Independence for Scotland

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Cameron says 'get on with it'. Salmond is biding his time. Presumably both of them think an early referendum would earn a 'no' result. In an era where countries are banding together to weather the storms of international economics I'm not sure I quite understand why a very small nation would want to go it alone. Then again, is it a given that anyone that voted SNP automatically wants independence as they are suggesting? Or is it, same as in England, that they got in because they 'weren't Labour'...?

You're assuming that, had the Union never happened, we would have had an SNP Government for the last 300 years?

I'm just saying that we can have no idea how Scotland or England would have looked or acted over the past 300 years! Would England have had it's Empire without Scottish military, for example? What would the US look like, even?

Olkn
My post was a little flippant but the point is that you seem to think that Scots are somehow different.
Imo they are no better or worse than any others. An independent Scotland would still have politicians with vested interests, procrastinators, opportunists etc. Just the same as we have now

I think Scots are culturally different from people in, for example, Essex. The fate of Scottish hill farmers is probably not of much interest to Essex folk, and Scottish hill farmers have little imterest in the cost of fake tan. But yes, of course we're humans, and just as liable to be corrupt and so forth.

I do think we're more left-leaning though.

Is the point about getting the decision made earlier rather than later to increase business confidence a valid one? Uncertainty being something the business community doesn't like much?

Some parts of the business community love times of uncertainty. Others don't. It's scare-mongering imvho.

Fork, not sure why you find it insulting.

Salmond's chose the end of the term because he knows if he had a referendum early, he'd lose it. So his game plan over the next few years is to blame as much on England as possible, whip up as much anti-union sentiment as possible and hope by the time of the next election, enough people hate the English to want to seperate.

On the other hand, DC doesn't want the union to break up, so he wants to move the vote forward because all evidence at the moment points to Scots not wanting full independence.

Both are examples of politics in play. It's hardly insulting though.

And as for political parties trying to influence the outcome, isn't that exactly what political parties are for? Once the referendum goes ahead, it will be a crossparty coalition (Tory/Labour/Lib Dems) versus SNP.

Up until now, Salmond has been allowed to dictate the terms of the debate. To be fair it's nice to see this being brought to the forefront of the news.

The only thing is that we need to be careful it doesn't appear to be a diktat from Westminster or we risk losing support.

The rest of the UK need to be asked as well as just the Scots. If we are to lose part of the UK we should all have a say.

If the rest of the UK had a say, a "yes" vote might be more likely.

You have an odd view of Alex, niceguy, he really doesn't foment anti-English feeling at all. Can you show me where he has?

I don't know what other people would vote, OldLady, but I would vote no. I think the UK needs all its constituent parts. And I would also be concerned about the effect Scotland seceding would have on Wales and Northern Ireland. I have a feeling it would diminish their status, given that Scotland, as the biggest of the three non-English countries, has led the way on devolution. What would we be called if Scotland did go? England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Bit of a mouthful. Or simply England? Or still the UK? The full name at the moment is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - if there was no Scotland, then we wouldn't be Great Britain any more.

Confused reasoning I know. I find the growing amount of hostility between certain sections of the Scots and the English really sad. It all seems to be based on resentment and ill feeling.

(Before anyone is tempted I don't need a lesson in Scottish-English history thanks)

niceguy Pardon my ignorance but what is the West Lothian question?

Forkintheheid - 'That has nothing to do with how Scotland would be governed as an independent country though.'

I think that it does. The premis being put by several on here is that Scots are more left wing, less materialistic etc, so an independent Scotland would be better than the union, a purer sovereign state untainted by the English and their pragmatic greed.
Gordon Brown, a left wing Scot, was the chancellor of the UK for over 10 years. During this time he encouraged short termism and turned a blind eye to the worst excesses of the City because it was politically expediant to do so. He had plenty of time to introduce legislation to regulate the banking industry - but he did not.
So, why would things have have been different in an independent Scotland? Brown despite his Scottish education, culture and upbringing still was seduced by the vested interests of capitalism. That is my point.

The West Lothian Question.

I mentioned that we're more left-leaning, I didn't suggest anything about being purer. Haven't seen anyone suggest that til now. Odd idea.

Ah Thank you OLKN.

niceguy
Fork, not sure why you find it insulting.

Insulting to my (and the rest of the electorate's) intelligence. He's having a go at Alex Salmond for trying to influence the outcome of any referendum while trying to do the same thing himself. My point wasn't that political parties shouldn't try to influence the outcome of referenda but that David Cameron was being hypocritical by suggesting it was sneaky of Alex Salmond to try to influence the vote whilst doing the same thing himself.

SNP are only able to dictate the agenda because they won an absolute majority in a system designed to prevent such a thing. I think it should be 100% up to the Scottish parliament to set the agenda for any referendum.

