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'...?

Good article Aitch.

For me, this is the main reason I am against Devo Max.

In most things that matter, he would have the benefits of independent government without the difficulties.

In my book, you either want full independence or you don't. Devo Max seems to be a having your cake & eat it approach which I simply don't think a government should be allowed.

but then the alternative at the moment is that we are ruled from westminster by a party that we had no hand whatsoever in electing. surely you are not pro-disenfranchisement when there is an alternative?

That article sums up why I'm against Devo Max too.

A vote on full independence (by which I would include not, for example, making use of the Bank of England. Though the Queen can do what she likes obviously!) seems to me rather like getting dumped in a relationship- you have no say. On the other hand, if someone says "I want to continue our relationship and also see other people", well, both parties need a say in that. Devo Max seems far too much like the latter.

I take the point about disenfranchisement. Sadly of course, the vast majority of the population live in safe seats where their views make little or no impact on an election, so it's not something where Scottish voters are completely unique. Ironically, most London MPs are not labour, so Londoners often feel that the current government does not represent them. And large swathes of the rest of England feel that the government only cares about London.

Devo max allows the Scottish government a strong say on all sorts of issues (as it says, cat n's Mr Salmond staying quiet on defence), but without having to take responsibility for many of the biggest issues an independent nation does. I think, if we're going down that route, it would need to be a truly federal system (a la the US) for all members of the Union.

well someone propose that, then, from england. and it cannot be good enough to say 'well actually loads of people in this country have no say in who governs them', jeesus, that's so depressing i don't know where to start.

did you see the piece about navarra and the basque country being on the up since being given control over their own finances?

I haven't read the article. Where was it? Sounds interesting.

My point about disenfranchisement wasn't intended as a depressing 'ooh we've all got it bad' comment. Sorry if it came across that way. My point was that it isn't just a Scottish problem, so I think looking at it just as one is too narrow and wider political thinking is needed.

I hope plenty of people in England will start to talk about a right to vote on devo max and other structural options for the union as this progresses through to 2014. Sadly very few people listen to me as I bleat on about it all on my own . I am neither important, nor high profile, and with teeny children my ability to tie up swathes of time is sadly limited right at the moment.

well the move towards some kind of proportional representation was defeated by the tories in particular being duplicitous fuckheads, because they are not served by or servants of democracy.

further down on this thread, i linked to a piece by andrew hughes hallett in the herald (or maybe scotsman).

apparently over 1000 people have joined the SNP in the last 7 days? Mental!

Did anyone hear John Swinney on r4 question time on Saturday? He said that an independent Scotland would 'keep the pound'. I not sure that they have really thought this through. Wouldn't it be upto Westminster to decide if it was in the remainder of the UK's interest whether Scotland could be in the UK's currency zone?
Quite apart from this, interest rates would be set in London, presumably at a rate that favoured the UK (and not necessarily Scotland) with Scotland now having zero input to the process. How will they argue their way out of this conundrum?

Keeping Sterling would not be a runner for anyone as far as I can see. For exactly the same reasons the Euro has gone so wrong- financial union is not stable without political and fiscal union too.

Someone pointed out to me today that an independent Scotland (assuming it was in the EU) would no longer be able to offer free tuition to its own citizens and charge English/Welsh/NI ones. The only reason it can now is because we are all part of the UK and not separate countries.

Exactly NYR - which is why I was wondering whether the SNP have really thought this through. Swinney made the statement to put minds at rest, as the audience and panel were asking awkward questions and said something like 'I can definitively say that an independent Scotland would keep the pound' . Surely under independence but with the pound Scotland could truly complain about being ruled from Westminster without any political input - which I thought is what the SNP are against.

NewYearsRevolution: of course we could still have free education. The English don't specifically pay for it, it comes out of the Scottish budget. Its just that the Scottish government prioritises and spends its money differently.

In the event of independence, we would still have roughly the same income, so could still afford free education.

IAGBF - yes Scotland could continue to have free education but Scotland would have to offer it free to English, Welsh and NI students as well, which it is not now (if the independent Scotland is part of EU).

Oops, didn't read the post properly. Yes that will be a pain, but only because we will get a huge flood of english applications. I wonder can unis discriminate on basis of country of origin? Ie could they offer places to scottiah students first?

There are all sorts of details to sort out that haven't been mentioned or thought of yet. For instance, the BBC would presumably be split with Scotland getting a small share of its resources and then having to buy some output from the UK part (if it wanted to show it).

I'm guessing this is a v good reason to not have referendum until 2014 as we will need to have all this figured out first. From what I have read, I think the Westminster government has only just started to think about this.

I don't think anyone has got as far as really thinking about the practicalities. Just a few off the top of my head;
What portion of the army would remain Scottish, what about the nuclear deterrant that resides in Scotland, what about border controls, what about train operating companies that have routes that span both countries. etc.
There are thousands of others - I am sure we will be hearing about them in due course.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-black-gold-was-hijacked-north-sea-oil-and-the-betrayal-of-scotland-518697.html

Interesting article about Scottish oil in the Independent today. There's a documentary kicking about youtube about this as well. It was on BBC Alba but apparently wasn't allowed to be broadcast in English on mainstream BBC.

England can have the nukes back. I don't think Scotland wants them.

There was a perfectly ridiculous threat suggestion in the Times yesterday, from an un-named Whitehall source, that Scotland would have to pay to have the nukes removed!

Came across this, which may be of interest.
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

All these issues which have to be explored, debated and explained is one reason why the referendum should not be immediate.

Apparently organising a referendum would take over a year, so Cameron was just playing (badly) his daft wee political game.

Oldlady: tee hee. I imagine if that happened the scots would just say remove your nukes before x date or well sell to highest bidder. Or we could charge storage fees until removal...

On one of these threads (not sure if it's this one) someone commented that if we Scots kept the nukes we wouldn't be able to fire them without English permission. Someone doesn't know that we already need American permission...

Please, please everyone don't be flippant about nuclear weapons, I live near them and they are very real in local minds.