Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes

[kebabking]

newbie "iScotland does not become a failed state."

And that would happen how exactly? Hordes of heavily armed Weegies roaming the streets of Glesgae in technicals, and the Clans reforming in the Highlands by holding mass sheep barbecues?

so, you've been to Paisley?

 

[Idris2002]

But I've never been to me.

 

[Dogsauce]

Quote from Galloway in debate last night about effects on NHS, in answer to those claiming 'Yes' is the only way to protect it from privatisation:

"The Tories will be out in the spring. The privatisation agenda will be dead in the spring."

 

[DotCommunist]

the one that Blairs government really got going? he must think eveyones memory is shot

 

[newbie]

And has Salmond or anyone else on the yes side threatened London with "meet our demands or we shoot this wee dug"?

The 26 counties remained heavily dependent on UK up until the 1970s, when EEC membership allowed the state to diversify its export markets - but the Irish state also displayed room for manouevre within that dependency, by remaining neutral during the war (a legitimate and necessary action, by the way) and pursuing an independent foreign policy after the war (which is why you often had Irish troops in UN missions) and also building an independent economic development strategy after 1960 and Sean Lemass' Programme for Economic Expansion.

You might respond that the Republic of Ireland was and remains an utterly fucked-up and dysfunctional society, and you'd be entirely correct on that point - but that's not the result of Irish independence, it's the result of the failure of the Irish to use their independence properly.

I think you're missing the point, which is to ask what, from the point of view of rUK, really matters post-yes. Not who has said what during the campaign, or what played out in a different context and a different era. What matters to us, both personally (my concern) and nationally (what the article is about).

And I have to agree, I really don't want iScotland to be a failure, either, frankly, of the Somalia model or of the Ireland model, because both of those will impact on me. That is a key objective from this, for me.

Can you identify any other objectives, for either individuals in rUK or for the rUK state, which are seriously important as opposed to mere considerations?

 

[Idris2002]

I think you're missing the point, which is to ask what, from the point of view of rUK, really matters post-yes. Not who has said what during the campaign, or what played out in a different context and a different era. What matters to us, both personally (my concern) and nationally (what the article is about).

And I have to agree, I really don't want iScotland to be a failure, either, frankly, of the Somalia model or of the Ireland model, because both of those will impact on me. That is a key objective from this, for me.

Can you identify any other objectives, for either individuals in rUK or for the rUK state, which are seriously important as opposed to mere considerations?

The idea of iScotland following either the path of Somalia (where clans are living institutions, not historical memories) or Ireland is frankly bonkers, and the link you gave is actually bonkers to even suggest it as a possibility. Failed state me bollocks.

 

[DotCommunist]

so its going to see a huge capital flight, turn into somalia and then what? godzilla stomps glasgow while King Kong sits atop arthurs seat roaring in triumph?

 

[butchersapron]

The idea of iScotland following either the path of Somalia (where clans are living institutions, not historical memories) or Ireland is frankly bonkers, and the link you gave is actually bonkers to even suggest it as a possibility. Failed state me bollocks.

Didn't it suggest just that, that it was bonkers, albeit in more measured tones?

Indeed, the threshold of failing in the way that Afghanistan or Somalia failed is so high that it is almost impossible to imagine what would undermine iScotland so gravely as to make it a failed state. That is therefore not a strong negotiating point.

 

[Idris2002]

Didn't it suggest just that, that it was bonkers, albeit in more measured tones?

It's bonkers of him to even raise it as a relevant point. It's not even wrong, it's just silly.

 

[Idris2002]

Though mind you, I'll look a bit silly myself if in a year's time feral kids are chopping peoples' fingers off with boomerangs, and Alex Harvey is being worshipped as a god amidst the post-apocalyptic ruins of auld Edinburgh toon.

 

[newbie]

I hesitate to write this, because it has every possibility of diverting the conversation onto something else, which I really don't want and won't engage with. But there's a failure on our doorstep which is quiet at the moment but blighted lives here for decades. Here, not over there. Bombs, death, fear, horror.

There doesn't have to be any suggestion whatsoever that Scotland will or even could turn into that to for me to know that I don't want it. Whether the vote is yes or no. Therefor I think it's a reasonable thing to say that that not happening is a key objective.

I repeat, what other key objectives are there, for those of us in rUK?

 

[likesfish]

Why couldn't an independent Scotland afford an army when plenty of smaller and poorer countries manage it? I guess it probably couldn't afford things like nuclear submarines or a force big enough to defend the Falklands or take a leading role in invading Iraq, but it seems like most Scots are willing to live without those delights.

