regarding the future of our country should be able to be decided by less than 5% of of the population is somehow democratic or even reasonable?Er, . . . isn't this why secessions are nearly always bloody?

[Rolfe]

That's a bit of an overstatement, for example the UK could revoke its agreement to the various treaties and that's it we would no longer be part of the EU. (Granted for the countries that have adopted the Euro it would be a bit more messy.)


Yes, of course you're right. If a state wanted to secede, then a way would obviously be found. However, there are no terms of secession built into EU treaties or legislation to the best of my knowledge.

Rolfe.

[Phaedrus74]

The SNP's policy has been "Independence in Europe" since about the time Britain joined the EU.

One of the scaremongering tactics employed by unionists has been to raise the spectre of Scotland somehow being ejected from the EU, and having to crawl back with a new application. This has been debunked so often, but it keeps coming back.

There is in fact not only no way to eject a member state of the EU, there is no clear route for a member state to leave by its own volition. This applies to any and all new states formed by the breakup of a member state. (And in the event of Scottish independence it is likely that both new states would be treated in the same way.) When Greenland became independent, far from being ejected from the EU, it had to negotiate some sort of special release clause, because it wanted to ally itself more with North America.

The prospect of the EU ejecting and then refusing to re-accept a state with such a high percentage of the EU's natural resources (principally oil and fishing grounds, but also water and potential for renewable energy), is simply risible.


I think that given the history of the EU ejection is highly unlikely, there are probably some hoops that need to be jumped through (both for Scotland and the EU). But I'm guessing the process should be relatively painless...


In general, Scots tend to be more Europhile than English people. This may partly be due to envy of the position of the small independent European states like Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and even Luxembourg, with their seats in the Council of Ministers and their much larger numbers of MEPs per head of population. It is understood that Scotland in the EU in her own right would have influence to a degree that is currently denied. However, it is also partly a historical thing. Pre-union, Scotland was on fighting terms with England for a fair proportion of the time, and as a result (and also as a result of sea travel being easier than land travel in the days before the internal combustion engine) had strong trading and social ties to continental Europe. These ties were severed forcibly in 1707, however the memory remains, on both sides.

Rolfe.

I see, this they don't teach you in highschool in the Netherlands.
Thanks!

The SNP intends to keep Scotland in the EU.

One interesting point of legal discussion is the nature of Scotland's possible departure from the UK inasmuch as the UK would arguably have been dissolved and all the consituent parts would have to reapply for EU membership. For this reason it has always been assumed that the rump UK would seek a departure where Scotland cedes from rather than dissolves the UK.

But it's all a bit up for disucssion and debate, to be honest, as no-one has tested it (obviously).

Yep, this is related to the hoops I referred to above. I think that for this reason the suggestion of Scotland seeking independance would cause several civil servants in Brussels nightmares/heart attacks.

Thanks for the responses!

[Darat]

Rather than trawl through the deliberations of the EU Council of Ministers and the UN, I'll just mention Kosovo. That one was questionable in the extreme, but in practical terms the vote of the Kosovar people alone was recognised internationally even though the Serbian government refused to recognise it.

....snip...

Rolfe it was you that made the claim regarding international law not me.




If you wish to characterise these reasons as romantic and emotional then that's your prerogative. However, I might equally characterise adherence to the idea of a unitary "British" identity exactly the same way.

...snip...

Remember today we are one nation so I am arguing with facts that exist today, not the facts of 300 years ago. But I do agree that some people do base their resistance to the idea of ending the UK based on similar historical romanticism.





Fair enough, I retract that point.




Something new, yes, but not de novo.

I'm not so much appealing to populatiry as pointing out the futility of debating the issue given the current legal and practical situation.

...snip...

Rolfe - I know how passionate you are about this and how much it really means to you so I'm trying not to tweak your nose too much, but you do know that your series of arguments could have equally have been made 25 years ago regarding the SNPs aspirations?

Isn't that what politics is about? Arguing and trying to change minds no matter what the current situation and prevailing wisdom is?



Since it is universally accepted that the people of Scotland have the right to decide their own future, I have to say I find it tedious to be drawn into this debate every time the subject is mentioned.

Rolfe.

Er I'm getting the words ... pot ... kettle... black ... :p


Er, . . . isn't this why secessions are nearly always bloody?

Thankfully not in that type of situation and I'd say our recent history indicates that we can find political and peaceful solutions to many of these types of problems these days.

[Darat]

Yes, of course you're right. If a state wanted to secede, then a way would obviously be found. However, there are no terms of secession built into EU treaties or legislation to the best of my knowledge.

Rolfe.

Didn't the exit clause in the never was a constitution but they called it one and then it wasn't one anyway Lisbon treaty make it to the final draft?

[Phaedrus74]

Yes, of course you're right. If a state wanted to secede, then a way would obviously be found. However, there are no terms of secession built into EU treaties or legislation to the best of my knowledge.

Rolfe.

As they stand at the moment, no.

The Lisbon Treaty will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Enlargement_and_secession) however include an exit clause.

Drat! Darat beat me to it ;) [Sorry couldn't resist]

[Darat]

I think that given the history of the EU ejection is highly unlikely, there are probably some hoops that need to be jumped through (both for Scotland and the EU). But I'm guessing the process should be relatively painless...



I see, this they don't teach you in highschool in the Netherlands.
Thanks!



Yep, this is related to the hoops I referred to above. I think that for this reason the suggestion of Scotland seeking independance would cause several civil servants in Brussels nightmares/heart attacks.

Thanks for the responses!

This is what I find quite strange - many people forget that all this would equally apply to the other new country that would have to be created alongside the new Scotland.

[Phaedrus74]

This is what I find quite strange - many people forget that all this would equally apply to the other new country that would have to be created alongside the new Scotland.

I would think that depends on whether secession of Scotland leads to a dissolution of the Union in its entirety. If the United Kingdom continues to exist as an entity, albeit a smaller one, I don't see why it would have to go through all the hoops.

[Darat]

I would think that depends on whether secession of Scotland leads to a dissolution of the Union in its entirety. If the United Kingdom continues to exist as an entity, albeit a smaller one, I don't see why it would have to go through all the hoops.

I'm just trying to find anything to support what I said! There does seem to be a precedent that one of the new countries continues with the obligations the original entered into since it is considered the successor state. No reason however it should be the bit left over if a new Scotland is created!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Darat - can you tell me whether you believe the Kosovar vote for independence should have been recognised or not?

Should Kosovo be accepted as an independent entity by the international community based on the votes only of the people of Kosovo or should it be rejected because the people of Serbia were not entitled to vote in the referendum?

[Phaedrus74]

I'm just trying to find anything to support what I said! There does seem to be a precedent that one of the new countries continues with the obligations the original entered into since it is considered the successor state. No reason however it should be the bit left over if a new Scotland is created!

That is true.

Come to think of it, if the remaider of the UK would want to end it's membership of the EU it is actually conceivable that Scotland could be marked as the successor state and the UK as (formally) seceding.
(Would the Scots under those circumstances inherit the Thatcher rebate?)

[Darat]

Darat - can you tell me whether you believe the Kosovar vote for independence should have been recognised or not?

Should Kosovo be accepted as an independent entity by the international community based on the votes only of the people of Kosovo or should it be rejected because the people of Serbia were not entitled to vote in the referendum?
Couple of points, first of all as I said "given the actual circumstances that we are in today" so as far as I know that means we are discussing our country as it stands today not other countries. And secondly wasn't there a part of the constitution that allowed for such a vote?

[Rolfe]

I think that given the history of the EU ejection is highly unlikely, there are probably some hoops that need to be jumped through (both for Scotland and the EU). But I'm guessing the process should be relatively painless...


To deal here with what Darat said as well, there is certainly an argument that both Scotland and the other new state of England/Wales/Northern Ireland (I suppose someone will think of a name) would be treated equally in EU terms. You see, the kingdoms that united were Scotland and England. England had assimilated Wales by conquest long since, by then. Ireland is a whole other can of worms, let's not go there. In effect, if Scotland goes, there is no "UK".

I've noted that foreign politicians are not nearly so ready to assume primacy of the interests of England in any such negotiations as English commentators expect. Nevertheless I would expect goodwill on all sides, and that the hoops will be rapidly lined up and duly jumped through by all concerned.

I see, this they don't teach you in highschool in the Netherlands.
Thanks!


Good grief, I should have checked your location! I think your history teachers did indeed miss a bit. The countries which had the closest trading ties with Scotland were the "Low Countries".

If you ever get the chance to visit a charming little town called Veere, you can investigate the history in more detail. Veere was a Scots free port right up till the Treaty of Union. The Scottish merchants' houses in the town are still there, and the local museum, which has an astounding archive, has huge amounts of information.

I was lucky enough in 1998 to take part in a visit to Veere organised by my local SNP branch, in order to re-open and foster ties between Scotland and the Netherlands. We were generously given tours of the town and the archives by the town archivist, and visited the Scottish merchants' houses. We also had a civic dinner attended by local politicians and by Winnie Ewing, Madame Ecosse herself, who delivered a speech in Dutch.

In the south-east ports in Scotland you can see huge Dutch influence on the architecture, and the houses are to this day still roofed with the pantiles which were used as ballast in the ships coming into these ports to load up with Scottish export produce.

Yep, this is related to the hoops I referred to above. I think that for this reason the suggestion of Scotland seeking independance would cause several civil servants in Brussels nightmares/heart attacks.

Thanks for the responses!


I think the civil servants in Brussels have been aware of Scottish aspirations for many years now. I think you'll find the process is much less painful than you expect, and is already well anticipated.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Something tells me that Scotland would never accept a Thatcher anything, even if money were involved!

[Phaedrus74]

To deal here with what Darat said as well, there is certainly an argument that both Scotland and the other new state of England/Wales/Northern Ireland (I suppose someone will think of a name) would be treated equally in EU terms. You see, the kingdoms that united were Scotland and England. England had assimilated Wales by conquest long since, by then. Ireland is a whole other can of worms, let's not go there. In effect, if Scotland goes, there is no "UK".

I've noted that foreign politicians are not nearly so ready to assume primacy of the interests of England in any such negotiations as English commentators expect. Nevertheless I would expect goodwill on all sides, and that the hoops will be rapidly lined up and duly jumped through by all concerned.


That would be my guess also


Good grief, I should have checked your location! I think your history teachers did indeed miss a bit. The countries which had the closest trading ties with Scotland were the "Low Countries".


They probably forget that bit at the same time when they forget to teach us that the main source of profits for the Republic during the 16th and 17th centuries was not colonial trade on the East-Indies but Grain trade in the Baltic Sea. (Just found out about that a couple of months ago).


If you ever get the chance to visit a charming little town called Veere, you can investigate the history in more detail. Veere was a Scots free port right up till the Treaty of Union. The Scottish merchants' houses in the town are still there, and the local museum, which has an astounding archive, has huge amounts of information.

I was lucky enough in 1998 to take part in a visit to Veere organised by my local SNP branch, in order to re-open and foster ties between Scotland and the Netherlands. We were generously given tours of the town and the archives by the town archivist, and visited the Scottish merchants' houses. We also had a civic dinner attended by local politicians and by Winnie Ewing, Madame Ecosse herself, who delivered a speech in Dutch.

In the south-east ports in Scotland you can see huge Dutch influence on the architecture, and the houses are to this day still roofed with the pantiles which were used as ballast in the ships coming into these ports to load up with Scottish export produce.


Scotland was already on my list of places to see in Europe, but this clinches it! I have been to Veere once, but that was a long time ago when I was still in Primary School, the only thing I remember was whining we we couldn't go see the Oosterschelde dam which held a little more interest than history at that age.

Regarding history, the sheer complexity of the political landscape in Europe a couple of centuries back always baffles me. It makes current day global politics seem rather pedestrian in comparison.


I think the civil servants in Brussels have been aware of Scottish aspirations for many years now. I think you'll find the process is much less painful than you expect, and is already well anticipated.

Rolfe.

I actually don't expect it to be that painful a process.
It was just a funny image that popped into my head:

[Civil servant gets a call at 1:00 AM on the "red" phone.]
* "What is it Jean-Luc? Is this a drill again?"
- "No Francois! They've gone and done it this time, Scotland's independant!"
* "*****! Assemble, the alpha team, I will meet you at the atomium."

In reality they probably have the drafts on file as you suspect...

[Rolfe]

As they stand at the moment, no.

The Lisbon Treaty will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Enlargement_and_secession) however include an exit clause.

Drat! Darat beat me to it ;) [Sorry couldn't resist]


Sorry, I was thinking of things as they were at the time of the Greenland secession. I'd forgotten that the omission was being rectified through the Lisbon treaty.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Couple of points, first of all as I said "given the actual circumstances that we are in today" so as far as I know that means we are discussing our country as it stands today not other countries.

Sorry but this sounds like a simple unwillingness to answer the question. The situation is closely analagous - one part of the former state votes for independence, the other part does not get a vote and is generally believed to oppose it. The outcome is that the international community (or at least significant parts of the international community, including most EU members which is significant in the Scottish context) recognises the legitimacy of the newly independent state.

And secondly wasn't there a part of the constitution that allowed for such a vote?

Not that I am aware of (you may be thinking of Montenegro where that was the case). Do you have a citation? Even if there was, so what? How does that have any bearing on the principle that you have stated that such a vote should apply to the populations of not only the state seeking independence but the other member as well?

Seriously, it sounds like this is not actually a principle at all (see your previous response to the requirement for consent from EU citizens for a member state to leave the EU) but simply special pleading in the specific case of Scottish independence.

[Darat]

Sorry but this sounds like a simple unwillingness to answer the question. The situation is closely analagous - one part of the former state votes for independence, the other part does not get a vote and is generally believed to oppose it. The outcome is that the international community (or at least significant parts of the international community, including most EU members which is significant in the Scottish context) recognises the legitimacy of the newly independent state.



Too many assumptions in that for me to unravel it.




Not that I am aware of (you may be thinking of Montenegro where that was the case). Do you have a citation? Even if there was, so what? How does that have any bearing on the principle that you have stated that such a vote should apply to the populations of not only the state seeking independence but the other member as well?

...snip...



