Should Scotland be an independent country

[Tichy_Blacks_Back]

How did we get here - a Scottish monarch (James VI) the son of Mary Queen of Scots grsaped his opportunity and stepped into the void left by Elizabeth I when she died without an heir. He moved to London in 1603 and after that was never that keen to return. Here was a man who was more than a little driven to set up a single nation and a single parliament under a single monarchy (although at that time Scotland was still far from being a united nation). Now those were the days of gunpowder plots, backstabbing and spin on a par, if not superior to, modern times and European religious power struggles that meant that unions and unity of the type that he (and several others in powerful positions both north and south of the border) believed gave the increased power, protection and wealth that they sought - complex times indeed. But looking at the bigger picture of the time after centuries of Scotland being eyed by the English powerhouses there was now a Scotsman in the big seat (something I assume many today would also be delighted about). The fact though is that the majority in Scotland did not want any union outside of the monarchy.

 

Following James VI's (now number one in England in more ways than one) failed attempt to create the Union he so desired their were many attempts at regular intervals over the next 100 years (1606, 1610, 1651, 1670, 1689 (and in 1657 under Cromwell a union style pseudo-parliament that also included representatives of Ireland actually sat)) to put it into place. Then came the Darien disaster and those who sought the Union that would bring increased wealth and political strength had their opportunity. The Darien scheme was a Scottish money making adventure that makes some of the failed modern day exploits seem tame in comparison and its affect once it cratered on Scotland and its people is another discussion all together about those who were the perecived leaders in the country at the time. When it did finally crash in 1700 it along with the other politics of the day opened the door for the Unionists both north and south of the border to force their way in and get what they want. in 1700 if you look at the monarchy the seat of power had moved firmly to London and those in power had a bigger agenda to be played out than to worry about the opinions of the people of Scotland (especially those in the north of the country).

 

In 1706 the Union with Scotland Act was passed by the English parliament and then in 1707 the Union with England Act was passed by the Scottish parliament. And that was it and on the 1st of May the Union was in place and 306 years later it is still in place.

 

It was driven at the time by economics, personal wealth and self protection of those who had influence (not your man in the street). It also allowed several other Acts to be put into place that would shape the face of religion in Scotland (and the throne) as well as dictate the events of the first half of the 18th century that would in reality have the greatest affect on the future of Scotland and its people after 1746.

 

Looking at the others that form part of what was the British Isles - Wales had been brought on board in 1535 and Ireland became part of an enlarged Union in 1800 when their decision making process moved to London. In 1922 the infamous 'stepping stone' to independence was obtained and the Irish Free State (now RoI) was formed. A bloody conflict then ensued in an internal power struggle and in 1931 full legislative independence was obtained.

 

In my heart I would like to see a fully independent Scotland but the head is not convinced that all the economic questions have been adequately answered by those who are leading us down the road to change. Also what will happen to all those 'Union' facilities and services that are in place now. How will they be broken down and managed going forward. If all those who currently live in Scotland are prepared to accept potential economc downturn and hardship then it is worth accepting but I do not think the for and against picture is any where near as clear as people want to make it out to be with so much spin and scare mongering afoot that I would not be surprised to see a 'No' vote coming out on top.

 

I will be watching with interest from afar.

[PullMyFinger]

In my heart I would like to see a fully independent Scotland but the head is not convinced that all the economic questions have been adequately answered by those who are leading us down the road to change. Also what will happen to all those 'Union' facilities and services that are in place now. How will they be broken down and managed going forward. If all those who currently live in Scotland are prepared to accept potential economc downturn and hardship then it is worth accepting but I do not think the for and against picture is any where near as clear as people want to make it out to be with so much spin and scare mongering afoot that I would not be surprised to see a 'No' vote coming out on top.

 

I will be watching with interest from afar.

 

 

This is exactly what the UK government are relying on.

 

The Yes side can't answer these questions with any conviction.

