Scottish Independance

[decaro]

from the Atlantic:

"Great Britain's women's curling team defeated Japan overwhelmingly during qualifiers at the Sochi Olympics on Friday, scoring 12 points to Japan's three. The win comes one day after a thorough shellacking of Team USA ... It's an important boost for British women's curling after a disappointing loss in Vancouver four years ago.

"But at the 2018 Winter Games in South Korea, skip Eve Muirhead and her all-Scottish team could be competing against the British squad rather than for it.

"On September 18, Scotland will hold a referendum on whether or not to seek independence from the United Kingdom, with which it has been united since 1707. If the referendum succeeds and Scotland becomes an independent country, its leaders 'are comfortable and assured Scotland will have its own Olympic and Paralympic team,' Scottish Sports Minister Shona Robison said last year. The Scottish government's white paper on independence devotes a section to sport, in which its working group foresees a Scottish Olympic team in time for the next Olympic Games:

"Based on the Group’s work and the recent experience of newly independent states, the Government does not envisage any significant barriers to Scotland achieving Olympic and Paralympic accreditation and being able to participate at Rio 2016. For example, Montenegro and the Balkan States received recognition within one year of independence, while Croatia and Slovenia were accredited before securing UN membership ..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ry/283854/

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

So what is the vote going to be? I say just be reading up on this it is it's going to be a landslide in favor of the new nation of Scotland .

Until people vote the answer is unknown [8D] Mere suppositions.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

The issue with Trident is that it needs to be based in a deep-water tributary so that the submarines can leave and return submerged (and thus not be tracked).

The number of places in the UK that actually fit the necessary criteria can be counted on one hand, which is why it's a more complicated problem than simply expending the effort of having to move everything.

Whilst not an expert.

Portsmouth, Plymouth both seem to be good locations.

Milford Haven is a maybe, but I think its too busy with civilian traffic, and congested.

A real wildcard would be Belfast, good location on the surface, long history of naval supprot, but is it stable enough politically.

Not even remotely that easy. See the Hansard record here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /67607.htm

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

So what is the vote going to be? I say just be reading up on this it is it's going to be a landslide in favor of the new nation of Scotland .

warspite1

Difficult to tell from where I'm sitting as only those in Scotland can vote so I have no feel for what the grass roots are thinking. However, I work with loads of Scots here in London and only one I have spoken to on the subject doesn't think it madness for Scotland to go it alone - and he was an undecided!

Problem is there is the romantic argument - the (perhaps understandable) dream of an independent nation - and then there is cold hard economic reality. The idea of Salmond in charge should also scare the living daylights out of anyone! Remember, this is the guy who thought it would be a good idea to have Scotland's economy modelled on Iceland..... er......

I think it totally unfair - and a sneaky trick by Salmond - not to allow all Scots to vote, but there you go. Ultimately it is for Scots to decide - even if its only some of them [8|] - and hopefully whatever the decision is in September it works out for all.

FWIW I have made my feelings on this known before but will do so again.

From a purely economic point of view, as a taxpaying Englishman with two children, I should welcome Scotland breaking away. My children get worse education and healthcare than their Scottish counterparts - and yet I pay for that.

But, I am an old romantic at heart. I firmly believe that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts. Each of the four nations have contributed to the United Kingdom's history, its positive contribution to the world in the arts and literature, music, sport, science, exploration, medicine - all fields of human endeavour, and Scotland has more than played its part in that rich history. The UK has, in the main, been a force for the good.

However, as much as I would love the United Kingdom to remain as is, we need to learn the lessons of history. There is little point in trying to force a people to accept a position against their will. If the decision is a Yes vote then so be it, we accept it and move on.

[Chickenboy]

From time to time, Quebec makes rumblings about sovereignty and independence from Canada. It's a similar economically stupid idea, rationalizable only by language, provincial nationalism and political appeals to the lowest common denominator. Thankfully cooler heads have prevailed on this side of the pond.

I agree with your summary, Warspite1. It would be a very shortsighted bit of nationalism. After the trumpets fade, they will rue their economic independence and loss of succor from the balance of the UK.

[catwhoorg]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

The issue with Trident is that it needs to be based in a deep-water tributary so that the submarines can leave and return submerged (and thus not be tracked).

The number of places in the UK that actually fit the necessary criteria can be counted on one hand, which is why it's a more complicated problem than simply expending the effort of having to move everything.

Whilst not an expert.

Portsmouth, Plymouth both seem to be good locations.

Milford Haven is a maybe, but I think its too busy with civilian traffic, and congested.