No I have no citation that was why I as asking you - the question mark should have indicated it was a question not a statement! (ETA) And the reason why it would be relevant is that I have plainly said that such changes in a country should be achieved via democratic means and achieving something through the provisions of a given constitution meets that criteria if you ask me.



Seriously, it sounds like this is not actually a principle at all (see your previous response to the requirement for consent from EU citizens for a member state to leave the EU) but simply special pleading in the specific case of Scottish independence.

Apart from the fact that comparing the UK to the EU is not comparing like with like you mean? If and when the EU resembles the UK to the degree that such a comparison becomes sensible then the same principle may apply, but it would depend on how much it resembled the current UK situation of course. Given that is probably a couple of countries away perhaps we can shelve discussing that until then?

Anyway as I said a bit earlier I do wonder why it doesn't seem possible to come up with a convincing argument why a decision regarding the future of our country should be able to be decided by less than 5% of of the population is somehow democratic or even reasonable?

[Worm]

My feelings on this are somewhat ambiguous, as I'm English but have lived almost my entire adult life in Scotland.

Personally I see no reason not to have a referendum, but the political fallout form it depending on the outcome pro- or anti- is something that makes my head hurt when I think about it.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Too many assumptions in that for me to unravel it.

Looks like I was right, a simple unwillingness to answer a very simple question. I wonder why that is?


No I have no citation that was why I as asking you - the question mark should have indicated it was a question not a statement!

So it was just something that occured to you out of the blue? Well, it looks like the answer is no.

(ETA) And the reason why it would be relevant is that I have plainly said that such changes in a country should be achieved via democratic means and achieving something through the provisions of a given constitution meets that criteria if you ask me.

If the Westminster parliament passes an act authorising a referendum to decide the issue of Scottish independence which only considers the votes of the Scottish people that would meet your criteria of being through democratic means as well. So precisely what is it you are arguing about?

Apart from the fact that comparing the UK to the EU is not comparing like with like you mean? If and when the EU resembles the UK to the degree that such a comparison becomes sensible then the same principle may apply, but it would depend on how much it resembled the current UK situation of course. Given that is probably a couple of countries away perhaps we can shelve discussing that until then?

More evasion and refusal to answer. What is your excuse for Serbia/Kosovo being incomparable?

Anyway as I said a bit earlier I do wonder why it doesn't seem possible to come up with a convincing argument why a decision regarding the future of our country should be able to be decided by less than 5% of of the population is somehow democratic or even reasonable?

It is impossible to convince someone whose mind is made up and who refuses to even consider that there position may be wrong.

Would it be democratic/reasonable for the Serbs to vote to deny independence for Kosovo even though the Kosovans voted in favour? If not, why not?

[martu]

I don't really care whether the union survives or not, the map of Europe has been changing since the first tribes claimed plots of land. But I don't understand why some Scots are so keen on it, Rolfe if you don't mind could you list the main advantages as you see them?

Nationalism is such an ugly thing I hope it's more than that.

[Darat]

Looks like I was right, a simple unwillingness to answer a very simple question. I wonder why that is?

...snip...


Given this silliness I'll assume you are not interested in an actual discussion or debate. I wonder why that is?

[Rolfe]

Why do you describe nationalism as ugly?

What's ugly about a nation desiring self-determination? To take its place in the international world as the equal of other similarly self-determining nations, and to deal with them on an equal footing?

Is it only OK for nations which already enjoy these advantages to have them, but somehow "ugly" for nations which are denied them to seek to achieve them?

Are you going to tell the Slovaks, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians and so on that their (achieved) ambitions for self-governing status were "ugly"?

Sorry, but I really must challenge you on this. What, precisely, about the desire of a non-self-governing nation to be a self-governing state is "ugly"?

Rolfe.

[Darat]

I don't really care whether the union survives or not, the map of Europe has been changing since the first tribes claimed plots of land. But I don't understand why some Scots are so keen on it, Rolfe if you don't mind could you list the main advantages as you see them?

Nationalism is such an ugly thing I hope it's more than that.

Good site for links for the pro-side: http://www.nationalismproject.org/links/scotland.htm

[Darat]

Why do you describe nationalism as ugly?

What's ugly about a nation desiring self-determination? To take its place in the international world as the equal of other similarly self-determining nations, and to deal with them on an equal footing?

Is it only OK for nations which already enjoy these advantages to have them, but somehow "ugly" for nations which are denied them to seek to achieve them?

Are you going to tell the Slovaks, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians and so on that their (achieved) ambitions for self-governing status were "ugly"?

Sorry, but I really must challenge you on this. What, precisely, about the desire of a non-self-governing nation to be a self-governing state is "ugly"?

Rolfe.

This is a fair enough argument in a way, but you already have all this being a British citizen.

[Rolfe]

Given this silliness I'll assume you are not interested in an actual discussion or debate. I wonder why that is?


To answer for Jaggy Bunnet, no, Darat, I'm not interested in every discussion about the achieving of Scottish independence being sidetracked into a debate about whether the population of England should have a vote on it. It's an irrelevance to what is at the moment a very real and very live debate, because it simply isn't an option which is on the table, or which is being put forward by any interest group with any credibility in the matter.

I'd much rather discuss the advantages (and disadvantages) of Scottish independence to both sides of the bargain, and the actual ongoing politics of achieving this.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

To answer for Jaggy Bunnet, no, Darat, I'm not interested in every discussion about the achieving of Scottish independence being sidetracked into a debate about whether the population of England should have a vote on it.

...snip....

Since I've never put this argument forward you do realize that you are attacking a strawman you've created.

What I have argued is that the determination of major changes to the UK as a nation should be determined by the UK population not any subset of that population. That you read my argument as "population of England" I think shows a bias in your thinking regarding this issue.

And since this thread is about a call for a Scottish referendum how it can be called "side tracking" to make arguments about it shouldn't be an exclusively Scottish referendum is beyond me.

[Rolfe]

This is a fair enough argument in a way, but you already have all this being a British citizen.


Darat, I think we'll have to disagree about our respective senses of nationhood.

Rolfe.

[martu]

Why do you describe nationalism as ugly?

Because it splits people into them and us. We are one species that has created arbitrary artifical borders that have caused more problems than anything else in history, isn't time we grew up a bit?

What's ugly about a nation desiring self-determination? To take its place in the international world as the equal of other similarly self-determining nations, and to deal with them on an equal footing?

You're going to deal with the US as an equal? Russia? China? I don't think so.

Is it only OK for nations which already enjoy these advantages to have them, but somehow "ugly" for nations which are denied them to seek to achieve them?

I'd rather we had proper European union than individual states, I am in a minority here.

Are you going to tell the Slovaks, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians and so on that their (achieved) ambitions for self-governing status were "ugly"?

Democracy was lacking there I think.

Sorry, but I really must challenge you on this. What, precisely, about the desire of a non-self-governing nation to be a self-governing state is "ugly"?

Them and us.

[Rolfe]

So, you're in favour of a single world government? There should be no separate nations or states, and everything should be shared equally? Kuwait and Nigeria, all equals, and equal shares?

Very noble.

And any nation currently wishing self-determination must have that desire thwarted, and castigated as "ugly", because it is an impediment to this ultimate goal?

I can read no other interpretation into your position.

Rolfe.

[martu]

Good site for links for the pro-side: http://www.nationalismproject.org/links/scotland.htm

Thanks. It doesn't help me though, I don't get it.

I have never really felt British or English, why should I care about an accident of birth? There's probably a computer programmer sitting in Lahore right now that I have more in common with than my neighbours.

Why is an accident of birth so important to these people?

[malbui]

I think as a compromise solution the whole of the UK should be merged into a Greater France. We will of course extend you the courtesy of giving you six months to learn our language.

[martu]

So, you're in favour of a single world government? There should be no separate nations or states, and everything should be shared equally? Kuwait and Nigeria, all equals, and equal shares?

Very noble.

And any nation currently wishing self-determination must have that desire thwarted, and castigated as "ugly", because it is an impediment to this ultimate goal?

I can read no other interpretation into your position.

Rolfe.

Logistically that is currently impossible. But sure, when we have the tech, why not? Do you think your goals and aims are that different to other people who just happen to born in another country? Let's get everyone fed, clothed and safe then we can play.

Why are you willing to only share your resources with people that were born near you?

[martu]

I think as a compromise solution the whole of the UK should be merged into a Greater France. We will of course extend you the courtesy of giving you six months to learn our language.

How about we discuss this in Belgium, maybe near Waterloo?

:)

[Rolfe]

Logistically that is currently impossible. But sure, when we have the tech, why not? Do you think your goals and aims are that different to other people who just happen to born in another country? Let's get everyone fed, clothed and safe then we can play.

Why are you willing to only share your resources with people that were born near you?


When the entire world agrees to your utopian goal, then ask me again. In the mean time, I reserve the right to identify with the nation into which I was born, and to aspire to that which so many other nations already have, namely self-determination.

Rolfe.

[martu]

When the entire world agrees to your utopian goal, then ask me again. In the mean time, I reserve the right to identify with the nation into which I was born, and to aspire to that which so many other nations already have, namely self-determination.

I am not trying to take away your rights I am merely disagreeing with you. I don't understand why an accident of birth is so important to you (and many, many others) I am merely trying to learn.

What does self-determination mean in this context?

[dudalb]

Why do you describe nationalism as ugly?

What's ugly about a nation desiring self-determination? To take its place in the international world as the equal of other similarly self-determining nations, and to deal with them on an equal footing?

Is it only OK for nations which already enjoy these advantages to have them, but somehow "ugly" for nations which are denied them to seek to achieve them?

Are you going to tell the Slovaks, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, the Latvians and so on that their (achieved) ambitions for self-governing status were "ugly"?

Sorry, but I really must challenge you on this. What, precisely, about the desire of a non-self-governing nation to be a self-governing state is "ugly"?

Rolfe.

I 100% agree with you.
I just don't understand people who claim to be "above" patriotism. We got into this in another thread here. Most of the time the people who say this have some kind of woozy devotion to some really abastract ideal of "one world" which has about as much of happening as a snowball has of lasting a long time in the infernal regions.
Not that is matters;nationalism is alive and well throughout the world, as what is going on in Kosovo and Tibet shows.

[dudalb]

Thanks. It doesn't help me though, I don't get it.

I have never really felt British or English, why should I care about an accident of birth? There's probably a computer programmer sitting in Lahore right now that I have more in common with than my neighbours.

Why is an accident of birth so important to these people?


You are the one who with his total rejection of Patrotrism is in a very small minority,pal.

[Darat]

I think as a compromise solution the whole of the UK should be merged into a Greater France. We will of course extend you the courtesy of giving you six months to learn our language.

We start practising speaking very loudly now.

[Darat]

Darat, I think we'll have to disagree about our respective senses of nationhood.

Rolfe.

I think it's nice that some people retain a strong sense of "Englishness", "Scottishness" or whateverness I just don't think it is makes for a sound base from which to make major decisions about our country.

Despite that I have nothing against anyone campaigning for what they want to happen in the country. That is why, even though I am against a decision to end our country being made purely on a referendum of such a small minority of the population, when the Scottish independence referendum happens I will support whatever the outcome is even if that is the end of my country.

(Somehow I suspect passionate supporters of a new Scotland like yourself will not be as supportive of a "no to independence" result!)

[Darat]

So, you're in favour of a single world government?

...snip...

I certainly am - with the obvious caveats of fairness, appropriate level of representation and so on. Can't think of a rational reason to be against the idea.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Given this silliness I'll assume you are not interested in an actual discussion or debate. I wonder why that is?

I am interested in a discussion or a debate. Unfortunately for me, that requires participants who are willing to answer questions about their position, which you refuse to do for some reason.

So if you want a debate, how about you answer the question - was the Kosovo independence decision, taken only by the people of the newly independent country and not those of the part of the larger state that they chose to leave, legitimate or not?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I certainly am - with the obvious caveats of fairness, appropriate level of representation and so on. Can't think of a rational reason to be against the idea.

As an interim measure, would you be in favour of moving to a single European government (i.e. abolish all national governments and make the European parliament the sole legislative body)?

[zeno2712]

Having only jumped into this thread last night and having had no time today to go through all the posts, I find myself agreeing with Martu:

Because it splits people into them and us. We are one species that has created arbitrary artifical borders that have caused more problems than anything else in history, isn't time we grew up a bit?

Although my mother happened to be in Scotland when I was born, I put my 'allegiance' to a Scottish nation (whatever that is), way down the list. Like Martu (I suspect), I consider myself a human being first and foremost and consider all others wherever in the world they are to be my brothers and sisters. I certainly grew up in Scotland and I therefore have some cultural ties with Scotland, but that doesn't mean I put other Scots above others. Nor should I. As Matru put it:

Why are you willing to only share your resources with people that were born near you?My point exactly: my mother (and many other relatives and friends) lives in England. Why should I want to see some in Scotland flourish while they suffer? (Now we can discuss whether or not this would actually happen, but I have met many Scottish Nationalists who don't give a damn about anyone who lives south of the border.)

[Rolfe]

I'd like to revisit what Darat said about support for independence being an emotional reaction.

He's quite right. Done properly, that's exactly what it is.

Certainly from my point of view, this is nothing to do with money, resources or anything like that. I was passionately in favour of Scottish independence as soon as I realised Scotland wasn't a "proper" country like Denmark and Holland and Switzerland and Canada and so on. I wasn't old enough to know what a balance of payments is. I barely had a grasp of pocket money. My retirement pension is now just visible on the distant horizon, and I'm just as pasionate.

Finance is important because, lacking sufficient means, we can't always have what we want. If indeed Scotland was non-viable as an independent country, nationalists would probably have to put their dreams on the back burner and sigh about what might have been. (Note, I only say probably. There are those who would favour going it alone even if it did mean hard times all round. But it's a non-issue, as that simply isn't the case.) Thus, we have all these tedious arguments about oil and whisky and tourism and the financial services industry and who pays how much tax to whom.

But that's not what it's all about. This isn't some perverse game of beggar my neighbour. If Britain were really united, there would be no call for any secession of any part, whether or not they'd struck gold. It would be the act of a scoundrel to discover nationalistic leanings previously unexpressed, the minute his parish realised it was sitting on a fortune.