 

Westminster refuses to pre-negotiate any terms.

 

Until there is a commitment from Westminster to discuss negotiations then we proceed through the biggest campaign that any of us will ever experience without definitive answers. This will only happen after a Yes vote.

 

What we can do though is take a look at how Westminster is managing the economy......and how we can do things different.

 

Here's a library of reports, documents and thoughts already put to the "Common Weal". Worth perusing and there's going to be things you like as well as things you don't. That's the beauty of it, it's our chance to create a new country with our own values instead of neo-liberal elitist values.

 

http://reidfoundation.org/the-library/

[Alex MacLeod]

Good article here: http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-wilson-the-big-lie-about-north-sea-oil-1-3018609

[Yngwie]

Vote Yes for democracy or no for continued forced austerity, make no mistake this austerity is by design to make the richest even richer.

 

 

There are some very good reasons to consider independence, but statements like that one risk making the Yes campaigners look like fantasists!

 

Breaking it down:

 

1. Vote no and you'll still actually get get democracy

2. Vote yes and you'll still actually get austerity

3. Sheesh! Which conspiracy theory website came up with that one? The sole aim of any government is simply to get re-elected, and taking a course of action which p1sses off the vast majority but favours a few people who would be voting for them anyway isn't going to help one bit.  Austerity is a necessary evil to prevent an even worse economic crisis on the scale of, say, Ireland's and Iceland's. Two countries that the SNP no longer seem to hold up as role models, incidentally.  Independent countries that didn't have the benefit of a bigger partner to soak up most of the pain for them.

 

While I'm at it, other reasons I hear put forward like "a fairer society", "no illegal wars" and "no Trident" are also offputting drivel, because matters like that would be determined by whoever is in power at the time and you just don't know what decisions they will actually take on anything.  And anyway, a lot of people actually want a strong military deterrent in order that we can defend ourselves and the oil fields on which our economy depends.

 

Personally I think the only truly valid reason for independence is that localised decision making results in better decisions for the local area in question. But it's a point that that seems to get lost amongst all the other noise.

[PullMyFinger]

I started to respond to that and then realised there is so much bluff and bluster in your statements I didn't know where to start. So, I've broken it down.

 

Vote no and you'll still actually get democracy

 

1.  

 

 

 

Vote yes and you'll still actually get austerity

 

CHANCELLOR George Osborne is under increasing pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to ease his austerity programme.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/imf-tells-osborne-ease-the-austerity.20832556

 

The IMF suggested George Osborne should consider changing his plans in the light of lacklustre private demand.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/imf-austerity-call-is-rebuffed.20820349

 

Sheesh! Which conspiracy theory website came up with that one?

 

Resorting to insults?

 

The sole aim of any government is simply to get re-elected, and taking a course of action which p1sses off the vast majority but favours a few people who would be voting for them anyway isn't going to help one bit.

 

Ah, that's what democracy means is it? Just get re-elected? The current cabinet are selling off everything they can to their buddies and relatives. The corruption is so blatant but the media can't see the elephant in the room.

 

 

Austerity is a necessary evil

 

No, it's not. What's necessary is to rid ourselves of child poverty, to ensure our most vulnerable citizens have enough money for food and shelter, that they are cared for should they need it.

 

to prevent an even worse economic crisis on the scale of, say, Ireland's and Iceland's.

 

They're in a better state than the UK, what's your point here?

 

Two countries that the SNP no longer seem to hold up as role models, incidentally. 

 

What has this got to do with the SNP? They're not the only show in town.

 

Independent countries that didn't have the benefit of a bigger partner to soak up most of the pain for them.

 

Please elaborate how you believe being part of the UK benefitted Scotland?

 

While I'm at it, other reasons I hear put forward like "a fairer society",

 

One where everyone benefits from a booming economy and there's a net to catch them if they fall?

 

"no illegal wars"

 

I don't believe we would have invaded Iraq without a UN resolution, there is talk of that very condition being placed on a future constitution document.