A real wildcard would be Belfast, good location on the surface, long history of naval supprot, but is it stable enough politically.

Not even remotely that easy. See the Hansard record here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /67607.htm

Thanks for that.

Good points about Coulport, I was thinking more of 'just' Faslane.

[catwhoorg]

I'd say the vote right now is too close to call.

Its a huge decision, and people may be gung-ho in opinion polls, but when its ballot time, they are far more likely to vote for the status quo than they would admit. (better the devil you know)

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I don't know what a shell game is, and I may be wrong as this is not my area of expertise, but I'm sure there was violence in Azerbaijan - Black January I think it was called. Anyway, if I'm wrong then fair enough.

A shell game is where you're trying to follow the shell with the pea in it but someone misdirects your attention to one that doesn't have it. Yes, there was violence in Azerbaijan, but it was post independence from the USSR.

Claiming that the breakup of the USSR was violent because of violence that occurred after all the SSRs were independent is like claiming that your high school graduation was violent because you were shipped off to Nam immediately after.

warspite1

No, this was before independence, but during the break-up.

Alright, I know I'm splitting hairs here, but the Black January incident was in January 1990. The breakup was in August 1991 - a year and a half later.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




A shell game is where you're trying to follow the shell with the pea in it but someone misdirects your attention to one that doesn't have it. Yes, there was violence in Azerbaijan, but it was post independence from the USSR.

Claiming that the breakup of the USSR was violent because of violence that occurred after all the SSRs were independent is like claiming that your high school graduation was violent because you were shipped off to Nam immediately after.

warspite1

No, this was before independence, but during the break-up.

Alright, I know I'm splitting hairs here, but the Black January incident was in January 1990. The breakup was in August 1991 - a year and a half later.

warspite1

But the violence was due to the break-up of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall was 1989, the period from then until the actually split has to be included. If violence broke out when Cameron announced a date for the referendum then you would count that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But the violence was due to the break-up of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall was 1989, the period from then until the actually split has to be included. If violence broke out when Cameron announced a date for the referendum then you would count that.

I think the Berlin Wall thing was just a result of glasnost. Until Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Russian SSR (May 1990), the USSR wasn't breaking up and may well have not broken up. Till then, the USSR controlling its turf was situation normal - no different than Prague in 1968.

[Missouri_Rebel]

'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.'

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But the violence was due to the break-up of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall was 1989, the period from then until the actually split has to be included. If violence broke out when Cameron announced a date for the referendum then you would count that.

I think the Berlin Wall thing was just a result of glasnost. Until Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Russian SSR (May 1990), the USSR wasn't breaking up and may well have not broken up. Till then, the USSR controlling its turf was situation normal - no different than Prague in 1968.

warspite1

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one!

[goodwoodrw]

OK guys what are the odds at the moment, what result is the good money on?

[JudgeDredd]

It really is too close to call...and polls are crap...such a small selection normally.

BUT - if you were to believe the polls, the Yes campaign (pro independence in case you didn't know) is catching. They are still below 50%...but have been slowly and regularly catching.

If I were a betting man though, I would bet on the Better Together bunch winning the campaign on the day though. All the Better Together campaign has to do is sow a few seeds of doubt and people will vote no.

I would be extremely sad if that happened, but that's what I think

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.'

Exactly my sentiment MR [&o]

Scotland does not want the right left right swing anymore and never has done and historically have almost always voted red or yellow - but mostly red purely because of the lack of another viable option. In other words, Scotland have always voted to keep the right out of government.

That isn't to say there's anything wrong with your view if it's to the right...just that the majority of Scotland have historically not wanted that kind of government. Unfortunately Scotlands vote seldom matters and they end up with the government that England wants purely because of the voting power in England.

The SNP, like them or loathe them or think they're in it for themselves...they have delivered about 80% of their election manifesto this time around...something Westminster governments have been sorely lacking in many, many years. That is why the SNP had such a large majority in the last elections in Scotland - because they told the people what they were going to do and stuck to it

The SNP are offering a Social Democratic option. I know that might sink a knife of fear into most people - but it sounds like the kind of government I would want to govern my country.

I would hazard a guess that some northern counties in England would like to join Scotland and be free of Westminster...because Westminster doesn't serve them. But that is pure conjecture. [;)]

[warspite1]

This debate has been largely very grown-up, justifying Matrix in allowing its continuation. But....

One of the annoying aspects of the situation is the perception that the English some how dominate over the Scots and get what they want over and above the wishes of Scotland.

This is rather unfortunate. For example I read a comment "Unfortunately Scotland's vote seldom matters and they end up with the government that England wants"...