If the emotion isn't there, you don't have an argument. Naked self-interest isn't pretty. The wife who marries for money, or who divorces for more money, or because the money has run out, is rightly despised. It's the emotion that makes the marriage, or indeed the divorce, legitimate.

I'm not Mr. Spock. I don't weigh up every decision coldly as to how much it might benefit me, or even just how "logical" it is. Emotions exist, and their existence has to be taken into account like any other fact when making decisions. We'd be poorer all round if we didn't.

So please don't scorn my position by castigating it as an "emotional" reaction. Recognise that it is that very emotion that makes the position legitimate.

Rolfe.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I consider myself a human being first and foremost and consider all others wherever in the world they are to be my brothers and sisters.

<snip>

my mother (and many other relatives and friends) lives in England.

This seems a little inconsistent. If all people are your relatives, then surely it is irrelevant that you have actual biological relatives in England?

For those in favour of One World Government - good on you. What is the earliest possible date that you believe this will be feasible? In the meantime do you mind if we work to make the systems that actually do exist more democratic and more representative of the electorate?

[Rasmus]

I don't get nationalism, either.

And what I *really* don't get is the arbitrariness of it all.

So, Scotland isn't a "real" nation like Candada? Well, what about North Dakota or Hamburg? Hamburg, at least, used to be an independent city state. (Bavaria to this day calls itself a "free state", not that the republic seems to be bothered much.)

If 20 years from now those living in the north of Scotland decide they would rather be independent from those in the south - wouldn't that make just as much sense? Is there any subdivision that would no longer be just as sensible?

From my limited knowledge I would be the first to agree that Scotland is not fairly treated or represented within the UK. But why should independence be the best way to address that? (That some may really, really, really, really want it that way would hardly be a good answer....)

[Rolfe]

Why should I want to see some in Scotland flourish while they suffer? (Now we can discuss whether or not this would actually happen, but I have met many Scottish Nationalists who don't give a damn about anyone who lives south of the border.)


I've met some Scottish nationalists who had some pretty weird views too. In a party of about 18,000, and an awful lot more hangers-on, it's inevitable that some undesirable elements will come along for the ride. (During my spell in London branch, I met an SNP member who expressed horror that we could live in England, and who declined to come on the trip to Veere I mentioned above because it meant travelling through England. I excused myself and discovered a pressing appointment elsewhere.)

I've met some people who have been expelled from the SNP for expressing anti-English sentiments. Bunch of dangerous lunatics, quite frankly. But the SNP is an inclusive party, and all you have to do to join is cough up your ten quid or whatever and sign up. The thought police don't come calling. It's only when behaviour and/or views which are clearly contrary to party policy or interests are expressed that a member can be shown the door.

I can say for sure that there is nobody in any senior position in the party who holds such views. Scottish nationalism is inclusive and civic, welcoming all who identify with and/or make their home in Scotland, and anti-English feeling just isn't an issue.

However, if you read down the comments in that Guardian CiF article linked to above (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/07/scotland.scotland), you'll find many many vitriolic comments by English posters who are convinced that the Scots are "subsidy junkies", and who demand that they take themselves off and stop scrounging English taxpayers' money. Several even look forward gleefully to a 5p cut in income tax when they no longer have to "subsidise" Scotland.

There are unpleasant people and raving lunatics in all countries. Looking to their fringe ranting to provide solid grounds for making a decision on any matter is a bit pointless.

Rolfe.

[andyandy]

I'd like to revisit what Darat said about support for independence being an emotional reaction.

He's quite right. Done properly, that's exactly what it is.

Certainly from my point of view, this is nothing to do with money, resources or anything like that. I was passionately in favour of Scottish independence as soon as I realised Scotland wasn't a "proper" country like Denmark and Holland and Switzerland and Canada and so on. I wasn't old enough to know what a balance of payments is. I barely had a grasp of pocket money. My retirement pension is now just visible on the distant horizon, and I'm just as pasionate.

Finance is important because, lacking sufficient means, we can't always have what we want. If indeed Scotland was non-viable as an independent country, nationalists would probably have to put their dreams on the back burner and sigh about what might have been. (Note, I only say probably. There are those who would favour going it alone even if it did mean hard times all round. But it's a non-issue, as that simply isn't the case.) Thus, we have all these tedious arguments about oil and whisky and tourism and the financial services industry and who pays how much tax to whom.

But that's not what it's all about. This isn't some perverse game of beggar my neighbour. If Britain were really united, there would be no call for any secession of any part, whether or not they'd struck gold. It would be the act of a scoundrel to discover nationalistic leanings previously unexpressed, the minute his parish realised it was sitting on a fortune.

If the emotion isn't there, you don't have an argument. Naked self-interest isn't pretty. The wife who marries for money, or who divorces for more money, or because the money has run out, is rightly despised. It's the emotion that makes the marriage, or indeed the divorce, legitimate.

I'm not Mr. Spock. I don't weigh up every decision coldly as to how much it might benefit me, or even just how "logical" it is. Emotions exist, and their existence has to be taken into account like any other fact when making decisions. We'd be poorer all round if we didn't.

So please don't scorn my position by castigating it as an "emotional" reaction. Recognise that it is that very emotion that makes the position legitimate.

Rolfe.

I think this is an interesting perspective. There are two main reasons for wanting independence, either because of a perceived economic/political/social benefit or because of patriotism/nationalism. It is possible of course that both reasons may come into play in any decision. But fundamentally any referendum on indepence I think would play predominantly on the patriotism of the participants.

That is to say although economic considerations would be important to many people, the complexities of economic policy and international law will I think mean that people will be faced with a choice between one side making a positive economic argument and the other making a negative one, and they will choose which side they believe not from an informed economic standpoint
(because very few of us would be qualified to do so) but based on a gut patriotic stance.

And if it does come down fundamentally to patriotism, then I think that independence will be a shoo in :)

[Rolfe]

So, Scotland isn't a "real" nation like Candada? Well, what about North Dakota or Hamburg? Hamburg, at least, used to be an independent city state. (Bavaria to this day calls itself a "free state", not that the republic seems to be bothered much.)


Don't misquote. Scotland is as real a nation as any other. What it isn't, in the language of a seven-year-old, is a real country.

Now I'll leave it to the inhabitants of North Dakota or Hamburg or Bavaria to decide whether or not they are actually nations in the way Scotland is. That's not my call.

Rolfe.

[dudalb]

And if it does come down fundamentally to patriotism, then I think that independence will be a shoo in

Will the Border Reivers return?

[Rasmus]

Don't misquote. Scotland is as real a nation as any other. What it isn't, in the language of a seven-year-old, is a real country.

My choice of words wasn't supposed to imply anything. I apologize.

Now I'll leave it to the inhabitants of North Dakota or Hamburg or Bavaria to decide whether or not they are actually nations in the way Scotland is. That's not my call.

I was hoping to hear from you what makes a nation and what doesn't. Hamburg used to be just as independent as Scotland (arguing from 80% ignorance again), and my question is why it should be more appropriate to compare Scotland to Canada than to Hamburg.

There are countries (as in nation-states) and there non-countries. The distinction, it seems to me, is arbitrary.

[Rolfe]

I thought I made myself clear. It is the feeling of the people themselves that makes a nation. I don't know the feeling of the people of these regions/nations/whatever.

Rolfe.

[WildCat]

To deal here with what Darat said as well, there is certainly an argument that both Scotland and the other new state of England/Wales/Northern Ireland (I suppose someone will think of a name)
Wales/England/Northern Ireland = Weni.

Works for me...

:boxedin:

[Darat]

I'd like to revisit what Darat said about support for independence being an emotional reaction.

He's quite right. Done properly, that's exactly what it is.

...snip...

So please don't scorn my position by castigating it as an "emotional" reaction. Recognise that it is that very emotion that makes the position legitimate.

Rolfe.

If you read all my posts in this and any other related subject thread you will see that I do not scorn such an emotional appeal; what I have done (and I will continue to do) is point out that such an emotional argument does not make for a sound base from which to make decision regarding the future of our country.

To make an analogy, many people have an emotional attachment to homoeopathy. They want homoeopathy whether science can prove it works or indeed even if science can prove it doesn't. Does such an emotional argument form a sound base from which to build an argument as to why homoeopathy should be provided on the NHS? I would again argue it isn't.

The only scorn in this thread does not come from me...

[Darat]

...snip...


I was hoping to hear from you what makes a nation and what doesn't. Hamburg used to be just as independent as Scotland (arguing from 80% ignorance again), and my question is why it should be more appropriate to compare Scotland to Canada than to Hamburg.

There are countries (as in nation-states) and there non-countries. The distinction, it seems to me, is arbitrary.

A related point that always strikes me in these types of diction (so this is not just pointed at Rolfe) is that somehow an arbitrary point in the far past represents what is "right". So we see justification for say Israel given by some as "this was our land 2000 years ago" (and of course a similar one from the Palestinians in this case), the case of Scotland is often that 300 years ago it was a country (in the sense of Rolfe's seven year old self).

Yet when you look at the history of a country like the UK there are many possible configurations that are just a "legitimate" when using the past as how things should be today.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A related point that always strikes me in these types of diction (so this is not just pointed at Rolfe) is that somehow an arbitrary point in the far past represents what is "right". So we see justification for say Israel given by some as "this was our land 2000 years ago" (and of course a similar one from the Palestinians in this case), the case of Scotland is often that 300 years ago it was a country (in the sense of Rolfe's seven year old self).

Yet when you look at the history of a country like the UK there are many possible configurations that are just a "legitimate" when using the past as how things should be today.

And you accuse others of creating strawmen? The argument for Scottish independence is based on that being the will of the Scottish people today, not because it used to be a country 300 years ago.

[martu]

You are the one who with his total rejection of Patrotrism is in a very small minority,pal.

So what?

[martu]

For those in favour of One World Government - good on you. What is the earliest possible date that you believe this will be feasible? In the meantime do you mind if we work to make the systems that actually do exist more democratic and more representative of the electorate?

I have no idea about a date I'm afraid, we'll need a few technological breakthroughs first. Sure democracy is a right that should be extended to all, but let's be clear the Scottish have democracy and they have had it for a long time.

Modern tribes are a nonsense - most people living and working in Edinburgh have more in common with people living and working in London (Or Paris, or Berlin etc) than they do those living in the Highlands of Scotland. They worry about cosmopolitan city issues not rural issues.

[martu]

I thought I made myself clear. It is the feeling of the people themselves that makes a nation. I don't know the feeling of the people of these regions/nations/whatever.

Do you actually gain anything tangible from independence? Or to put it another way how will your life be better if you gain independence?

[Darat]

Although Rolfe is clear on her primary reason as to why she wishes Scotland to become independent the SNP has been using the economic benefits that they claim would accrue to Scotland as a mainstay of their campaign for a new Scotland for a long time. Their site has a lot of information on their claims, a good starting point: http://www.snp.org/node/240

[Soapy Sam]

Wales/England/Northern Ireland = Weni.

Works for me...

:boxedin:
N(i)ewland, surely?

I confess , from the POV of a Scot who has spent most of his life stravaigin' ower the earth, it all seems ...a bit daft.

In my experience, the plain people of Scotland don't have much burning desire for political independence, but are always pleased to see THEM (the Know-all buggers in London) take a poke in the eye.

As for patriotism- I love the land I live in- but "Scotland" as a geographical entity is as ephemeral as any other temporary agglomeration of rock.The geological story of Iona alone is so complex and long as to make the story of Caledonia since the Roman pullout look like a comma in a sentence of a far more interesting book.

The people who do burningly want independence in Scotland are politicians, either by vocation or avocation. They remind me of the student politicians of my days at Glasgow - fish, flopping in a small pool, who constantly tried, for their own reasons, to talk the students of Glasgow University into joining the NUS. Time after time they arranged a referendum, only to have it voted down by the supposedly apathetic mob of engineers and medics who had actual lives.

To anything which creates more politicians, I am solidly opposed.

There is only one kind of government worth having and that , unlikely or not, is global government. Whether this will ultimately be achieved by the unification of existing superstates, or by the homogenisation of micronations, seems irrelevant. We either achieve global government , or we fail as a species. Assuredly, we will all go together, when we go.

[Darat]

...snip...

In my experience, the plain people of Scotland don't have much burning desire for political independence, but are always pleased to see THEM (the Know-all buggers in London) take a poke in the eye.

...snip...

Strangely ;) this is probably true of pretty much all of the population of the UK!

[Rolfe]

To make an analogy, many people have an emotional attachment to homoeopathy. They want homoeopathy whether science can prove it works or indeed even if science can prove it doesn't. Does such an emotional argument form a sound base from which to build an argument as to why homoeopathy should be provided on the NHS? I would again argue it isn't.


And this comparison is relevant exactly how?

Thanks for an excellent post from Soapy Sam. Few people seem to put a coherent case from a unionist perspective, but he does. I too remember the situation he recalls at Glasgow University. I was one of the ones who emerged from the textbooks and the amateur operatics long enough to vote the proposal down. The difference here is, we haven't actually had a referendum, so nobody really knows.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Do you actually gain anything tangible from independence? Or to put it another way how will your life be better if you gain independence?


Tangible? I don't think you've really been reading my posts. It's not about tangible benefits. The argument for tangible benefits is just the path taken when you examine the fiscal viability of the position.

Quality of life is about more than tangible benefits.

Soapy Sam and I disagree on this matter, but if you note our positions, this has nothing to do with our respective views regarding how rich we'd be in either scenario.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

And this comparison is relevant exactly how?

...snip...

You really don't see it? I am surprised.

To expand on it. You have put forward in essence that your primary reason for wanting a new Scotland is that it is an emotional argument:

...snip...

Darat said about support for independence being an emotional reaction.

He's quite right. Done properly, that's exactly what it is.

...snip...


To me that is the same reasoning as someone who wants homoeopathy not from any evidence it works but because it "feels" right to them.

In the case of homoeopathy I strongly suspect that whilst you would accept that they have every right to feel that way it does not form a sound base to make a decision as to whether homoeopathy should become an accepted medical practise.

