Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Independence for Scotland

199 replies

CogitoErgoSometimes · 09/01/2012 14:06

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'...?

OP posts:
fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 12/01/2012 13:50

i don't know why these threads always bring out lots of abuse of the Scots.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 12/01/2012 13:54

My actual opinion on this is that I have been pleasantly surprised by the SNP recently.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 12/01/2012 13:55

and Alex Salmond.

molschambers · 12/01/2012 13:58

I think Eck and the SNP look good in comparison to Westminster.

Honestly think the Dave and Gideon show has been the best thing that ever happened to Salmond....

NewYearsRevolution · 12/01/2012 13:59

Personally, I fully respect that it is the right of the Scottish people to choose whether they wish to be part of the UK. However, I would strongly object to 'devo max'. I think devolution generally is an unhelpful fudge - and the West Lothian question is a good example of this.

If we want to continue as a loose union, with independence for the constituent parts, long term the only sensible solution seems to be a more federal system - as per the US.

MooncupGoddess · 12/01/2012 14:14

But one could use devo max to solve the West Lothian question. It would be quite possible to work out a system whereby issues affecting the whole of the United Kingdom were explicitly debated/voted on separately from those just affecting England, and Scottish MPs would only come to the former sessions.

Surely at least letting the Scots set their own sales taxes etc as in the US would be an obvious step. And maybe let them set their own income and corporation taxes too, within certain limits to avoid destabilising the currency?

NewYearsRevolution · 12/01/2012 14:33

I see what you mean, but it would still be a total mishmash between the different counties in the union. I think the risk is that nothing would get fixed - because if you do all this for Scotland, what about Wales (where there is little momentum for independence) or Northern Ireland (don't even go there!). We run the risk of ending up basically federal as regards the relationship between Scotland and England, but all muddled up for everything else.

niceguy2 · 12/01/2012 14:36

I think there are people who haven't really got a clue how this will work on both sides of the border.

Just as some Scots think that everything will be great once London gets out of the way, some English are thinking "Well sod you then, we'll be better off without you."

But whilst we all know the current situation isn't perfect, I do think on balance, we're better off together than standing apart.

For starters, there's little doubt that Scotland would have to join the EU and then in effect be controlled from Brussels via Germany & France. That already sounds bonkers. Why go to the trouble of saying we want to be independent then almost straight away, agree to practically hand over all your powers to Brussels? Remember, Scotland wouldn't have a veto they could use as new members of the EU.

For both, we'd see our international clout decline. There'd be no UK anymore so could we still cling onto our cherished seat on the UN security council? I doubt it. G8? I doubt it. So both countries would then be resigned to outsiders and trying to influence events in the G8 club via the EU. France & Germany would naturally retain their position.

Also, who'd own the nukes? Forget the tanks, ships and planes for a moment....who'd own the nukes? Would Scotland be a nuclear power? Whilst you could argue that perhaps we could share the heavy weaponary somehow, I doubt politically you could share nukes. I mean imagine a situation where DC had to call Salmond to check if it was OK to launch a nuke? Or vice versa.

Oil. Who'd keep the revenues? Naturally the Scots would say them since it's in Scottish waters. But then the UK as a whole has put a lot of investment money, so England could reasonably expect some return on that.

Frankly it's a mess and I just can't see how we'd each be better off apart.

molschambers · 12/01/2012 14:46

As far as I can see the cost of implementing independence would be massive and surely outweigh any financial benefit. I'm sure both sides of the debate will produce figures to back their point of view. I can't see how it can possibly be worth the effort tbh.

JuicyFruits · 12/01/2012 14:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted

SparkleSoiree · 12/01/2012 14:53

I know it was a flippant response Juicyfruits but please bear in mind that not all of us feel Independence is the way forward.

I am Scottish in the United Kindgom and am proud and happy with both.

JuicyFruits · 12/01/2012 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted

molschambers · 12/01/2012 15:00

According to the polls the majority don't want to juicy.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 12/01/2012 15:03

oh well then, if you don't like one politician that gives you the right to make decisions for a whole country

AitchTwoOhOneTwo · 12/01/2012 15:06

tbh i have no idea what people in england are seeing of salmond. it's unlikely to be the image we see, it's hardly in their interest to show a statesmanlike character. much better to have a puffed-up, power-hungry little oik. that's what i'd do if i were on the DC propaganda team. fill up the two minutes of scottish content in a week's london news with salmond looking the fool...

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 12/01/2012 15:12

shh, they might be reading this and get ideas :)

JuicyFruits · 12/01/2012 16:03

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 12/01/2012 16:10

yes, of course it's totally impossible to edit things with a slant Hmm

Solopower · 12/01/2012 20:08

That was very interesting, Aitch, but things might have been a bit different in Oct 2010? Still, that is the sort of information that is more useful to those of us who don't have an axe to grind - although the figures seem to change according to who commissions the research.

That's why I think it's a mistake to decide whether or not to split the Union on economic grounds. The financial world changes so quickly, and it is a global market, so national boundaries aren't really relevant.

What Niceguy says is true: we'd have to divide up the nukes. No UK PM would ever agree to that. And there's the EU question, etc etc.

And all for what? What would Scotland actually gain? What is it that is so important that it would be worth so much upheaval, and such a lot of risk?

Solopower · 12/01/2012 20:17

Prime Ministers who start off very popular often overreach themselves in the end (Thatcher, Blair). I hope Alex Salmond's new power doesn't go to his head.

JuicyFruits · 12/01/2012 20:20

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted

Solopower · 12/01/2012 20:45

Was that to me, JuicyFruits? What was in the rest of the interview?

JuicyFruits · 12/01/2012 20:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted

smallwhitecat · 12/01/2012 20:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

K999 · 12/01/2012 20:59

Sorry not read whole thread but in answer to OP I voted SNP because I want independence. Plus I think SNP do a good job governing Scotland. Smile