This of course is simply not true. For example, in the last General Election, ENGLAND voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives. It got a fudged Conservative / Liberal government because the wishes of the UK overall are taken into account. No, "England" does NOT always get what it wants at the expense of Scotland. Not to mention the obvious fact the England, like Scotland, does not speak with one voice.

I also read the comment "some northern counties in England would like to join Scotland and be free of Westminster...because Westminster doesn't serve them". How many times have Labour been elected because of the northern English/Scottish/Welsh vote? This comment makes it sound as if Westminster is some cosy club just for "Southerners" because its located in London, and the Government only cares about London and the south. A very mis-leading, confused, not to say, downright false statement. How long did we have a Labour Government for recently? How many Scottish MP's were in senior cabinet positions? How many cabinet ministers were northerners? For all of the Blair/Brown years, a Scot was either Prime-minister or Chancellor (the two most powerful positions in the cabinet) - sometimes both!! What were Brown and Darling actively working against Scotland? Please...

There was also some comment about Westminster axing Scottish Regiments. Again this made it sound, somewhat disingenuously, like Scotland was being treated differently to the rest of the UK or at least England. No, of course the truth is that the regimental system is hugely expensive and amalgamations of famous regiments (sadly) were made - to non-Scottish regiments as well as Scottish. Of course if the Scots can afford to reverse that decision then all well and good - personally I very much doubt it - an independent Scotland will find it hard economically to field a sensible sized Armed Forces (as do all countries), let alone have the luxury of the regimental system.

As has been said, if the wish is for Scotland to have a separate independent country then so be it, but please spare us the falsehoods and the political point scoring - they are not required to make Scotland's case.

[Orm]

I suspect that those who live far from the capital always feel that they have nothing to say in political matters regardless on what is decided. I even think this is true even if their own people are in power.

[Alchenar]

The interesting thing about this vote is that usually in referenda the 'undecideds' tend fall towards the conservative (with a small 'c') option as the date gets closer, this time they seem to be moving towards Yes.

[catwhoorg]

Taking out Scottish general election results. (in every case Scotland is Labour majority, the smallest being 40/72)

2010 UK minus Scotland Conservative 305 Labour 217 Liberal 51 (out of 591) Conservative overall majority instead of coalition
2005 UK minus Scotland Conservative 197 Labour 314 Liberal 51(out of 587) Labour majority (same result, reduced majority)
2001 UK minus Scotland Conservative 165 Labour 357 Liberal 42(out of 587) Labour majority (same result, reduced majority)
1997 UK minus Scotland Conservative 165 Labour 362 Liberal 37(out of 587) Labour majority (same result, reduced majority)
1992 UK minus Scotland Conservative 336 Labour 222 Liberal 11(out of 579) Conservative majority (same result, increased majority)
1987 UK minus Scotland Conservative 366 Labour 179 Liberal 13(out of 578) Conservative majority (same result, increased majority)
1983 UK minus Scotland Conservative 376 Labour 168 Liberal/SDP 13(out of 578) Conservative majority (same result, increased majority)
1979 UK minus Scotland Conservative 322 Labour 225 Liberal 8(out of 563) Conservative majority (same result, increased majority)
1974 (Oct) UK minus Scotland Conservative 266 Labour 278 Liberal 10(out of 563) Hung parliament (instead of small labour majority)
1974 (Feb) UK minus Scotland Conservative 276 Labour 261 Liberal 11(out of 563) Conservative minority, instead of labour minority govt
1970 (Feb) UK minus Scotland Conservative 307 Labour 244 Liberal 3 (out of 558) Conservative increased majority


Three times in my lifetime has the effect of Scotland changed the balance of power in the UK parliament (the bolded ones). Feb 1974 probably didn't change matters, in that there would have likely been another quick election, but Oct 1974 and 2010 the Scottish vote has significantly changed the UK government.

The other interesting thing, is just how diminished the liberals would be without Scotland. Several times in this period, about half their MPs came from Scotland. They could have been eliminated as a viable 3rd party in the 70's but for the Scottish influence, but maybe a Lib/lab pact in 1974 could have increased their relevance as well.

4 times out of those 11 the UK as a whole voted for the same as Scotland. (which as I said always voted labour).

When offered a regional assembly, "the North" (my home area) pretty overwhelming voted against it, it maybe a Labour heartland, but we are fundamentally Unionist at heart as well.

[catwhoorg]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

This debate has been largely very grown-up, justifying Matrix in allowing its continuation. But....

One thing about British politics, is that it is still a better level of debate than the bipartisam US version. We do allow for middle views, not just with us or against us.