To me that is the same as what you are doing with your campaign for a new Scotland, but in that instance you think that your feelings should be considered a sound reason for it becoming an "accepted practise".

ETA: We were posting at the same time and your last post makes the comparison even clearer, imagine in a homoeopathy discussion someone had posted this:


Do you actually gain anything tangible from homoeopathy? Or to put it another way how will your life be better of homoeopathy gains acceptance?


Tangible? I don't think you've really been reading my posts. It's not about tangible benefits. The argument for tangible benefits is just the path taken when you examine the fiscal viability of the position.

Quality of life is about more than tangible benefits.

Dirty Den and I disagree on this matter, but if you note our positions, this has nothing to do with our respective views regarding how healthy we'd be in either scenario.

[Soapy Sam]

Strangely ;) this is probably true of pretty much all of the population of the UK!

Aye. No doubt of it.

And this comparison is relevant exactly how?

Few people seem to put a coherent case from a unionist perspective, but he does.

Scarcely "unionist". "Can't be arsed with all this nonsens-ist" would be nearer the truth.

I too remember the situation he recalls at Glasgow University. I was one of the ones who emerged from the textbooks and the amateur operatics long enough to vote the proposal down.
Rolfe.

As I had supposed. Me , too.

[martu]

Tangible? I don't think you've really been reading my posts. It's not about tangible benefits. The argument for tangible benefits is just the path taken when you examine the fiscal viability of the position.

Quality of life is about more than tangible benefits.

Soapy Sam and I disagree on this matter, but if you note our positions, this has nothing to do with our respective views regarding how rich we'd be in either scenario.

Rolfe.

I'm sorry I obviously didn't phrase that very well I wasn't only referring to economic arguments, my apologies. How about this question:

What will be different for you if Scotland gain independence?

[Darat]

...snip...

Scarcely "unionist". "Can't be arsed with all this nonsens-ist" would be nearer the truth.

...snip...

That sums up the response of most people (bar strangely the more politically active) I know; the idea generates more of a shrug of the shoulders and a "good luck to them" rather then a "never shall the union be sundered" response.

[martu]

Although Rolfe is clear on her primary reason as to why she wishes Scotland to become independent the SNP has been using the economic benefits that they claim would accrue to Scotland as a mainstay of their campaign for a new Scotland for a long time. Their site has a lot of information on their claims, a good starting point: http://www.snp.org/node/240

Thank you again.

From that page:

Independence would give us full control of energy policy – and bring home Scotland’s share of North Sea oil and gas revenues.

More than 90 per cent of the UK’s oil revenues come from the Scottish sector of the Continental Shelf. So it really is Scotland’s oil

Who owns the oil platforms in the North Sea? Who paid for the exploration and discovery of these resources?

Why don't the people of Scotland want to share their good fortune with the rest of the UK?

[martu]

That sums up the response of most people (bar strangely the more politically active) I know; the idea generates more of a shrug of the shoulders and a "good luck to them" rather then a "never shall the union be sundered" response.

Yes agreed, I wouldn't fight to keep the union it's as irrational as all the other artificial constructs we have created to separate ourselves from others.

[Alan G]

This is a fair enough argument in a way, but you already have all this being a British citizen.

Except we aren't British citizens, we are British subjects. There is far more chance for me to become a citizen in an independent Scotland than in the UK.

My reasons for supporting independence are:
1. Democracy, the possibility of having a written constitution, a wholly elected parliament (and of course, no house of lords, privy council etc)
1.a dependent on any subsequent referendum we could have no monarchy either (if it's the SNP in charge they plan a referendum on the issue)

2. Anti-imperialism, it will be a major blow to the imperialist warmongering British state

3. Undermine romantic patriotism, not being able to blame the "English" will undermine the arguments of the fringe nationalists.

4. Removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland

Like Rolfe, I don't care about whether Scotland was independent 300 years ago, it doesn't influence my position now. In the here and now, Scotland is as unequal partner in an imperialist warmongering union which for the past 30years has been swaying between the tweedledum and tweddledee of authoritarian governments who are ever more eroding civil liberties.

I support the SSP, but the SNP are more left wing and far more liberal than either Labour, Tories or the Lib Dems. However much I criticize the SNP where they deserve it, in a choice between being a citizen in an independent Scotland probably governed by the SNP and a subject in a Tory governed UK ruled by an unelected monarch it is an easy choice to make.

[Darat]

Except we aren't British citizens, we are British subjects. There is far more chance for me to become a citizen in an independent Scotland than in the UK.


That's really more a matter of semantics than substance by any measure we are citizens i.e. have rights in our own right and not just those granted by a monarch.


My reasons for supporting independence are:
1. Democracy, the possibility of having a written constitution, a wholly elected parliament (and of course, no house of lords, privy council etc)



All good things and broadly what I would like to see for the country!


1.a dependent on any subsequent referendum we could have no monarchy either (if it's the SNP in charge they plan a referendum on the issue)


Again like this idea!


2. Anti-imperialism, it will be a major blow to the imperialist warmongering British state


Er...have to say I hadn't noticed much imperialising going on recently....

3. Undermine romantic patriotism, not being able to blame the "English" will undermine the arguments of the fringe nationalists.


I suspect there will always be a bogeyman.



4. Removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland



That's one thing I'm fine with - we'll have them all!



Like Rolfe, I don't care about whether Scotland was independent 300 years ago, it doesn't influence my position now. In the here and now, Scotland is as unequal partner in an imperialist warmongering union which for the past 30years has been swaying between the tweedledum and tweddledee of authoritarian governments who are ever more eroding civil liberties.



You don't see the contradiction in your position? I.e. "I don't care about whether Scotland was independent 300 years ago" and "Scotland is as unequal partner in an imperialist warmongering union" ?


I support the SSP, but the SNP are more left wing and far more liberal than either Labour, Tories or the Lib Dems. However much I criticize the SNP where they deserve it, in a choice between being a citizen in an independent Scotland probably governed by the SNP and a subject in a Tory governed UK ruled by an unelected monarch it is an easy choice to make.

Sorry but this is just too much to swallow - "ruled by an unelected monarch" - as much as I despise the monarchy and am a staunch republican I can't with a straight face even utter the words "ruled by an unelected monarch" to describe the UK - this isn't 1707 you know! :)

[Alan G]

Er...have to say I hadn't noticed much imperialising going on recently....

Falklands War, Diego Garcia, what would you call the misadventure in Iraq if not imperialism


You don't see the contradiction in your position? I.e. "I don't care about whether Scotland was independent 300 years ago" and "Scotland is as unequal partner in an imperialist warmongering union" ?

Scotland is a "unit" in the union, as are England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's not based on it being independent 300years ago.


Sorry but this is just too much to swallow - "ruled by an unelected monarch" - as much as I despise the monarchy and am a staunch republican I can't with a straight face even utter the words "ruled by an unelected monarch" to describe the UK - this isn't 1707 you know! :)
The monarch who asks a party to form her government and who signs each bill into law, and whose Governor-Generals sack Prime Ministers is who I was referring to.

[martu]

I support the SSP, but the SNP are more left wing and far more liberal than either Labour, Tories or the Lib Dems. However much I criticize the SNP where they deserve it, in a choice between being a citizen in an independent Scotland probably governed by the SNP and a subject in a Tory governed UK ruled by an unelected monarch it is an easy choice to make.

The Queen has no real powers you know, if she refused to do the will of Parliament she would be out before she could pick up a Corgi.

How will your life change if you get your wish?

[Architect]

Who owns the oil platforms in the North Sea? Who paid for the exploration and discovery of these resources?


A whole range of sources. What's your point, caller?

Why don't the people of Scotland want to share their good fortune with the rest of the UK?

That's an awfully simplistic argument. Why don't the Norwegians want to share their good fortune with the rest of Scandanavia? WHy don't the Swiss subsidise their neighbours? Why don't we expect the US to give even more aid to Latin America? Why don't we expect the Saudis to hand out even more of that good fortune of theirs?

[Architect]

Falklands War, Diego Garcia, what would you call the misadventure in Iraq if not imperialism


In all fairness, the Argie's invaded our sovereign territory and we kicked them back out. Not exactly imperialist.

[Darat]

Falklands War, Diego Garcia, what would you call the misadventure in Iraq if not imperialism


Falklands war: To claim that is imperialism is like saying it would be imperialism if Norway successfully invaded the Isle of Wight and British forces tried to remove the occupiers.

Diego Garcia: Yep a terrible episode that we all should be embarrassed about because we haven't rectified our mistake yet - however I am struggling to see how that can be viewed as imperialism.

Iraq: Another terrible mistake but again I don't see how that is imperialism. we have no intention in annexing the country to the UK.



Scotland is a "unit" in the union, as are England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's not based on it being independent 300years ago.

...snip...

And that unit is based on what..... ?


The monarch who asks a party to form her government and who signs each bill into law, and whose Governor-Generals sack Prime Ministers is who I was referring to.

All ceremonially observed rather than the monarchy "ruling" us.

[Architect]

Like Rolfe, I don't care about whether Scotland was independent 300 years ago, it doesn't influence my position now.

There can be little doubt that, over the longer term, the Union has been good for Scotland although there are clearly periods - including the present day - when this is not the case. In making a decision it is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Nevertheless Scotland is different, both culturally and economically, from England and the other countries of the UK. Most notably it preserves its own distinct legal and educational systems, two of the principal definining issues in nationhood, and arguably (albeit to a much lesser degree) its own languages. A comparison to , say, Norfolk or another English region is not particularly helpful in considering issues around nationhood.

It is my view that Government should reflect as closely as is practicable the wishes of the general electorate, and in the case of Scotland I believe that Westminster has shown itself wholly unable to do over my lifetime. It has reflected the majority of its power base and concentrated on English votes and issues at the expense of the other 3 countries.

Devolution has gone part of the way to solving this, however in the absence of a transition to a complete federal state it has also shown just how marginalised we in Scotland really are. Treaties are made without the consent of our government. Economic policy is dictated by the far south. Our educational system is ignored. Claims are made of subsidy junkies when detailed studies show this to be far from the truth. It is a long and wearying list.

I therefore support the principle of home rule without reservation, and the most practicable way I see of that happening is through independence.

's math sinn.

[martu]

A whole range of sources. What's your point, caller?

That though the oil\gas fields might be on what is considered Scottish land (erm sea?) the infrastructure that has created the wealth has been paid for by more than just Scotland. If the Scots gain independence do we get some cash?

That's an awfully simplistic argument. Why don't the Norwegians want to share their good fortune with the rest of Scandanavia? WHy don't the Swiss subsidise their neighbours? Why don't we expect the US to give even more aid to Latin America? Why don't we expect the Saudis to hand out even more of that good fortune of theirs?

History mainly, the artificial tribes created in antiquity have been bought forward to the present to the detriment of the human race. But Scotland made the first step - a union with another tribe.

Thousands of years ago it was the people in the next village who were different, people we don't want to share with. Then villages got together and it was the other collection of villages that were different and to be treated differently. Then they became states etc and so on. Every step creates an artificial barrier when in fact those people in the other village, town, state whatever just want what you want - peace, food, safety and time to play.

Do you think people are fundamentally different in some way that they require different governance?

[Darat]

...snip...

It is my view that Government should reflect as closely as is practicable the wishes of the general electorate, and in the case of Scotland I believe that Westminster has shown itself wholly unable to do over my lifetime. It has reflected the majority of its power base and concentrated on English votes and issues at the expense of the other 3 countries.

...snip...

I agree with the first part of your comment however I think you would find that the majority of English people away from the South East of England would hold a similar view but wouldn't frame it as "English votes and issues".

I have argued this point several times but what you perceive and state in terms of "English votes" I perceive as a problem of a single region of the UK dominating all the others, including most of England.

[martu]

I agree with the first part of your comment however I think you would find that the majority of English people away from the South East of England would hold a similar view but wouldn't frame it as "English votes and issues".

I have argued this point several times but what you perceive and state in terms of "English votes" I perceive as a problem of a single region of the UK dominating all the others, including most of England.

The wealthiest region yes.

[Architect]

I agree with the first part of your comment however I think you would find that the majority of English people away from the South East of England would hold a similar view but wouldn't frame it as "English votes and issues".

I have argued this point several times but what you perceive and state in terms of "English votes" I perceive as a problem of a single region of the UK dominating all the others, including most of England.


You will recall that I commented upon "the South" dictating economic policy, not "England". Likewise "Scotching the Myth" demonstrated that much of the "hidden" investment was focussed on the south and southeast.

However in passing I would note that it's not just the deep south. Bodies such as English Partnerships have generous levels of funding that the other parts of the UK would give their eye teeth for, something the Barnett critics seem to forget.

[martu]

You will recall that I commented upon "the South" dictating economic policy, not "England". Likewise "Scotching the Myth" demonstrated that much of the "hidden" investment was focussed on the south and southeast.

However in passing I would note that it's not just the deep south. Bodies such as English Partnerships have generous levels of funding that the other parts of the UK would give their eye teeth for, something the Barnett critics seem to forget.

So why not push for UK reform rather than independence?

[Architect]

Because all polls indicate that the English don't support it; in fact, they seem blissfully unaware that they live in what is a partially federal state. So, on balance, I'm going to got for the local option which has, in any event, a greater likelihood of implementation.

[Professor Yaffle]

As a Geordie living in Scotland I don't really have that strong an opinion about independence. I am quite happy to go along with the whatever the result is (as long as they don't wat to kick all the sassenachs out...). But I do think it is very interesting that it may well be the next British general election which most influences the future of Scottish independence. With the weak position of Gordon Brown and Labour at the moment, it is starting to look more and more likely that the Tories will get in next time around. I have a feeling that Scotland is more likely to vote for independence if they are being ruled by a Tory government at the time.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

And that unit is based on what..... ?

Separate legal system, separate education system, separate health service, separate system of local government, etc, etc, etc.

Less objective areas but still arguably different:

Attitudes to immigration (declining population, lots of space v increasingly dense population)
Attitudes to Europe (broadly pro v generally skeptical)
Political midpoint (centre left v centre right)

[martu]

Because all polls indicate that the English don't support it; in fact, they seem blissfully unaware that they live in what is a partially federal state. So, on balance, I'm going to got for the local option which has, in any event, a greater likelihood of implementation.

