Scottish independance in two days what do you think?

by barry 122 Replies latest jw friends

  • Qcmbr

    I think that the desire for indepedence is a romantic dream that was played to ridiculuous levels in Scotland. There are plenty of countries that have been conquered who do not share culture, border, racial ties and have had their land and resources used by another country's rich people and quite understandably would like to let the rich people in their country use it. That independence I can understand. Independence from a union built upon shared culture, land, racial intermarriage and where the rich from that union share the land and resources which, like a marriage, has ups and downs but can (and definately does in the UKs case) make a relationship that is greater than the sum of its parts is different. What was Scotland really voting for and how was it portrayed?

    • Salmond and 'Team Scotland' v the 3 stooges from Westminster. This is what elections should be about - not cIndependence. Confalting the self rule with 3 leaders in Westminister -that Scottish people already voted for - and who will change within a few years is pure dirty politics. Independence isn't and shouldn't be about personalities or caricatures of political parties.
    • Better financial wealth. Without the diverse economic wealth of the UK a central prop of Scottish finances rested upon wildly varying estimates of oil and gas resources. Scotland would not have been able to simply put the oil money in a safe for later as most of it would have to be used to make up the shortfall from tax receipts. Scotland would have become more dependent on oil just as it is becoming most uncertain due to oil prices (the price has to be higher to make it worth exploiting the expensive fields). Scotland was being asked to play a very wild hand with a limited chance of improving their finances but with the knowledge that many basic costs would increase (postal costs, costs of new Scottish offices, some businesses having to relocate head offices, investment not in oil would have a significantly stronger pull south than it already does.) In reality the whole UK does better financially (remember without the hated -envy induced- London wealth, pensions are smaller, NHS can't be funded to the current level etc) and 'Scottish' oil developed by UK expertise and financial capital is shared alongside all the other assets. An independent Scotland doesn't suddenly discover a vast amount of money that was being stolen by the English but it does find itself without London (it is financial naivety and lack of education that seeks to traduce a vibrant , wealth creating world class city to a 'bunch of crooks from Eton'.)
    • Get rid of Trident. Defence using nuclear weapons is emotive. Defence is emotive. Scotland, on its own, would have little need of its illustrious ground based military units (they would be cut when the budget noose tightened) but a huge need for an expanded navy (unless they decided they wouldn't police their waters) which would have been ruinous to build and upkeep. The vote should never have been Trident out(arguably part of what has kept WW3 from happening but I digress) but should have detailed what army, if any, Scotland would use. I suspect that many soldiers would have moved south to the remaining British regiments to be part of a world class army as opposed to a regional protection force. Scotland would have ceased to be a military power in reality.
    • Currency. Without your own money you can't have huge banking concerns (so they move South) nor can you have true independence since you have no say in currency policy. Scotland would have been forced to absolutely obey Westminster (with no respresentative voice) and the Treasury OR to join the Euro and obey Brussels OR to play Zimbabwe financial roulette by creating their own currency (a recipe for rasied costs and trade hindrance).
    • The biggest lie of all. Exiting one union (UK) for political independence would be overuled by the financial need to join another union (The EU) and they are moving towards political union. Scotland in the EU as a full member would be even less represented than many claim she isn't now (ruled from Brussels, almost no say in currency). The UK has special exemptions that Scotland would be very, very unlikley to get and which would mean the handover of a lot of money to Brussles (that oil money that was suppossed to be for a rainy day) and handover of MORE political power than was gained by Independence. This is IF Scotland was even admitted which according to the rules would take a long time (Scotland would have to comply with several conditions) and would require some potentially hostile members (Spain) to agree.