 

and "no Trident" are also offputting drivel,

 

Why do you think we need Trident?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-its-time-sink-2096704

 

because matters like that would be determined by whoever is in power at the time and you just don't know what decisions they will actually take on anything. 

 

I believe a Scottish government will only be looking to defend our lands and seas.

 

And anyway, a lot of people actually want a strong military deterrent

 

And a strong military deterrent will be more affordable without the need for nuclear weapons.

 

in order that we can defend ourselves and the oil fields on which our economy depends

 

Again, more affordable without Trident.

 

Personally I think the only truly valid reason for independence is that localised decision making results in better decisions for the local area in question.

 

I agree completely and the process has started already.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/greater-control-for-islands-if-scotland-votes-yes-in-2014-x.21705519

 

But it's a point that that seems to get lost amongst all the other noise

 

The-Silent-Crisis-Summary1.pdf

 

 

[PullMyFinger]

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/07/17/a-time-for-troublemakers/

[+DoofersDad]

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/07/17/a-time-for-troublemakers/

 

It's an article not intended for your regular punter but the key argument is a good one.  It is that Independence is a legitimate argument when the people feel a sufficient national identity.  It goes on to argue that national identity is reflected more through popular culture than our economic activity.  I think most people will understand that concept.  It is also an angle which is far easier to argue because it is self evident that there are distinct cultural differences.  In contrast, debate around the economic and political issues are bound to be inconclusive because they are subject to layers of misinformation and misinterpretation over and above the fact the they are just so complex.

 

The beauty of the cultural argument is that it makes the economic argument largely irrelevant.  It is rather like entering a marriage where you commit your future "for richer or poorer".  It is saying that what matters most is who you live your future with and not whether you will be better off financially.  It is an angle which I am surprised is not being used more because the yes campaign is not going to win the nation over with the economic and political case for independence because there are simply too many unknowns and disputed issues.

[PullMyFinger]

http://nationalcollective.com/2013/07/15/raymond-soltysek-independence-is-the-triumph-of-hope-over-fear/

[PullMyFinger]

This is an excellent site if you want a little inspiration for what's possible for us.

 

http://www.nordichorizons.org/

[The Mantis]

 

 

While I'm at it, other reasons I hear put forward like "a fairer society", "no illegal wars" and "no Trident" are also offputting drivel, because matters like that would be determined by whoever is in power at the time ..........................

 

..........................Personally I think the only truly valid reason for independence is that localised decision making results in better decisions for the local area in question. 

 

Surely these two statements are contradictory. It's impossible to avoid raising the oft-made point as to why Europe's largest nuclear arsenal is not in the south east (although most MOD and Civil Service jobs are there), but 30 miles from our largest city. Putting aside how much some people appear to despise weegies do we really lack self-esteem to the point where we would passively allow "whoever is in power at the time" to impose this?

[Yngwie]

The point I'm making is that whoever is in power in an independent Scotland in future would make decisions like the ones I mentioned, they don't just automatically happen as part of a Yes vote.

 

A policy on Trident may well be covered in the manifesto of whoever you think will govern Scotland, but we all know that political pledges often fall by the wayside when reality bites or external pressure is applied. Don't be surprised if an independent Scottish government suddenly finds itself having to compromise or backtrack altogether on Trident when applying for membership of NATO, the EU and needing the co-operation of numerous UK institutions. 

[Alex MacLeod]

Whilst I would agree with some of Yngwie's points I would contest the Nuclear Missile one. The western world built up an arsenal of nuclear weapons, not for the defence of our countries but to counter what the Russians were doing. We built up an arsenal that would destroy the earth ten times over just to have one more missile than them. These weapons will never be used to defend us because if they were there wont be anything left. They're not needed and are a drain on our finances.