Why not try to convince them?

[martu]

Less objective areas but still arguably different:

Attitudes to immigration (declining population, lots of space v increasingly dense population)
Attitudes to Europe (broadly pro v generally skeptical)
Political midpoint (centre left v centre right)

But here is the problem - my attitudes to these issues are more in line with the current majority Scottish attitudes than the English attitudes. Don't you understand that where you're born has nothing* to do with these things?

*Ok what culture you are bought up in will influence you sure but we don't produce robots, that's why we have Benn and Griffin in England.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But here is the problem - my attitudes to these issues are more in line with the current majority Scottish attitudes than the English attitudes. Don't you understand that where you're born has nothing* to do with these things?

*Ok what culture you are bought up in will influence you sure but we don't produce robots, that's why we have Benn and Griffin in England.

As you acknowledge, where you live may well influence your views which means it is not hugely surprising that you will find geographic variations between populations. If you have a one world government, then presumably you end up with whatever the worldwide majority view/attitude is being imposed on everyone with no ability for variation to recognise different local views/conditions.

For example, let us assume that the majority global opinion is that homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal but that majority opinion in, say, the Netherlands is that it is perfectly acceptable. My view is that the Netherlands should have the right to set its own laws in that area (as should those areas who wish to make it illegal even if I personally disagree with them). Under a single government solution, how do you accomodate those differing views?

[Architect]

Why not try to convince them?

Why try to convince them?

[martu]

As you acknowledge, where you live may well influence your views which means it is not hugely surprising that you will find geographic variations between populations. If you have a one world government, then presumably you end up with whatever the worldwide majority view/attitude is being imposed on everyone with no ability for variation to recognise different local views/conditions.

For example, let us assume that the majority global opinion is that homosexuality is wrong and should be illegal but that majority opinion in, say, the Netherlands is that it is perfectly acceptable. My view is that the Netherlands should have the right to set its own laws in that area (as should those areas who wish to make it illegal even if I personally disagree with them). Under a single government solution, how do you accomodate those differing views?

Let's say there is a minority opinion in Scotland that thinks homosexuality should be illegal how do you accommodate them?

You're asking me how democracy stops the tyranny of the majority basically, all you miss is the scale.

Have a good weekend everyone I may not be back until Monday.

[Rolfe]

You really don't see it? I am surprised.

To expand on it. You have put forward in essence that your primary reason for wanting a new Scotland is that it is an emotional argument:

To me that is the same reasoning as someone who wants homoeopathy not from any evidence it works but because it "feels" right to them.

In the case of homoeopathy I strongly suspect that whilst you would accept that they have every right to feel that way it does not form a sound base to make a decision as to whether homoeopathy should become an accepted medical practise.

To me that is the same as what you are doing with your campaign for a new Scotland, but in that instance you think that your feelings should be considered a sound reason for it becoming an "accepted practise".


I completely don't see it. I've never yet met a homoeopath who declares that her enthusiasm for homoeopathy is an emotional response, because she enjoys the case-taking ritual or likes sugar pills or whatever. If this were the case, while at the same time no claims were being made of objective physiological effects of the "magic" sugar pills, I don't think I'd have any reply to that.

You can't exclude emotions such as love and patriotism from a debate about nationality. That would be like discussing how to bring up your children or care for your parents while rigorously excluding any influence of love or gratitude or parental/filial feelings. It leaves out the whole point.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I'm sorry I obviously didn't phrase that very well I wasn't only referring to economic arguments, my apologies. How about this question:

What will be different for you if Scotland gain independence?


I don't think I can easily convey to you just how extraordinarily happy it will make me. To say I want an Independence Day, to have a barbecue and celebrate, isn't even the tip of the iceberg. (Do you think 6th April is risking it with the weather, guys?)

On a more sober note, the stuff that Alan G said, and some more, and then

When we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament-men o' our ain, we could aye peeble them wi' stanes when they werena gude bairns - But naebody's nails can reach the length o' Lunnon.


Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I've just had a trawl through this thread to try to identify the positions of posters whom I either know or guess would have a vote in the proposed referendum. I come up with this.

Three open declarations of a yes vote (me, Architect and Alan G)
One coming round to a yes (Petra10)
Two who post broadly in favour (Jaggy Bunnet and Nogbad)
Two who may have definite opinions but who haven't revealed what these are (RichardM and Lothian)
Three who don't feel strongly about the issue either way (Worm, Professor Yaffle and Soapy Sam)

Apologies if I've missed anyone, or misrepresented anyone.

I make it 11 eligible posters

6 definite or probable yes
3 possible abstentions
2 unknown views
0 definite or probable no (or at least nobody posting from a declared unionist perspective)

Far from a representative poll, but interesting nonetheless.
There are other Scottish-resident forum members who have not posted in this thread of course.

Hmmm. May put up a forum poll tomorrow just to see.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

If we think that the anti-independence spin is heavy now, you wait until there's an actual referendum. Fire and brimstones will be forecast, and dirt political machionations will take place. The London Establishment will not take it lying down. Under those circumstances the question will be whether the Scots hold their nerve.

The Daily Record will die in ditch before it ever becomes pro-independence, and I fear wields undue influence for a large part of our population!

[peteweaver]

On the bright side a yes vote for scottish independance puts Gordon Brown out of a job, as his constituency would disappear. :)

[Darat]

...snip...

You can't exclude emotions such as love and patriotism from a debate about nationality. That would be like discussing how to bring up your children or care for your parents while rigorously excluding any influence of love or gratitude or parental/filial feelings. It leaves out the whole point.

Rolfe.

As you don't see my comparison analogous I have to say I don't see yours analogous! :)

I understand that you wish to introduce what is often called "special pleading" (and I do not mean that in any negative sense since special pleading can be quite appropriate for some arguments) into your arguments regarding the creation of a new Scotland but you do have to understand that your arguments based on emotions makes absolutely no headway with me.

Making a decision regarding the future of tens of millions of people should not be made on the grounds of emotional arguments, and the decision should not be forced on the majority of those tens of millions of people without them having some input into the decision.

[Darat]

If we think that the anti-independence spin is heavy now, you wait until there's an actual referendum. Fire and brimstones will be forecast, and dirt political machionations will take place. The London Establishment will not take it lying down. Under those circumstances the question will be whether the Scots hold their nerve.

The Daily Record will die in ditch before it ever becomes pro-independence, and I fear wields undue influence for a large part of our population!

What a poor opinion you have about the minority of people who will be allowed to have input into the decision to end the UK...

[Architect]

You were fortunate enough to miss the "END OF THE WORLD!" pre-Scottish election coverage from the Record and the like. It was encouraging that some many still voted SNP, but we were still stuch witha minority government.

However are you suggesting that media manipulation is not a powerful message? That the masses will happily ignore the forecasts of doom?

[Rolfe]

If we think that the anti-independence spin is heavy now, you wait until there's an actual referendum. Fire and brimstones will be forecast, and dirt political machionations will take place. The London Establishment will not take it lying down. Under those circumstances the question will be whether the Scots hold their nerve.

The Daily Record will die in ditch before it ever becomes pro-independence, and I fear wields undue influence for a large part of our population!


That was what occurred to me most forcefully while I was reading that history of the Union. The vested interests all spinning merrily away, and in particular Scots who had interests in remaining part of the richer pool in England. Now we've got the Labour party which used to be for home rule for Scotland, now heavily invested in the union. First because they need the Scottish seats persistently delivered to them during their bad times in England, and second because so many of their "big beasts" sit for Scottish constituencies and don't fancy any development that might force them to leave their Westminster feather beds.

It's not completely analagous of course but the narrative of how Scotland was manipulated for English advantage from 1703 to 1707 - the bribes, the strongarm tactics, the threats and so on, do ring bells. It won't be a "vote freely, after a fair debate of all the issues, and if you go, go with our blessing", I'm afraid.

I remember the front page of the Sun on election day last year. It was an absolute scandal. (Particularly considering that paper's editorial line in 1992.) The cheering bit is, unlike "Will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights", it didn't work - or at least not well enough.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

What a poor opinion you have about the minority of people who will be allowed to have input into the decision to end the UK...


Darat, I'm afraid it's just realism. We've seen it before, and it'll happen again. You know about the suppression of the McCrone report in the 1970s? That report stated that an independent Scotland would have "an embarrassing balance of payments surplus". It was suppressed, and instead Scots were told that the country would be poverty-stricken, with comparisons made to Bangladesh, which was then in the grip of a terrible famine. When the report was made public a couple of years ago, the best Labour ministers could to in response was to say that the true situation should have been obvious to Scots voters despite all the lies they were told by the government.

I'm afraid Architect is right. We'll get more of the same. And then some.

Rolfe.

[ddt]

How about we discuss this in Belgium, maybe near Waterloo?
Seems like a bad place today to do that. Right now, they're discussing there more or less the dissolution of another European country. The new Belgian government, which was instated at Easter, now already faces a big crisis over Walloon political parties being listed on the ballot in Flemish communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde). Maybe the SNP could give Yves Leterme a call to coordinate the date of the referendum with a similar referendum in Flanders? That would save the EU the trouble of going twice through the process of negotiating the number of commissioners etc.

As an outsider to either conflict, I can only say: if the people living there - in Scotland in this case - want independence from the bigger country they're now part of, it is their choice. If they feel that they are getting the shaft from Westminster, and their business is better tended by being a state on their own - fine with me - it's not like Scotland is not a viable region to form their own state. Laws and regulations nowadays stem for more than 50% from the EU anyway.

The upside seems to be that Scotland would make a more constructive partner in the EU than the UK has ever been. If Scotland would enter Schengen, it would even give a new twist to which side of Hadrian's Wall is the civilized world :D

[Rolfe]

There can be little doubt that, over the longer term, the Union has been good for Scotland although there are clearly periods - including the present day - when this is not the case. In making a decision it is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I'm honestly not entirely sure about that first statement. The union of the crowns was an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. What was threatened if the union of the parliaments didn't go ahead was even worse. The actual events after 1707 may be seen as better that that, but was there really such advantage?

The '45 would not have happened, nor its aftermath.

The Clearances would not have happened. (There would have been economic migration of course, but I make a clear distinction between economic migration and forced depopulation.)

The huge loss of young men in the American War of Independence would not have happened.

The main benefit held up for the union is the economic prosperity that accrued from 18th and 19th century trade. However, would that have been absent if Scotland had remained independent? The primary disadvantage of the union of the crowns was the cutting off of Scotland's foreign trade. Before 1601 Scotland had been a reasonably successful trading country with much business being done with France and the Low Countries in particular. If the union had never happened (say because Elizabeth of England had married and given birth to an heir), there's no real reason to believe that trade wouldn't have continued and flourished reasonably well. It would have been different, no doubt, but would it necessarily have been worse? Worse than Culloden and the Clearances and so on?

The problem is that we can only see what actually happened, and we have no way of knowing what might have been. We tend to imagine the worst, but it's perfectly possible that, having made it out of the middle ages with independence intact, Scotland would have been able to participate in 18th and 19th century international affairs and commerce as a reasonably successful small player - as it was indeed managing to do in the 16th century.

We can't really speculate what the effects of the Industrial Revolution would have been on an independent Scotland. Maybe we would have ended up with the dark satanic mills just the same, but maybe not. Once we get into the 20th century, the hypothetical alternate future has deviated from the real events for so long that all bets are really off. How can we say what would have happened during the two World Wars? Maybe we would have been weaker apart, but as we have no clue as to what Scotland's state or status would have been by then, it's all purely hypothetical.

However, when we get to the later 20th century, it's a no-brainer. If Scotland had been an established independent country when North Sea oil was discovered, well just look at Norway to get a flavour of what might have been.

So I think while we can say that there have been periods when Scotland accrued benefits from the union, I don't think we can say that the union as such was undoubtedly better for Scotland than what might have been achieved by Scotland as an independent country over the same period.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

The upside seems to be that Scotland would make a more constructive partner in the EU than the UK has ever been. If Scotland would enter Schengen, it would even give a new twist to which side of Hadrian's Wall is the civilized world :D


That's a very difficult point. I'd be very much in favour in principle of joining Schengen. However, unless England also joined, it could raise the spectre of custom posts at the Scotland/England border, which would be a very bad idea indeed.

After Ireland gained its independence, travel remained free between the countries. You don't need a passport to go to Ireland, or you didn't last time I looked. (Recently a friend told me that she had travelled from England to Ireland as usual with no passport but was then stopped at Glasgow Airport when she landed from Ireland and found hersalf in a lot of trouble because she had no passport. She protested that she didn't need one to go from England to Ireland, and was told by the police, "This isn't England." I've no idea what that was about, because any international arrangement about passports must apply to the whole of the UK, maybe someone else can explain it.)

Anyway, there's no reason to have any controls at the Scotland/England border after Scottish independence, but it has been a bogey-man raised by unionists. According to the scare stories, if we vote for independence, we'll have razor wire and armed guards from Berwick to Gretna, and you'll never see your granny in Carlisle again. Sadly, we may have to forego Schengen to avoid a part of this spectre materialising, unless England also joins Schengen, and they don't show much sign of agreeing to that.

The Euro, though - bring it on!

SNP policy is to leave as much as possible regarding post-independence detail until after independence. So, a yes vote would not necessarily be a vote for republicanism, or for the Euro. These would be matters for the new Scottish government to decide according to the manifesto they were elected on, or perhaps specific referendums for particularly important issues such as the monarchy. Thus, at the moment the policy is that independent Scotland would start off by retaining sterling. I hope that wouldn't last, but it would be a matter for the people to decide.

The purpose of this is to avoid putting unnecessary barriers in the way of a yes vote. However, it also has the capability to be used the other way. I've heard comments such as, what's the point, Alex Salmond wants to keep sterling. No, that's not it. It's just a different decision, for another day.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

You were fortunate enough to miss the "END OF THE WORLD!" pre-Scottish election coverage from the Record and the like. It was encouraging that some many still voted SNP, but we were still stuch witha minority government.

However are you suggesting that media manipulation is not a powerful message? That the masses will happily ignore the forecasts of doom?

