To think Scotland becoming independent wouldn't have any impact on the rest of the UK?

[lesley33]

Some in Scotland want it to become independent. I don't really understand why the coalition government is fighting against this happening. Will it really matter in the rest of the UK if scotland does become independent?

Well ATOOT, I wouldn't expect you to have a detailed knowledge of everything I've ever posted. But I would expect you, in the absence of such knowledge, to post accordingly. I've mentioned also on this thread that I'm an immigration and asylum lawyer. Is it implausible that a person who made this career choice might have an academic interest in the history of prejudice against immigrants?

Anyway, I note once again the absence of any engagement with the substantive points I made. I can see exactly why you find it frustrating though- it's inconvenient. Your argument would be understandable if you'd just focused on the SNP position now, but to try and pretend that a pure distinction between sectarian and nationalistic prejudice can be made in analysing the historical treatment of Irish immigrants is laughably implausible! As for the insults, since you were the one who began the snide little digs, it is rather rich to complain now.

okay you consider it a nation, I consider it a country.

What would happen if Scotland voted Yes and the rest voted No?

i can see the point you are trying to make, postbellum, but if a person wants to leave a club, having everyone vote on whether he is allowed to or not seems a bit off. let scotland have a referendum on whether or not it wants to leave.

god, flange, give it a rest... you're just wrong to conflate sectarianism with nationalism, that's all. i don't have to engage past that fact, truly. it's not something that any scottish person on this thread would recognise.

The scottish people voted for the SNP on their platform of an independant scotland, so that would say to me as a non scot that scotland wants independance.

So why the delay? As you clearly thought Salmon was right for the job when the majority voted for him.

And it might not be a game show but the longer it drags on the more it will turn it a remake of Braveheart.

And fwiw, I can't see that its unreasonable to want a bit more information before deciding how to vote, I would. Obviously there are some who have an absolute commitment to either independence or union, even if it would negatively alter their own financial circumstances or whatever, and that's fair enough. But a lot of people care more about what impact it will have on their day to day lives and prosperity. I think that's very sensible. Why does everyone have to be a total unionist or nationalist? In party political elections, a lot of people vote simply according to their own self interest- which option they think will do more for them. Not everyone, but lots of people. So I don't see why an independence referendum would be any different?

in what sense will it turn into a remake of braveheart?

I don't know redlac.

Aitch - we're not a club though! Even if Scotland has a referendum, that is not the conclusion. Just because Scotland wants to leave, doesn't mean it has the power to do that! I'm on shaky constitutional ground, but I cannot help thinking that as the UK parliament has overall power of the whole of the UK, it will ultimately be up to the UK parliament. However, I am ready to be corrected on that point, by anyone with better knowledge than me.

I think the vote should be a plain yes or no vote. salmond seems to want to hedge his bets by putting in a third option, which if chosen has no meaning whatsoever as Scotland will remain part of the UK, and therefore its parliament would not have the power to give itself mroe powers without permission from the Uk government. Personally i do not see why England does not have devolved power, and why England cannot become independent fromt he rest of the UK.
Also if Scotland remains in the EU it will have little difference to the rest of the UK. They will still be able to work there, and all students who study at university there will be able to pay the same as scottish students and get the same grants and loans. Also if Scotland remains in the EU would they get the small countries grant (or whatever it is called), or would it be too big?

On another issue, who will get to vote. Will it be all Scottish people in the UK , and if so how do they decide who is classed as Scottish as there is no such thing as a scottish passport, or will it be anyone who happens to live in Scotland and has the right to vote in Uk elections? That woudl be odd because English people could vote on Scotland becoming independent, but if it became independent they then could not vote at all in Scotland. And after that how do we decide who gets scottish citizenship or not, and do people in Scotland suddenly get stripped of their UK passports?

As for racism, I have experienced more racism in the north of scotland than I have in England. There seemed to be a lot of resentment about non-scots taking jobs (regardless of the fact most jobs were provided by non-scottish companies, and employed a lot of scottish people), but obviously I can only speak for my experience, and that area. I never had a problem in places like Glasgow or Edinburgh though.

not sure that it's a given that voting for the SNP is a vote for independence either, tbh. at the time it felt like Labour were a spent force, so with the tories nowhere up here who else was there?

ATOOT, this discussion could stop if you ceased responding. You are participating in it as much as I am- except that I'm doing more than just claiming I'm right because I said I am and that's that. It's not that you don't have to engage further, its that you're unable to.

i think you're right, pb, it's up to the UK parly to allow us away. isn't that what them allowing us to have a referendum at all comes from?

and flange... blardy hell. i'm doing my level best not to engage with you here... stop complaining that i'm not engaging with you.

well read this thread for a start. Within the first few pages you have anti scottish views expressed and that is before it even got side tracted by sectarianism with nationalism.