 

I know nothing about the economy of Iceland so cant comment on them but Ireland is actually a good example of what can be good in an independant nation and what isnt. Prior to going against the wishes of the Irish people to join the Euro Ireland was a prosperous country. The Euro put change to that just as it did to Greece and Spain.

[Yngwie]

Spot on about Ireland showing the good and the bad.

 

Having once been relatively backward in economic terms, it had a 20 year boom period based on phenomenal amounts of EU money being poured in, enabling it to attract loads of technology companies etc with the lure of grants and pretty much no rent, no rates and no tax to pay. But then after joining the Euro the bubble burst because the key monetary policy and interest rate decisions are taken on the continent and are driven by what is best for Germany and France, not some piddly little country on the periphary.

 

I have friends who moved out to Ireland a year after the bubble burst, and picked up a £400,000 dream home with 2 acres of land, for just £300,000.  They've just accepted an offer on it for £100,000. Things are just horrendous out there.

[The Mantis]

Depending on what you read, Iceland either has recovered really quickly or is rotten under the surface. I think I'll stick to exact science and leave economics to others 

[PullMyFinger]

 

Vote Yes for democracy or no for continued forced austerity, make no mistake this austerity is by design to make the richest even richer.

 

 

There are some very good reasons to consider independence, but statements like that one risk making the Yes campaigners look like fantasists!

 

Breaking it down:

 

1. Vote no and you'll still actually get get democracy

2. Vote yes and you'll still actually get austerity

3. Sheesh! Which conspiracy theory website came up with that one? The sole aim of any government is simply to get re-elected, and taking a course of action which p1sses off the vast majority but favours a few people who would be voting for them anyway isn't going to help one bit.  Austerity is a necessary evil to prevent an even worse economic crisis on the scale of, say, Ireland's and Iceland's. Two countries that the SNP no longer seem to hold up as role models, incidentally.  Independent countries that didn't have the benefit of a bigger partner to soak up most of the pain for them.

 

While I'm at it, other reasons I hear put forward like "a fairer society", "no illegal wars" and "no Trident" are also offputting drivel, because matters like that would be determined by whoever is in power at the time and you just don't know what decisions they will actually take on anything.  And anyway, a lot of people actually want a strong military deterrent in order that we can defend ourselves and the oil fields on which our economy depends.

 

Personally I think the only truly valid reason for independence is that localised decision making results in better decisions for the local area in question. But it's a point that that seems to get lost amongst all the other noise.

 

 

 

I started to respond to that and then realised there is so much bluff and bluster in your statements I didn't know where to start. So, I've broken it down.

 

Vote no and you'll still actually get democracy

 

1.  

 

 

 

Is this democratic?

 

Vote yes and you'll still actually get austerity

 

CHANCELLOR George Osborne is under increasing pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to ease his austerity programme.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/imf-tells-osborne-ease-the-austerity.20832556

 

The IMF suggested George Osborne should consider changing his plans in the light of lacklustre private demand.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/imf-austerity-call-is-rebuffed.20820349

 

Sheesh! Which conspiracy theory website came up with that one?

 

Resorting to insults?

 

The sole aim of any government is simply to get re-elected, and taking a course of action which p1sses off the vast majority but favours a few people who would be voting for them anyway isn't going to help one bit.

 

Ah, that's what democracy means is it? Just get re-elected? The current cabinet are selling off everything they can to their buddies and relatives. The corruption is so blatant but the media can't see the elephant in the room.

 

 

Austerity is a necessary evil

 

No, it's not. What's necessary is to rid ourselves of child poverty, to ensure our most vulnerable citizens have enough money for food and shelter, that they are cared for should they need it.

 

to prevent an even worse economic crisis on the scale of, say, Ireland's and Iceland's.

 

They're in a better state than the UK, what's your point here?

 

Two countries that the SNP no longer seem to hold up as role models, incidentally. 

 

What has this got to do with the SNP? They're not the only show in town.

 

Independent countries that didn't have the benefit of a bigger partner to soak up most of the pain for them.