Darat, I'm afraid it's just realism. We've seen it before, and it'll happen again. You know about the suppression of the McCrone report in the 1970s? That report stated that an independent Scotland would have "an embarrassing balance of payments surplus". It was suppressed, and instead Scots were told that the country would be poverty-stricken, with comparisons made to Bangladesh, which was then in the grip of a terrible famine. When the report was made public a couple of years ago, the best Labour ministers could to in response was to say that the true situation should have been obvious to Scots voters despite all the lies they were told by the government.

I'm afraid Architect is right. We'll get more of the same. And then some.

Rolfe.

My comment probably sounded more snarky then it was meant - I was trying to be jokey.

Of course the media is a powerful influencer of people's opinions but it does go both ways. I think there is a good chance if there is a grassroot general supporting of the move to independence you will find the media will pick up on this more than it has done in the past when the idea seemed to most people to be a flight of fancy. After all remember in the end the media is just business, there to make money not lose its audience.

[Rolfe]

On the bright side a yes vote for scottish independance puts Gordon Brown out of a job, as his constituency would disappear. :)


Might be easier than that, from what I hear.

A few days ago Prof. James Mitchell was interviewed on Radio Scotland. He pointed out that while an opposition party, such as Labour at Holyrood, can change its leader as often as it likes, that isn't the case for a party in government, such as Labour at Westminster. They've already had their coronation, their bright new dawn with the unopposed successor becoming PM without a personal mandate. You can only get away with that once, according to Prof. Mitchell.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that GB is a liability. It looks as if those who briefed against him as "psychologically flawed" might have been right. The longer he stays, the worse Labour's problems are likely to get. However, any attempt to anoint another PM without seeking a mandate from the country is likely to prove politically impossible. So, if GB goes, and it's looking as if he might have to, a general election could happen a lot sooner than 2011.

And leaked private polling commissioned by the Labour party in GB's constituency says that on present form he'll lose to the SNP.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

My comment probably sounded more snarky then it was meant - I was trying to be jokey.

Of course the media is a powerful influencer of people's opinions but it does go both ways. I think there is a good chance if there is a grassroot general supporting of the move to independence you will find the media will pick up on this more than it has done in the past when the idea seemed to most people to be a flight of fancy. After all remember in the end the media is just business, there to make money not lose its audience.


Unless you believe the CT repeatedly spouted by Interstellarmince on the Scottish newspaper comments, about the media conspiracy to control us all. It has the word "Bilderberg" occurring quite often, and "New World Order" occasionally too.... :D

Your point has been debated quite a lot, especially recently. Whichever way you slice it, there is a substantial potential readership for a paper which takes a supportive attitude to independence. A friend on the SNP staff told me that the Scottish Daily Express already does, but the paper itself is such crap that nobody buys it anyway. Greatest hopes have always been with the Herald, which at one point in the 1979s I think was owned by a nationalist, and at another stage did debate taking a pro-independence editorial line, but it never happened. At the moment it's very much Labour apologetics, and it also has an amazing line in anti-SNP headlines fronting relatively well-balanced stories.

I suspect a lot of it is about advertising. However, nationalists buy stuff too. There's aways been the feeling that somewhere there was a paper which would break away and exploit the market.

Ah well, dream on.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

On the other hand the Sunday Herald is clearly adopting a sceptical view to the Union and status quo. I do enjoy Mr. McWhirter's pieces....

[zeno2712]

Apologies if I've missed anyonePut me down as a definite NO.

[Rolfe]

On the other hand the Sunday Herald is clearly adopting a sceptical view to the Union and status quo. I do enjoy Mr. McWhirter's pieces....


The Sunday Herald is quite a good read this morning! It's the nearest there is to a reasonable presentation of the SNP case, even though it tends to be hedged with ifs and buts.

Iain MacWhirter is a puzzle. He writes some cracking stuff with really only one rational conclusion, then says he's a unionist. I think he's a federalist LibDem. De Nile isn't just a river in Egypt. But then sometimes he comes out with poorly thought through, snarky, barely relevant stuff.

I found this last night, discussing the whole issue of the Scottish press and independence. Murray Ritchie was generally positive when he was working but he never came right out and said so. Now he's retired he is coming right out and saying so. I don't see the date on this piece (http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com/Blogs/MurrayRitchie-251006.asp) but it's before the last election, for sure.

Even playing fair was not enough for Labour in its dealings with The Herald. When we insisted on being even-handed with Labour and the SNP we were denied £100,000 worth of Labour advertising which went to all of our closest competitors.

So supporting independence editorially carries risks: ask those journalists whose careers have been damaged by it. All those broadcasters who are shunted from politics to sport or columnists who are fired while journalists loyal to the Unionist parties are left free to carry on. ‘Twas ever thus.

Well, I have a message for today’s generation of Scottish newspaper editors. Do yourselves a favour and your readers a service: have the guts to speak up for those voters in Scotland who don’t want the Union, at least not the Union as it is. Look what happened to the Scotsman as its circulation withered when it betrayed its tradition of campaigning for home rule. Have the courage to embrace independence as at least an option for the betterment of Scotland. See how the Herald’s sales are declining as it retreats into playing safe with Scottish politics. Even the mighty Daily Record is crumbling as it continues to act as an election leaflet for Unionist Labour.

Try being constructive with independence: it could be the saving of you.


Rolfe.

[Cleon]

So out of curiosity, assuming the referendum was successful, what are the chances that the Scottish state would re-establish the Scottish monarchy?

I know very little about the situation, including whether the Scottish "line" is still around or not.

[Architect]

That would be Queen Elisabeth, ya daft puddin'. James IV of Scotland took the English Throne and became their James I.

[Rolfe]

The Scottish "line" was crowned Queen of Scots on the Stone of Scone in June 1953. Its heir apparent is really keen on homoeopathy and whack-job medicine, damn his ignorant eyes.

There comes a point when you simply can't go 20 generations back and do an alternate universe "what if". There was a guy interviewed in Australia recently who has a better claim to the Union throne than Liz, because some sprog back in the early 20th century who was rated as illegitimate actually wasn't. He's not claiming anything, he's happier as he is and quite right too.

The whole reason Scotland ended up in this current situation is that the King of Scots at the turn of the 16th century, James VI, son of Mary Queen of Scots, unfortunately succeeded to the throne of England when Elizabeth of England died. (I always said we had Essex Man to blame for this....) This was as a result of some dynastic intermarrying the previous century.

James was thrilled to bits to acquire a bigger and richer kingdom, and not only that, one which had a tradition of absolute subservience to the monarch (unlike the Scots who reserved the right to kick the king out if he got too uppity). He went to England and never came back. This left Scotland in a bit of a mess politically, and the result of the mess was the union of the parliaments 100 years later. Last time I posted the details of this it got moved to another forum, so I'll leave it there.

However, one wrinkle is very relevant to your question. Almost the last gasp of the old Scottish parliament was to claim the right to divide the monarchy again when Queen Anne died. Queen Anne's children all pre-deceased her, and the English parliament offered the throne to Sophia of Hannover without so much as a by-your-leave. The Scottish parliament had the right to offer the Scottish crown to someone else, and in particular since there was no bar to a Roman Catholic taking the Scottish throne, that's where the Jacobite lobby came in.

However, they never did offer the throne to anyone else, because the English parliament stepped in and forced the union to prevent it happening. The Jacobite line certainly had a shot at getting back in there (two shots as it happened), and used Scotland as a lever to do that, but they were never legitimately recognised.

There is no real sense in which the Jacobite succession can be claimed to be rightful monarchs of Scotland. Idi Amin has just as good a claim.

Current SNP policy includes retaining the present Queen as head of state on independence, much the way she's head of state of Canada and Australia and so on. This tends to frighten fewer horses than republicanism at one go. However, it's likely that there will be a referendum on whether to retain the monarchy at some point after independence. Personally I'd vote no. I think we lost our monarchs in 1601 when Jamie the Saxt moved south to take up a more lucrative position, and the Scottish Crown Jewels will look nice in a museum.

Rolfe.

PS. What Architect said better and faster than me. Except, in his haste he got his Roman numerals scrambled. It was James VI.

[Architect]

James IV being the last monarch to speak Gaelic fluently. Must have been a Freudian slip.....

[martu]

I don't think I can easily convey to you just how extraordinarily happy it will make me. To say I want an Independence Day, to have a barbecue and celebrate, isn't even the tip of the iceberg. (Do you think 6th April is risking it with the weather, guys?)

On a more sober note, the stuff that Alan G said, and some more, and then


OK fair enough, it's obvious I'll never understand. I wish you all good fortune.

[Big Les]

I will of course go along with whatever's decided by a majority, and wish that Labour would just hold a damn referendum. But as we've acknowledged that a good part of this issue comes down to feelings rather than tangible quantifiable benefits, I have to fall on the Unionist side. It's wholly selfish of me, I realise, and I also acknowledge the historically disparity in power between London and Edinburgh. I'm for reform and devolution, not dissolution. I was born in Britain, and if Scotland becomes indepedent, regardless of potential benefit (which I have yet to be convinced of personally), I will no longer be living in the country of my birth. That's important to me from a standpoint of continuity and national identity. I think there's plenty to salvage from the Union, and I also agree with Darat that it's all of the UK regions that suffer from London's centralisation of power. I'd rather see them all improve their lot, and Scotland, then Scotland just bail and the other bits of the UK continue to get a rough deal. I love Britain, England, and Scotland, but I can't stand London, or politics for that matter. So for me it's the status quo (less acceptable) or a less London-centric UK in general.

If I had been born in Scotland, or lived here longer, my opinion might well be different. A colleague who lived here for more than a decade and then returned to his native Yorkshire is all for independence.

Having said this, and with the exception of the raving loons and the xenophobes, I will be pleased and hopeful on behalf of the pro-indepedence people if it's won.

[richardm]

I've been following this thread with interest, and since Rolfe's namechecked me I guess I'd better chime in. As a general rule I'm not a fan of nationalism of any colour. I think we're stronger and better when we stand together, rather than by breaking apart. I can see why some Scots think that they've had a poor deal in the past but having been brought up in the North East of England* during the 70s I can assure them that they're by no means alone in this.

Better economists than me tell me that Scotland would manage very well, financially, as an independent country and I'm happy to take their word for it, so it's certainly not the fear that Scotland will suddenly turn into Bangladesh that makes me wary. I guess the notion that we'd all be much better off if it wasn't for those buggers at Westminster that bothers me, because I have a strong feeling that in actual fact we won't really notice that much difference. We'll have paid millions of pounds to get a warm fuzzy feeling that we're no longer ruled from London, and an extra bank holiday (at least if it's in April it'll be out of midge season).

Is it worth the expense and upheaval to get that feeling?

For Rolfe, and for many of my neighbours, it is. It's quite a hotbed of Nationalist sentiment where I live, although the feeling is hardly universal (our MP is Lib-Dem, our MSP is SNP).

For me, I think perhaps it isn't worth it. Maybe this comes of having lived in both England and Scotland; I see myself as British first and foremost. I don't see the point, simple as that. I'm wiling to be converted, but the Nationalist fervour isn't in me.

Still, I think it quite likely that we'll find out for sure whether it works, since I reckon the 2010 referendum has a good chance of returning a Yes vote.

*Yes, I'm one of those dreadful wealthy Englanders who have bought a cottage in the Highlands. But I do live here all year round, have family ties to the area, am out and about in the community plenty, do free computer support for OAPs, put plenty of money into the pub tills, am just about to invest heavily in a local business that employs lots of people and tha mi ag ionnsachadh Gaidhlig, so please don't vandalise my car ;)

[martu]

I don't see the point, simple as that.

One's happiness it seems is the answer to that (at least in this thread), even if other people will not be happy about it.

[richardm]

On the subject of Irish passport control (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3692375&postcount=166): First time I went to visit my new family in Cork (I'd was just about to get married into it) I assumed that I would need my passport, but was laughed at by my future mother-in-law, whose exact words were: "Don't be silly, you don't need your passport to go to Ireland! It's Ireland!"

Hm.

So we cheerfully set off on that basis.

I'm trying to remember what ID it was that we used to actually get on the flight - nothing, I presume. This was long before 9/11 and a Ryanair flight to boot, so I guess security wasn't what it is today.

Anyway.

We piled off the flight at Cork, and imagine our surprise and delight when all the non-Irish nationals were herded off to queue to present their passports. Visions of being deported swam through our heads. As we looked at each other in consternation, the passport officer peered over the heads of the queue and shouted to us "Are ye Irish?".

"Aye!" we called back.

"Away you go through, then" he said, to our enormous relief. Of course, we sweated buckets later when we realised that we had to get back out of Ireland sans passports, but nobody challenged us. Although my future mother-in-law was technically correct, it was a deeply unpleasant experience. I don't even go to England without my passport these days, just to be on the safe side.

So we learned two things:
A: Airport security and Immigration circa 1995 was ever so casual.
B: Apparently my wife and I look Irish.

[martu]

On the subject of Irish passport control (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3692375&postcount=166): First time I went to visit my new family in Cork (I'd was just about to get married into it) I assumed that I would need my passport, but was laughed at by my future mother-in-law, whose exact words were: "Don't be silly, you don't need your passport to go to Ireland! It's Ireland!"

Hm.

So we cheerfully set off on that basis.

I'm trying to remember what ID it was that we used to actually get on the flight - nothing, I presume. This was long before 9/11 and a Ryanair flight to boot, so I guess security wasn't what it is today.

Anyway.

We piled off the flight at Cork, and imagine our surprise and delight when all the non-Irish nationals were herded off to queue to present their passports. Visions of being deported swam through our heads. As we looked at each other in consternation, the passport officer peered over the heads of the queue and shouted to us "Are ye Irish?".

"Aye!" we called back.

"Away you go through, then" he said, to our enormous relief. Of course, we sweated buckets later when we realised that we had to get back out of Ireland sans passports, but nobody challenged us. Although my future mother-in-law was technically correct, it was a deeply unpleasant experience. I don't even go to England without my passport these days, just to be on the safe side.

So we learned two things:
A: Airport security and Immigration circa 1995 was ever so casual.
B: Apparently my wife and I look Irish.