    How anyone could vote for independence without at least a groundwork of agreed outcomes is amazing. All that is left is a romantic (and plain wrong) notion that Scotland is somehow a conquered nation that just needs to bump up its production of tartan and escape the hated English to reach a financial and social nirvana where the rich hand out candy and no one is poor. The rich will always try and keep wealth and power whether they sit in Westminster, Eton or Brussels and breaking up a beautiful union that enriches and empowers us all (Scotland and England and Wales and NIreland sit at world tables and have a voice in many powerful places BECAUSE of their shared influence) for some idealistic and romantic uncertainty was rank foolishness and errant recklessness. If Scotland was conquered, her people oppressed and treated as an underclass, her wealth, property and accomplishments stolen then yes I would absolutely agree that Independence was better. If that is how you think Scotland is then you perhaps need a trip out to see the world...

  • galaxie

    Hi qcmbr;...The detail you have gone into and the points you make, all have relevancy and great importance to those wishing independence.

    The crucial point is as country where should those decisions of governance be made, it's as simple as that.

    Your argument would be strengthened if the people of Scotland at the least had by a substantial amount voted for the Westminster gov'.

    This has not been the case (only one mp at present )therefore the VAST majority are not represented.

    As democracy is the political system by which most agree is the best way of governance, how can anyone deny it's right to self determination.

    As I have said the the grumblings of dissent are increasing by the minute, which would have continued even if Scotland had voted yes.

    As it is we have to once again wait for a government the Scottish people vastly did not vote for to dole out our lot.

    I don't see this as a slight on the rest of the uk , I have many connections which I treasure.

    It entirely about democracy. The present and future political wranglings will be of great interest and effect to us all.

    Best wishes to you.

  • besty

    simon - its perfectly possible to ascertain why people voted the way they did.

    You call a bunch of them afterwards and ask them ;-) is also an excellent resource

    People voted yes because of self-determination, Westminster politics and whats happening with the NHS

    People voted NO because of risk, pensions and the pound.

    Independence is a processs, not a referendum date. It has been successfully underway since 1998. It's surprising people are unable to see the bigger picture.

  • SonoftheTrinity

    A vote on Scottish Independence shouldn't have happened until the whole Northern Ireland thing gets resolved. An independent Ulster would have made a lot more sense looking at it from this side of the pond.

  • cofty

    A vote on Scottish Independence shouldn't have happened until the whole Northern Ireland thing gets resolved

    How do you propose to do that exactly?

    By the way it was a a big help when American's finally stopped openly funding Irish terrorism through NORAID.

  • cliff

    Excellent links, Besty!

    The breakdown of votes / age is particularly telling.

  • tim hooper
    tim hooper

    All I see now is a divided Scotland and an England united in their determination to have the same benefits as have been promised to Scotland.

  • Simon

    simon - its perfectly possible to ascertain why people voted the way they did.

    You call a bunch of them afterwards and ask them ;-)

    That's true, LOL :)

    Of course it risks the same effect that polling can experience - where people claim the cause that sounds grander than the real reason.

    But saying people voted 'no' because of the "panic concessions" is not the same as saying it's because they were afraid of the risks - that points to the case for "yes" not being made, the answers were not forthcoming on how important issues would be resolved.

  • Simon

    All I see now is a divided Scotland and an England united in their determination to have the same benefits as have been promised to Scotland.

    I think there was already a sense of unfairness at how Scottish MPs could vote on Scottish and English issues but English MPs on English issues only. This is undoubtedly going to grow now which is one of the sad, damaging consequences of referendums like this and panic promises made as a result.

  • cofty

    I am a Scotsman living just south of the border in Northumberland.

    There are children here in the same class at High School from both Scotland and England. The Scottish kids get free university while their classmates get tens of thousands of debt. The Scottish kids parents get free prescriptions and their grandparents get free nursing care. The English families get none of those benefits.

    The south of Northumberland has poverty and unemployment as great as anything in Scotland. To get from my house to the nearest English city I have to drive 40 miles before I even get to a dual-carriageway more than half a mile long. North of the border the A1 is dualled all the way from Dunbar to Edinburgh.

    Now Scotland are demanding more. Get real.

Share this