I think it would be beeter for all concerned if the Union broke up and the seperate nations all became independent then they could all have the governance that suits their national interest and the will of the people.

But nurter, how on earth would that work in Wales for example, which was only in 1997 given even the slightest bit of decision making after being invaded in the 13th Century and absorbed and subjugated ever since (before 1997 that is)? Every single institution is completely linked with English institutions. The will of the Welsh is to remain as part of the Union. Doesn't stop them being Welsh. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Northern Irish devolution to comment.

I appreciate Scotland is different in many ways.

Wales would have to establish its own institutions of governance (I'm not saying that wouldn't take time but it could be done look at countries like Montenegro). I accept that there could be problems particulary with things such as currencies but I think these difficulties could be overcome given time and that everyone would benefit in the long run.

But if the Welsh don't want it, what's the point?

Fork, i understand what you mean now. I guess it's just what politician's do, try to control the agenda.

But on leaving it simply to the Scottish parliament to set the agenda then I don't see why.

The way I look at it, this is akin to a divorce. The husband (England) wants to remain in the marriage, the wife (Scotland) isn't sure if she wants to stay or go.

Now you could argue the best thing to do is for the husband to give her time & space to decide for herself. But I think it's equally valid for the husband to say "Look, you have to make up your mind, you can't keep me hanging on like this. I don't want you to leave but I'll respect whichever you choose.".

How many MN'ers would accept their husband saying "I might leave....I'm not sure yet. I'll decide in the next 4 years"

Lastly, in any divorce it takes two to make it happen. I don't think it's a job for England to be involved in the final decision but we certainly have to be involved to talk about what would happen post-divorce.

I think Salmond wants more time for David Cameron to make more of an arse of himself before the referendum.

What were the poll figures like before the devolution referendum? I thought they had showed the no vote to be more likely as well. Not sure though, it was a long time ago.

I think what's important to think about is Scotland's standing after a 'No' vote in a referendum. Will things go back to the way they are now, or will Scotland have made a statement that they are happy with a democratic deficit and they don't want power to rule themselves?

"what is the West Lothian question?"

It's the situation originally pointed out in 1977 by the then Westminster MP for West Lothian (Scotland) Tam Dalyell i.e. that under a devolved system he would be able to vote on a matter that would exclusively affect Blackburn, Lancashire but not on a matter that would exclusively affect Blackburn, West Lothian. That would be decided by the Scottish Parliament.

Post devolution this has happened. Scottish MPs can vote on measures that only affect English constituents, whereas English MPs are excluded matters affecting Scottish constituents. A serious imbalance of power.

Salmond is not 'waiting for Cameron to make an arse of himself'... he's gambling that the economy will be in better shape by 2014. At least he's committed to a date now which was one of the objects of this profile-raising exercise. He'll try to keep playing it as 'Westminster interfering in our business' of course but, as constitutional control of Scotland was retained in Westminster at the time of devolution and since dispensing with a 300 year-old political union is not something that can be done lightly, Westminster has legal obligations to meet and cannot just butt out.

I just hope they only allow a single question. In or out.

We need to put an end to the uncertainty. Devo Max as it's been called would just delay another referendum for another day.

As Cogito explained above, it's already a weird system where we can be ruled from Scotland by MP's and even a prime minister who is Scottish, yet the English cannot vote on stuff in Scotland.

An independent Scotland would also probably mean the end of any prospects of a Labour government in England for a generation. That would be good news for Tories such as myself. But ultimately I'd rather we had a union, warts and all than independence.

I have never voted SNP in my life. I don't support independance. I would vote for devo max. Definitely. I think the majority of Scots would which is why Westminster is so keen that option not be available.

I see absolutely no reason why Holyrood cannot conduct a referendum without any meddling from Westminster. In fact I, for once, agree with Salmond. They need to butt out. The outcome of the referendum may not be enforceable without Westminster but that is neither here nor there. This is a democracy. Let the people speak. Let their government set out the options.

Cameron obviously fears the outcome however he needs to handle this very carefully. Scots have demonstrated time after time that they do not want to be governed by the Tories. A Tory government in Westminster was always going to be the SNP's best shot at independence. The current government is the reason why I would vote for devo max. I think many Scots would feel the same.

I'm feeling a bit fed up at the prospect of two years' bullying and manipulation by the Coalition and the SNP as they fight over our votes. I can see I'm going to have to stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'la la la' very loudly for a long time.

What I would like is to have access to factual information about the possible and probably consequences for the UK, England and Scotland, and be allowed to make up my own mind. Evan Davies presented a programme once that seemed to show that an independent Scotland would be neither better nor worse off economically. So it would seem that the only issues are ideological/cultural/political.