It's improved a lot since then - now the first question is "Are ye terrorists?"

[gtc]

Has there been any discussion about the position of Northern Ireland in the event of Scottish Independence?


The monarch who asks a party to form her government and who signs each bill into law, and whose Governor-Generals sack Prime Ministers is who I was referring to.

The Queen of Australia is not the same as the Queen of the UK and the Governor-General was actually appointed by the Prime Minister of Australia.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Has there been any discussion about the position of Northern Ireland in the event of Scottish Independence?

Nope. There wasn't much discussion of the position of Northern Ireland in the event of Kosovan independence either.

[gtc]

Nope. There wasn't much discussion of the position of Northern Ireland in the event of Kosovan independence either.

I don't think the two situations are at all comparable.

Firstly, the independence of Scotland could conceivably affect the level of support for the union amongst the Northern Irish. Afterall, a union with England and Wales is very different to a union with Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland's two nearest neighbours will be independent. My question was whether this has been discussed at all.

The second part of my question was whether the dissolution of the union would affect the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Can the United Kingdom continue without one of the two Kingdoms that formed it or what happens?

[Darat]

Even if the country splits into new countries it will still be the same populations and we will quickly invent new rationales for whatever we want to believe whichever side of the new borders we find ourselves ) and then claim that it has always been this way back to before the Romans came! That is something we've all always been good at!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I don't think the two situations are at all comparable.

Firstly, the independence of Scotland could conceivably affect the level of support for the union amongst the Northern Irish.

As could the independence of Kosovo from Serbia - for example in considering how a newly independent country gets along next door to a larger neighbour where there is a history of religious based tension between them.

Afterall, a union with England and Wales is very different to a union with Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland's two nearest neighbours will be independent. My question was whether this has been discussed at all.

I have never heard anyone discuss it. I would be surprised if it had been given any serious discussion.

The second part of my question was whether the dissolution of the union would affect the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Can the United Kingdom continue without one of the two Kingdoms that formed it or what happens?

The joys of a flexible constitution include the ability to do pretty much whatever you want. If England, Wales & NI want to continue as a single political entity do you really think there are likely to be any genuine obstacles to them doing so?

[martu]

This book may add something to the discussions on independence, it seems Scotland isn't what it seems.

The Invention of Scotland: Myth and History (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3953025.ece)

Could this (if true of course, I have only read this review so I am not claiming it's correct) change anyone's mind?

[Big Les]

Ad hominem AND Godwin alert!!!!

Trevor-Roper was the guy who backed the Hitler Diaries... (snicker).

Yes Hugh, national heritage is largely invented, or rather, reinvented to describe new national identities. We know that. That's true of all countries, but especially those with complex relationships with larger more powerful neighbours.

It's good to be reminded of the reality behind that process, but he definitely has a strong unionist (bordering on anti-Scottish) agenda that he's pushing when he writes this stuff. This doesn't detract from the facts he lays out, but does affect the emphasis and underlying message delivered. He's basically using a reverse argument from antiquity. Does it matter that culture is consciously re-invented? I would suggest not, interesting and important though it is to know the facts.

[martu]

Ad hominem AND Godwin alert!!!!

Trevor-Roper was the guy who backed the Hitler Diaries... (snicker).

Yes Hugh, national heritage is largely invented, or rather, reinvented to describe new national identities. We know that. That's true of all countries.

It's good to be reminded of the reality behind that process, but he definitely has an agenda he's pushing when he writes this stuff.

What is his agenda here do you think? Selling books is about it or is it more?

[Dragoonster]

has there ever been much traction for any American states wanting independence? Obviously historically speaking there have been splits, but the states nowadays seem happy with the level of local autonomy they are afforded....

Although, does that extend to Alaska and Hawaii? They would both seem candidates for independence movements....... removed as they are from the rest of the mainland, and both with their own distinct cultural heritage.

The only one I'm aware of on a serious level is Hawaii, but I'm not sure how popular it is with citizens. I'd guess it has a lot more cultural heritage as a percent of its current citizens than Alaska, if that means anything. Hawaii still has a (non-ruling) monarchy for example.

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

A counter to that is Puerto Rico, which has held several referendums over the past 50 or so years as to what their actual status is. I don't think becoming a normal US state is very well-supported there but not really sure.


On topic, I know nothing about Scottish Independence but enjoy reading the thread. I'm 1/4 Scottish so anything good for it is a-ok with me.

[Big Les]

What is his agenda here do you think? Selling books is about it or is it more?

He's got it in for highland culture and by extension, the modern Scottish culture that's embraced it. Independence being the ultimate expression of this. He's desperate to show that it was all invented by misguided Georgians and Victorians, and seems to want to argue the highlanders out of existence as firstly the poor relations of the Irish and then as the cultural petting zoo of the British state, with no antiquity or legitimacy to any of it.

His facts are basically straight, but his case is over-stated. What's the qualitative difference between the C16th tartan belted plaid, which could be worn like a skirt, and the C19th "little kilt", simpler and more practical for wear on Victorian highland estates, but also tartan and worn like a skirt? They're both kilts, for the love of god. It's a change in fashion. So what if the guy that first thought to do it was English?

And if we're talking "agenda", I mean, seriously, he must realise that the word "Scotch" is archaic at best and xenophobic at worst.

That piece on the Times website is lifted wholesale from his article in the book "The Invention of Tradition". I hope there's something new in his new book.

[martu]

He's got it in for highland culture and by extension, the modern Scottish culture that's embraced it. Independence being the ultimate expression of this. He's desperate to show that it was all invented by misguided Georgians and Victorians, and seems to want to argue the highlanders out of existence as firstly the poor relations of the Irish and then as the cultural petting zoo of the British state, with no antiquity or legitimacy to any of it.

His facts are basically straight, but his case is over-stated. What's the qualitative difference between the C16th tartan belted plaid, which could be worn like a skirt, and the C19th "little kilt", simpler and more practical for wear on Victorian highland estates, but also tartan and worn like a skirt? They're both kilts, for the love of god. It's a change in fashion. So what if the guy that first thought to do it was English?

And if we're talking "agenda", I mean, seriously, he must realise that the word "Scotch" is archaic at best and xenophobic at worst.

That piece on the Times website is lifted wholesale from his article in the book "The Invention of Tradition". I hope there's something new in his new book.

Thanks I shall approach it with more caution now.

[Architect]

and seems to want to argue the highlanders out of existence as firstly the poor relations of the Irish and then as the cultural petting zoo of the British state, with no antiquity or legitimacy to any of it.


Eh? De a tha seo?? Tha mise ghaidligh agus chan eil mise "poor relation" eireannach neo an exbibit air an "petting zoo"! Abair fekin' eejit.......

[Soapy Sam]

"fekin eejit" is Gaelic?

[Darat]

It's part of the universal language of these isles!

[Architect]

"fekin eejit" is Gaelic?

Irish Gaelic, but mutually intelligible....:D

[Rolfe]

Eh? De a tha seo?? Tha mise ghaidligh agus chan eil mise "poor relation" eireannach neo an exbibit air an "petting zoo"! Abair fekin' eejit.......


Something must be rubbing off. I understood that - and not just "feckin eejit", "poor relation" and "petting zoo" either.

I took ten days off to try to impose some order in the house. Mostly involving about £200 worth of Ikea bookshelves and their subsequent contents. Now where was The Easy Way to Gaelic in that pile....

Rolfe.

[richardm]

One's happiness it seems is the answer to that (at least in this thread), even if other people will not be happy about it.

Yes, well. In an earlier post in this thread I indicated that I thought independence was probably a foregone conclusion. That was based on the mood around the area where I live. However, I've just got back from a sojourn to England, and had the jolly fortune to find myself driving down the motorway accompanied by numerous Rangers supporters en route to Manchester.

I have never seen so many Union Jacks since The Fleet came back from the Falklands. And while Ranger fans obviously represent an extreme of unionism - and who knows, possibly a small one - it did remind me that the argument may not be quite won yet.

Edit: Yes, I've been away for a couple of weeks. Did you all miss me? No? I'm reminded of the old joke about the chap who leaves his village and goes to live in America. He returns twenty years later having made a fortune and developed a highly cosmopolitan outlook, and prepares himself happily for the impact he's going to have on his poor hickish friends and relatives. He gets out of his car and has just unloaded it, when he's approached by one of his old friends. "Hello there, Alec", he says. "I bet you're surprised to see me!" "Aye, aye" says Alec. "And I see you've got your suitcases with you. Are you going away somewhere?" /Old Jokes Home

[Rolfe]

Richard, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from the Rangers fans' choice of flag. It's tribalism much more than unionism, and insofar as unionism is involved it's Irish "unionism". Which is an odd term, because it doesn't refer to the unification of Ireland, but to the retention of Northern Ireland within the UK (this for the furriners reading).

I really wouldn't die of shock if a significant number of these union-flag-waving enthusiasts actually went into the polling booth on referendum day and voted for independence. And be that as it may, that event was an extreme concentration - Rangers fans from over the entire country flocked to Manchester. As a percentage of the voting population, the numbers are probably little more than a blip.

I honestly don't know how a referendum is likely to turn out. It's all too easy to invest others with one's own enthusiasm, and imagine that no sane voter could surely turn down the chance. However, the most even-handed polls (that is, those using the intended question rather than a contrived negative one, and not splitting the vote by asking about multiple options) have been pretty evenly-balanced.

It's interesting that you'll struggle to find any reference to the recent poll which put independence at about 51% of those intending to vote. That's because about 19% of those asked expressed no preference, and rather than give the percentages of those intending to vote, the reporters gave them as percentages of the total sample. So, the headline was "only" 41% in favour of independence. In much smaller letters we learned that support for the status quo was actually slightly lower, at 40%. No referendum will get 100% turnout, and unless we get an equivalent of the infamous 40% rule (unlikely, in view of that history), then the figure to look at is the percentage of those expressing an opinion.

The fluidity of the opinion polls depending on the form of the question and the options offered indicate that a lot of voters haven't really thought the issue through as yet. Thus I think a lot will depend on the progress of the actual campaign - in the end the wording of the question may have relatively little influence as the issues are debated.

On the one hand I look at all the other examples of recently-independent countries who are doing well and now wouldn't vote to re-integrate on a bet. I look at Scotland's unusually good complement of natural and economic resources. I look at whether any of the deprived areas we see around us would have been better off now if we'd become independent in the early 1980s, and feel that it's a no-brainer.

Then I remember that all the resources of the British state will be thrown at the "no" campaign. We'll be lied to, there will be massive misrepresentation and smear campaigning, and unfortunately I'm afraid the "special relationship" will be a factor, with Uncle Sam unwilling to risk a destabilisation of nuclear weapons balance which might result from Scottish independence.

I think we have to go for it, and I really want to go for it, but part of me wonders whether we'll have another 1979. Remember the Turnbull cartoon? The Lion Rampant, looking a bit mangy, in a cage - with the door open. The caption was "I'm too feart". Well, we know why too many of the voters were too feart. The lies about poverty and isolation in an independent Scotland. The lies that the oil reserves weren't worth tuppence-ha'penny, and that Scotland would be another Bangladesh, another Albania. All the while concealing the government's own commissioned report into the economics of an independent Scotland, which stated that the country "would have an embarrassingly large budgetary surplus". (And all that was done just to prevent the institution of a devolved assembly which would have had more limited powers even than the present parliament, it wasn't even an independence vote at the time.)

The fact is that at least a third of the oil is still there - possibly more, depending on how you view the more difficult-to-access reserves. The oil price is heading for the stratosphere. The oil that remains is the valuable oil, the high-priced oil, the oil that will yield (I think) 3,000 billion in tax. And that's ignoring the other resources, the whisky (vile stuff, but there you go), the financial services (sometimes a reputation for being careful with money is an advantage), the tourism, the renewables (wind and waves), the water, and even the fish. Direct access to the tax revenues from Scotland's assets to build the Scottish economy would transform the country. Will we be told that, or will we be told that we'll be bankrupt, as in 1979?

It took 18 years for the 1979 loss of confidence to be remedied, with the devolution landslide in 1997. I hope people wouldn't be so easily scared off nowadays, but I'm not confident. We may need another round of bitter regrets when we realise what we gave up by being too tentative, before the penny drops. Then again, being optimistic, I remember that all the smears and negativity were thrown around in 1979 because of a deep fear on the part of the uninoists that even a very limited devolved assembly would be enough to give Scotland the confidence to go for independence. Well, we have now more than what was on offer in 1979. Let's hope the 1979 fear-mongers were right.

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

Any vote in Scotland would be taken in the context of broader political concerns. If by 2010 NL has gone into melt down and there is a Conservative Government in Westminster which has failed to engage with the Scottish electorate (Cameron seems to have made little headway up here so far) then people may simply vote with their feet. I suspect this might have been in part at least behind Wendy's suggestion that we vote now. A considerable number of English Conservatives have let off anti-Scottish sound bites. Scottish Unionists from both camps might look askance at a referendum once Cameron is in power (as seems likely at the moment - although 2 years is a long time).

I really think more than at any time it is impossible to say which way this will go in 2010. The rump of the Labour Party might even throw its lot in with the SNP if it is wiped out in England.

[richardm]

insofar as unionism is involved it's Irish "unionism".

Right enough, there was more than one red hand of Ulster on display as well and at the service station the sound of Orange bands was much in evidence <shudder>. I'll look at the rest of your post in the morning :)

[Rolfe]

Right enough, there was more than one red hand of Ulster on display as well and at the service station the sound of Orange bands was much in evidence <shudder>. I'll look at the rest of your post in the morning :)


Hah! Orange bands! The one thing that makes me re-evaluate my previously hard-line stance on private ownership of automatic weapons. I see them, I intensely desire a handy Kalashnikov.

I was probably the only kid in North Lanarkshire who elected to learn the flute for purely musical reasons, then wondered why the instrument was so disproportionately popular in the County Youth Orchestra.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Any vote in Scotland would be taken in the context of broader political concerns. If by 2010 NL has gone into melt down and there is a Conservative Government in Westminster which has failed to engage with the Scottish electorate (Cameron seems to have made little headway up here so far) then people may simply vote with their feet. I suspect this might have been in part at least behind Wendy's suggestion that we vote now. A considerable number of English Conservatives have let off anti-Scottish sound bites. Scottish Unionists from both camps might look askance at a referendum once Cameron is in power (as seems likely at the moment - although 2 years is a long time).