 

Please elaborate how you believe being part of the UK benefitted Scotland?

 

While I'm at it, other reasons I hear put forward like "a fairer society",

 

One where everyone benefits from a booming economy and there's a net to catch them if they fall?

 

"no illegal wars"

 

I don't believe we would have invaded Iraq without a UN resolution, there is talk of that very condition being placed on a future constitution document.

 

and "no Trident" are also offputting drivel,

 

Why do you think we need Trident?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-its-time-sink-2096704

 

because matters like that would be determined by whoever is in power at the time and you just don't know what decisions they will actually take on anything. 

 

I believe a Scottish government will only be looking to defend our lands and seas.

 

And anyway, a lot of people actually want a strong military deterrent

 

And a strong military deterrent will be more affordable without the need for nuclear weapons.

 

in order that we can defend ourselves and the oil fields on which our economy depends

 

Again, more affordable without Trident.

 

Personally I think the only truly valid reason for independence is that localised decision making results in better decisions for the local area in question.

 

I agree completely and the process has started already.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/greater-control-for-islands-if-scotland-votes-yes-in-2014-x.21705519

 

But it's a point that that seems to get lost amongst all the other noise

 

The-Silent-Crisis-Summary1.pdf

 

You haven't answered my questions Yngwie

[Yngwie]

Where to start? Well, lets just say I did read it and do appreciate the efforts you made to put me right! But it basically reinforced my view that valid arguments put forward for independence tend to get contaminated by wishful thinking, a belief that independence will somehow bring about all sorts of miraculous changes when in fact nobody actually knows what decisions any future government will take.

 

I have no particular loyalty to the union, and If I believed that independence would be good for my family I'd vote for it. But so far, I see nothing more than a leap of faith with risks that aren't worth taking.

[PullMyFinger]

Okay, until a yes vote the questions can't be answered definitively as Westminster will not pre-negotiate. I have yet to hear a genuinely positive case for staying in the UK.

 

I believe the people of Scotland would be better served by people who live here solely elected by people who live here in an Independent government.

 

Nothing will change for the better unless we make it change and we have the opportunity to do just that next year.

[PullMyFinger]

[Alex MacLeod]

Will a YES vote see us economically better of? Here may lie the answer http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/

 

Its no secret that the author supports YES but he does make valid honest points.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Alex MacLeod

[PullMyFinger]

Link isn't great

 

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/

[The Mantis]

Pretty compelling stuff that. Who's gonna be first to pick holes in it then?

[Yngwie]

Pretty compelling stuff that. Who's gonna be first to pick holes in it then?

 

Is that an invitation?

 

Well, first of all it is good to see some arguments based on real facts and figures, and some of it is pretty thought provoking. But the article is rather twisted and deficient in logic.

 

It starts with the question "Where does Scotland's wealth go?" and then shows a map of the UK showing that millionaires are far more likely to be found in the South-East than up here, unashamedly implying that because of the current political set-up those people have got our money -  but making no attempt to actually explain the factors behind that disparity, or even to explain why it is an appropriate measure (it would make much more sense consider the average wealth of normal people rather than the elite top slice)

 

There's no mention of the essential reason why our GDP per capita is higher than average but doesn't translate into wealth here. It is because so much our GDP comes from an industry (oil) which is mostly controlled by multinational corporations based outside of Scotland. So the substantial profits, dividends and senior executive pay just don't stay here. What else boosts our GDP - whisky? We don't own much of that either, I'm afraid. Renewable energy? Mostly foreign, with one company alone (Iberdrola) sending almost £1bn this year from Scotland back to Spain.

 

Sadly I don't see how independence would change this.

[Alex MacLeod]

Mostly foreign, with one company alone (Iberdrola) sending almost £1bn this year from Scotland back to Spain.

 

Sadly I don't see how independence would change this.