I want a quick clean resolution of the matter, not 2.5 years of history, free prescriptions and north sea oil.

I wonder how Scotland would have reacted if the English had just decided to tell them to leave?

I don't like it, very horrid matter. Anyway minerals and gases should be split just like any divorce.

As to whether who has the power to decide, I know it is nto exactly the same thing legal, but imagien fi the Uk decided to hold a referendum on leaving the EU, it voted yes, and then the EU said tough it is up to the EU parliament to decide.

regarding racism, are we talking about racism or are we talking about anti-english sentiment?

and according to nicola sturgeon, the snp would rather a yes/no vote too, but the country wants a third option. whether you believe her or not is another matter, but she said it live on newsnight the other night.

I would agree parts of scotland are pretty behind in terms of the whole multicultural agenda. Came across a la in scotland for example 2 years who ago who in their job applications forms asked you what your christian name was? I was pretty shocked by that tbh.

I would have thought the 3rd option would benefit the snp most. Because even if people are nervous about independence, they are likely to want an increase in powerd devolved.

that might well be the case, tbh, but it's certainly not what they are saying publicly. although ahving said that, most of the SNP people i know are real believers, so who knows?

not sure i would have the energy to be shocked by 'christian name' tbh. don't think that makes me racist, does it? can't think taht muslim pals up here would be affronted by it either.

posie,
As for minerals and gases international law states that if they are on a country's land they belong to that country. When it comes to offshore resources there are very strict laws regarding who they belong to. Basicly waters belong to a coutnry up to twelve miles out, and anything in them belongs to that country. Once you get passed the twelve mile border it is international waters. If international laws are followed, Scotland does not actually have very much oil within its borders. And the UK could not ignore international law to give Scotland more, as other ocuntries have an interest, and are not going to let international law be ignored to their disadvantage.
Aberdeen is the oil capital in the UK due to its location, but not because the oil being drilled out there is in scottish waters, hence other countries legally drill oil from the north sea not just england. It has been suggested that the oil base could move to Newcastle if tax and costs become too expensive in Aberdeen. I am not certain, but I think Newcastle (or somewhere in northern england), was thought about as the base back in the 1970's.
I think the oil issue, and how it relates to Scotlands finances is one of the reasons salmond might wish to put the third option in, as Scotalnd does not have that much money or resources, and unless it got help from the EU, it might be a financial struggle with taxes being put up.

FFS Lesley - are you just using this thread to point out what a racist backwards country we are via your personal experiences?

Of course parts of Scotland are behind the multicultural agenda - only 4% of the population are BME and the vast majority of them are in the Central Belt

Honestly I wonder why England are putting up a big stushie about independence cos on reading this thread we are all bigoted, racist, obese weirdos

Have been looking more into the whole "how would it be done stuff" and it is quite interesting:

1. Basically UK parliament does have absolute sovereignty & could technically block a bill placed by the Scottish parliament for independence.
2. However, that is if Scotland accepts that sovereignty, which could be disputed going back to some ancient legal precedent that is too complicated to type out.
3. It is also worth nothing that the United Nations enshrines the right of people to self-determination - although I'm not sure that the Basque Separatists would necessarily say the UN has helped them very much! So, I don't know quite what weight that holds
4. There is some other legal precedents with regard to Quebec wanting to secede from Canada, which would seem to suggest that Scotland could not just unilaterally declare independence.

So, not sure where that leaves anyone, but at least I've got a vague hold on the facts.

ATOOT no. I reserve the right to point out, for as long as you continue responding to my posts, that you're saying nothing of substance, and the best you've come up with is effectively that you're right because you say so. You simply don't appear to know enough to have any kind of gravitas when you do that. Hence your resort to mere hot air.

I am actually scottish. But I don't like scottish nationalism. And yes I am aware that outside a few places Scotland has a very small bme population and this has an impact.

aitch,
The racism I experienced was anti-foreigner racism. but I do belive there has been a court case where anti-englishness was deemed to be racism in the judgement, and came under race hate laws. I know where I lived there was a huge amount of anti-english and anti-americanims, which could get violent. The worst thing was that it was accepted by ordinary people, not just by bnp style nutcases.
Also if the country wants a third option, that sounds like they do not want independence.

redlac,
Obviously I do nto agree by the racit bigot staement, but I do wonder why cameron is making such a fuss. Scotland only has one tory MP, and five millon people. Surely it would be better for the conservatives if Scotland was not part of the UK as then labour woudl loose lots of seats, and it would increase the tories percentage of votes and seats.