I really think more than at any time it is impossible to say which way this will go in 2010. The rump of the Labour Party might even throw its lot in with the SNP if it is wiped out in England.


Yes, indeed. Things are very fluid at the moment. I think we've got so used to events working against us that we don't imagine they might work in our favour, even though this situation was exactly what was talked about from 1997-99, when Devolution fever was at its height. (The exact scenario discussed was for 2003, with Portillo having been elected as Conservative PM in 2001, which just goes to show how things always turn out just that little bit different....) It's odd to see events start to take the predicted course.

Everything went so completely pear-shaped in 1979 and then in the 1980s - it was really depressing. At the end of the 1980s, when everything changed so much in Europe and countries who had really despaired of ever regaining their independence were suddenly independent, it was a bit like "somebody up there doesn't like us!"

I'll never forget the night of 11th-12th September 1997. However, once the parliament was established, it seemed to me that Labour were going out of their way to make it unpopular. First there was the outrage over the building costs, which was entirely instigated by Labour at Westminster, but which tainted public perception of the new institution. Then Labour seemed to go out of their way to get as many useless nonentities elected as possible - even to the point of excluding genuine talent, see the Denis Canavan scandal. Sneers about the "wee pretendy parliament" seemed designed to alienate the public from the institution, as did early reporting - for example the MSPs were required to vote themselves salaries as their first official act, which of course got a poor press. Rather than asking whether any defects in the parliament were the result of insufficient powers, people seemed to be encouraged to dismiss the institution.

Living in England, I was given the distinct impression that the parliament was a damp squib and nobody really wanted it. However, friends in Scotland assured me that this was a misapprehension gleaned from English-based reporting, possibly by journalists who wanted the parliament to fail, and that very few people indeed would choose to revert to direct Westminster rule.

Since May last year, however, all this has changed. The possibilities all seem to have opened up again, and I think many people are still catching up with it all. If indeed we see the predicted scenario, with Labour intensely unpopular in England and the Conservatives heading for power in Westminster while remaining a minority interest in a Scottish parliament with an SNP government, perhaps we'll get the reverse of the depressing series of events 20 years ago.

It's perfectly obvious that Wendy would rather see a referendum sooner than later, because she also sees the SNP's view that by 2010 we may have just the above scenario and be in a mood to go for a yes vote. I think she was fed up with the inevitable accusations of lack of democracy which followed every pronouncement that she and/or Nicol Stephen didn't support a referendum. (When Nicol said, on camera, that the reason the Lib Dems do not support a referendum is that they do not support independence, I waited for the interviewer to ask him if by that he meant that he believed a referendum would lead to independence and that he thus believed the only way to prevent that was to prevent the people having their say? - and then, what sort of a Democrat was he? - but no such luck.)

Wendy had to stop saying that nobody was interested, it was all the McChattering classes and so on, because plenty opinion polls have shown a big majority in favour of having a referendum. So instead of trying to rubbish the whole idea and open herself once again to accusations of lack of democracy, she obviously decided that the best thing to do was to try to embarrass the SNP by claiming to be even more in favour of a referendum than them. Bring it on!

There was remarkably little comment on the obvious conclusion, that Wendy realised that it was likely that a referendum was going to happen whatever she said, and that if this was the case she'd rather have it ASAP, as she believed public opinion was likely to swing behind a "yes" vote if it was delayed until 2010. Nevertheless I don't think the episode had much success in embarrassing the SNP, because she had obviously misread (or not read) the manifesto, which clearly said 2010 as the probable referendum date, and since when was sticking to your manifesto a hanging offence? She was also exposed as being fairly ignorant of procedure, in that she didn't know what the proposed referendum question was (and still may not know), or that her own idea of bringing forward a referendum bill before the SNP's was out of order in about three different ways.

I see we're still getting Labourites (and others) saying things like "well, we'll have to see what the actual question is," when the question is right there in the SNP's draft bill which went before parliament last year. What are we paying these guys for?

I did like the moment when Wendy, asked why she was suddenly so keen on a referendum Right Now, replied that of course one always tries to time a vote for when you have the best chance of winning it. Well, yes, exactly. And that is what the government, the SNP, gets to do. And shouting "you're as yellow as the colour yellow" (yes, she really did say that) doesn't cut a lot of ice.

Sorry, I'm rabbiting (short entried here in between lots of work), but I think everyone agrees it's all to play for.

As for your suggestion that some Scottish Labour MPs/MSPs might align with the SNP, my immediate reaction is "cold day in hell".

I think we often underestimate the sheer visceral hatred of the Labour party for the SNP. Yes, from the SNP side I dislike Labour, I think they're misguided, and even worse I think many of them are corrupt. But I don't hate them. I am in general sympathy with the more traditional egalitarian Labour values. However, and I've had this from every ex-Labour person I've encountered, the Labour group hate the SNP with a poisonous loathing that defies description. As far as I can make out this is mostly connected to a perception that the SNP are out to supplant them as the party of the popular vote in Scotland, and this is bitterly resented.

So while it's perfectly possible that isolated individual Labour members will cross the floor (we've seen Jim Sillars and another old MP whose name I've forgotten, and wasn't Alex Neil once Labour?), I can't see any mass migration even under meltdown circumstances.

Interesting Times.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I wondered if posters had any thoughts on the latest development - I've chosen the article in the Guardian.

North Sea oil 'remains untapped'. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/7562083)

Billions of barrels of oil remain untapped beneath the bed of the North Sea.
Up to 30 billion barrels may be left, almost as much as has already been extracted, according to Alex Kemp, Professor of Petroleum Economics at Aberdeen University.
He also said that up to 300 fields remain undeveloped.
"We've produced, since day one, 37-and-a-half billion barrels of oil equivalent," Prof Kemp told BBC Scotland's Good Morning Scotland.
"The remaining reserves on central estimates could be 20-22 billion barrels equivalent and on optimistic estimates could be over 30.
"So there still is a substantial amount left."


Why the Guardian, you may ask? Well, because the Scottish broadsheets didn't carry the story at all, although virtually all the English papers did. The story was actually all about a BBC programme broadcast last night called Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland. You didn't see it? Well, because it was only broadcast in Scotland. You work it out, I can't.

It was a very neutral programme politically (marred by some spectacularly venomous hate from Bernard Ingham), but the message was clear - there's about as much still there (and recoverable) as has already been developed.

What it didn't talk about was oil funds - or only as this related to Shetland, where a marvellously gutsy local councillor held out for royalties on the foreshore where they had to land the oil, and as a result Shetland has a modest fund. No mention of virtually all other countries with significant oil reserves having one, such as Norway, which started investing 13 years ago and now has a very very substantial fund. Or even Kuwait - which produces less oil than Scotland.

It was confirmed that Thatcher spent the oil revenues in the 1980s on unemployment benefit after allowing heavy industries (including a lot of Scottish industry) to go to the wall, and in bankrolling the rise of "Thatcherism" - tax cuts and city bonuses and so on. However, apart from the infamous Gavin McCrone, who did suggest that we really, really wanted to husband the proceeds of the second half better than the first, nobody asked what the alternative might have been.

Of course the SNP pressed very hard for an oil fund in the 1970s and 1980s, but were firmly refused by successive governments. However, lately even Labour politicians have been heard to remark that actually that might have been quite a good idea.

In my view (and this echoes some of what McCrone said in his secret 1974 report), if the oil revenues had been prudently used for the benefit of all the UK, including Scotland, there would be much less support for independence now. We were all told in the 1970s that first, the oil would run out by 1995 so it was hardly worth a bean, and second, that is was grossly selfish to want to keep it for ourselves. (That was the poisonous contribution from Ingham, who ignored decades of nationalism in Scotland which had been held in check by declaring that the country didn't have the resources to be independent, and declared that the Scots were just greedy and only out to grab all the money.)

However, after seeing the first half of the oil arguably frittered away, no oil fund, deprivation in urban west central Scotland still a scandal, only one stretch of motorway worth the name in the entire country (the new M74), the quality of housing another national scandal - are the voters likely to say, "OK, that's fine, just take the second half of the oil and do as you please with that too?"

One point that was repeatedly made was that the politicians really believed that the oil would only last about 30 years. Fine. So they can't have factored any significant oil revenues into long term planning for 2010 and beyond. So why wouldn't we expect England to prosper perfectly well in exactly that situation? McCrone remarked in 1974 that France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Swizerland and so on do not have oil, and yet somehow they survive, and survive comfortably. Without oil, there would be no reason why England couldn't do the same. (The 1974 McCrone Report (http://www.snpyouth.org/documents/mccronereport.pdf) reads like a nationalist's wet dream, you have to keep pinching yourself to remember that it was written for unionist government and then suppressed, the opposite tale was told publicly to the Scots, and it only came to light recently through FoI.)

So, England has got what it wanted - 30 years and more of the lion's share of the oil. But now we realise that Scotland could still have the dream of the 1970s - independence with a windfall natural resource backing, and the chance to husband the oil revenues the way Norway did.

Any speculations as to how this will play out?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, double post.

I'll just mention that even provinces/non-independent states (such as Alaska) have oil funds of their very own....

And this is abour how far we get when asking for just a modest appropriation.

Westminster rejects Salmond's fund call (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2323193.0.Westminster_rejects_Salmonds _fund_call.php).

First Minister Alex Salmond yesterday stepped up his call for extra cash generated by rising oil prices to be used for Scotland's benefit.

He urged Westminster to use 10% of the £4.4bn windfall to set up a long-term oil fund to benefit Scotland in the years to come.

Mr Salmond also called for the introduction of a fuel price regulator, by which rising fuel tax revenues would be used to take the edge off fuel price rises.
http://ads-delivery1.newsquest.co.uk/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif (http://ads-delivery1.newsquest.co.uk/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2323193.0.0.php/576757085/Frame2/default/empty.gif/64346535363235373434346561613630)

But Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks argued North Sea oil revenues were a UK resource. "The tax revenues go into all the things people will understand, improving the NHS, better education, schools, all of those things," Mr Wicks said. "Of course Scotland benefits from that."


What patronising Mr. Wicks seems to have forgotten is that NHS Scotland is funded from the Scottish Block Grant, exactly what he seems to be indicating will in fact see none at all of this bounty. He is arguing for none of the surplus to be specifically allocated to Scotland, and yet at the same time arguing that the money will benefit Scots through the NHS - even though the Scottish NHS is entirely funded from the money that is specifically allocated to Scotland.

Who elects these people?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Ouch. This just off the presses.

Thatcher told her ministers to slash the Scottish budget (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2323307.0.Thatcher_told_her_ministers_ to_slash_the_Scottish_budget.php).

Margaret Thatcher ordered her ministers to seek cuts of up to a seventh of the Scottish Office budget as the nation's economy [they mean Scotlan's economy, not Britain's] was in acute difficulties, according to official government documents.

But the release of the 24-year-old Conservative government papers this week was held up for nearly two years by the Scotland Office, as part of the UK Government, which sought to block publication under the Freedom of Information Act.

It argued the documents would "undermine the economic interests of the United Kingdom or part of the UK, or the financial interests of any administration in the UK", but was overruled by the Whitehall information commissioner.[....]

The documents cover a dispute in 1984 between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Peter Rees, and Scottish Secretary George Younger. [....]

This was at a time that Linwood car plant and Invergordon smelter had just closed, while British Leyland at Bathgate was facing closure. [....]

The exchange began with a letter from Mr Rees saying the Prime Minister, then Margaret Thatcher, had seen a Treasury assessment of how much was needed to provide public services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under her instructions, he sought to slash the budget and change the budgeting process so that Scotland would have to fight each year for the size of increase it could expect on a new baseline figure. [....]

The Treasury proposal was described in one briefing paper as "indefensible in terms of the quality of the technical material and in political terms it would be unrealistic and disastrous". Another said the Treasury "seem determined to cut Scotland down to size even if it takes them years". [....]


OK, that was 24 years ago. But that was right in the middle of what should have been the oil boom for Scotland. I don't know how much revenue was being raked in from Brent and the Forties and so on at the time, but it seems to have vanished into the Westminster back pocket, with niggardly pocket-money being doled out to Scots losing their long-established industrial base. The country with the oil was to be "cut down to size, even if it took them years".

And the relevance to today? Apart from the object lesson as to why letting Westminster keep the second half of the oil revenue (oops, sorry, revenue from the second half of the oil, rather a different sum I suspect), the behaviour even (or indeed especially) of the Scottish Office, the bit of Westminster supposed to be looking out for Scotland's interests, is telling.

But the release of the 24-year-old Conservative government papers this week was held up for nearly two years by the Scotland Office, as part of the UK Government, which sought to block publication under the Freedom of Information Act.

It argued the documents would "undermine the economic interests of the United Kingdom or part of the UK, or the financial interests of any administration in the UK", but was overruled by the Whitehall information commissioner.

This links to the current debate over the future of the Barnett formula, the means of distributing £30bn of annual Treasury grant to the Scottish Parliament.

With an SNP researcher asking to see the files, the attempt to keep the documents secret underlines how sensitive the question of Scotland's share remains to the government 24 years after this Whitehall battle took place.


Our representatives fought the FoI request for two years to keep this information from us. Irrespective of the fact that these people are the Labour party, and the perpetrators in 1984 were their historic enemies, the Conservatives. It seems likely that the claim that 'the documents would "undermine the economic interests of the United Kingdom or part of the UK, or the financial interests of any administration in the UK"' was probably based on the fear that their publication would increase support for the SNP, which they believe can be opposed by foul means if necessary, as it would (of course) "undermine the UK". It also reopens questions about the fairness of the present block grant, which was challenged earlier in the year.

Hmmm, must stop talking to self. Or does anyone else have an opinion?

Rolfe.

[peteweaver]

If Scotland gets independance, Labour will be absolutely scotched, and in need of a new Leader (Gordon Brown's constituency would disappear).

[Architect]

So a win-win option then?