 

We may not be able to change it but I'm sure we'd be a damn sight better than the current lot at retrieving due taxes before the rest goes out of the country. Lets not also forget that the Iberdrola subsidiary (Scottish Power) employs a large number of its UK workforce within Scotland.

[Charles Bannerman]

It was just when I happened to notice that this thread is still drifting on that I realised that we still have over a year to suffer of this tedious Neverendum. I just don't know why Salmond couldn't have accepted that the Scottish public generally aren't Anglophobes like his own party and abandoned his attempt at a 2014 Bannockburn Bounce in favour of a much earlier date which would have given us all a break from all this stuff.

September 9th 2013 comes to mind as a much better referendum date. After all it's the 20th anniversary of the Thistle and Caley merger votes..... oh, and the 500th of the Battle of Flodden!! A missed opportunity to save us a whole extra year of tedium Alex!!!

Now, to turn to the wheeze proposed in the link in post #195. This looks to me like pretty standard Anglophobic SNP dogma. You know what I mean. The kind of good old fashioned SNP Anglophobia they've tried to put on the back burner for the moment in an attempt to curry favour for this forthcoming vote - but which will re emerge pretty quickly when it's all over. The gist of it seems to be the by now familiar SNP whinge of "Thae English are grabbing aw the money and investment down south!!"

And their solution? Apparently for Scotland to give up its share in all the consequent British wealth generation and go it alone. Let's be clear about what this paper is saying. Because, by claiming that all that wealth resides down south, that surely must also amount to an admission that Scotland is much poorer - which actually completely contradicts the standard party line. They can't have their cake and eat it. That paper actually amounts to a very decent case FOR the Union!

So what do they want to replace this terribly unjust wealth distribution with? Well... SCOTLAND silly! Which of course is simply another scenario where the northern part has far more poor people and all the rich people are concentrated in the south. "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" as they say in Gaelic.

Once again, I return to my thesis that, in addition to the fundamental lack of substance in the separatist case, there are just so many extra reasons for Highlanders not to vote for separation. We've just seen another example here, prompted by ideas from this economic paper, of how the Highlands would become an underprivileged appendage of a separate Scotland with no fallback on a larger and more secure host state. And that's before you consider that, in addition to most of the rich people across the central belt, west central Scotland also creates a disproportionate health and welfare bill which would also have to be subsidised by Highland taxes, but without the Barnet consequentials which currently mean that within the UK, public spending is £1000 a head higher in Scotland.

The SNP's case for separation, such as it is, seems to be pretty bogstandard and largely predicated on greed with a fair smattering of Anglophobia which, like Blair with Socialism, they're trying to keep quiet about for the moment in an attempt to become electable. They also from time to time float policies such as on pensions etc with which they try to bribe the electorate. However they could only ever deliver these if the SNP actually had a say in the government after any separation took place. And that is far from certain.

The separatist argument seems simply to be to slice off the bit of Britain which has all the (overstated) oil wealth (or at least until it runs out in a few decades time) and declare it a separate and allegedly wealthy state.

Well chaps... to follow your argument through to its logical conclusion..... IT'S PICTLAND'S OIL!!!!!

Why share it with the central belt, and in any case Pictland was there long before Scotland was ever thought of.

OK, time to do a Rip van Winkle and escape the tedium by going back to sleep again - whilst making sure I wake up in time to vote NO.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Charles Bannerman

[Laurence]

I never heard any Scots wanting to leave the Union when everything was being paid for by exports from Lancashire. Half the Unions wealth were exports that  went through Liverpool. .

 

There is still more Industrial wealth adjacent the East Lancashire Road than in the whole of Scotland

Last time I travelled from Glasgow to Carlisle in an hour I counted 200 HGV pouring over the border, sucking in imports

They will all have to be paid for in Euros as the Bank of England will not support the Scottish pound

 

Millions of Scots fought against Germany in two world wars , Scotland could well be taking their orders from them, just like the Irish who formerly left the Union