Noones saying they can't but fast jets and modern frigates are pipe dreams.
Its not the kit its the infra structure and all the back room people you need to keep the kit running
Denmark has fast jets but gdp is a third greater they use conscripts and have all the infrastructure set up.
Persuading people to join the sdf maybe a problem especially the right people with the right skills the uk military has issues keeping highly skilled people a defence force thats small dosent do anything is going to really struggle. Scots dont join the military as it is hence royal regiment of scotland reduced to company size to do ceremonial stuff. A defence force that doesnt do much intresting stuff is even going to be less attractive.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

then what? godzilla stomps glasgow while King Kong sits atop arthurs seat roaring in triumph?

Paddy Power's offering 3/1 that these exact words come out of Gidiot's mouth by next Wednesday.

 

[Idris2002]

I hesitate to write this, because it has every possibility of diverting the conversation onto something else, which I really don't want and won't engage with. But there's a failure on our doorstep which is quiet at the moment but blighted lives here for decades. Here, not over there. Bombs, death, fear, horror.

There doesn't have to be any suggestion whatsoever that Scotland will or even could turn into that to for me to know that I don't want it. Whether the vote is yes or no. Therefor I think it's a reasonable thing to say that that not happening is a key objective.

I repeat, what other key objectives are there, for those of us in rUK?

And I repeat, why even raise that as a relevant point? Is the SNLA biding its time in the glens, or something? Is the Orange Order stockpiling machetes? (actually don't answer that).

As for key objectives would be for rUK to retain some kind of military presence in the northern near abroad, so I would expect some kind of fudge that would allow rUK 'treaty ports' north of the wall.

Your link raises the point that rUK could be an ally for Scot membership of NATO and EU - an alliance with Scotland inside those bodies would also be an asset for the rUK.

There were a lot of points of antagonism between the Free State and westminster after 1922 - this led to the economic war of the 1930s which wasn't resolved until the agreement with Chamberlain in 1938. Some of those points of antagonism came out of the Irish revolution itself, others were "legacy issues" like the land annuities.

There's nothing similar to produce similar levels of bad blood between Edinburgh and London now (which is not to rule some sort of resentment, mind), so I don't think it makes sense to suggest that iScotland would be left to wander alone through the world, like a pregnant servant girl cast out into the snow by her Victorian employer.

 

[andysays]

There's an academic blog post here which is the first serious attempt I've noticed to look at post-yes negotiations and ask what is in whose interests...

Yeah, I think that article is well worth reading, not because I agree with everything in it (I don't, for instance, agree that the worries about negotiations should play that much of a part in Scottish voters choosing between Yes and No), but because it may bring an element of realism to how post-referendum negotiations are likely to go.

 

[andysays]

The idea of iScotland following either the path of Somalia (where clans are living institutions, not historical memories) or Ireland is frankly bonkers, and the link you gave is actually bonkers to even suggest it as a possibility. Failed state me bollocks.

I think you may be missing the point.

The article asks what strong cards would the Scottish side have in negotiations, and then mentions the hypothetical interest rUK would have in ensuring iS didn't become a failed state to conclude that there's little/no danger of this, and so no reason for rUK fears of this to play a part in negotiations

 

[Idris2002]

I think you may be missing the point.

The article asks what strong cards would the Scottish side have in negotiations, and then mentions the hypothetical interest rUK would have in ensuring iS didn't become a failed state to conclude that there's little/no danger of this, and so no reason for rUK fears of this to play a part in negotiations

And I'm saying the rUK doesn't have a big enough motive to say "fuck you, then" to iScotland. Certainly, there's no sign of anything similar to the way we got fucked over the border promises.

A hundred years ago, the Paddies had to be kept in their place for the sake of the Empire. Well, the empire is gone now, so why fuck the Jocks the same way?

"Far called, our navies melt away, on dune and headland sink the fire. . . "

 

[mauvais]

Though mind you, I'll look a bit silly myself if in a year's time feral kids are chopping peoples' fingers off with boomerangs, and Alex Harvey is being worshipped as a god amidst the post-apocalyptic ruins of auld Edinburgh toon.

That's the real tragedy. A nation that dreamt for so long of Braveheart Mel Gibson, but despite it all, can only ever have Mad Max Mel Gibson

 

[Libertad]

so its going to see a huge capital flight, turn into somalia and then what? godzilla stomps glasgow while King Kong sits atop arthurs seat roaring in triumph?

There does however seem to be a darker side to the sudden intense efforts to persuade Scotland to vote No. Because along with the begging come the threats. Every day the party leaders inform us about businesses that will move to England, that RBS and most of the economy will leave, and BP will suck their oilfields to Norwich, and Edinburgh will move to Berkshire, and Dundee will be towed to a swamp in Kent that’s overrun with crocodiles and Ben Nevis will be taken over by North Korea and there’ll be nothing anyone can do because Scotland won’t be allowed in Nato, and in fact won’t even be covered by International Regulations on Cheetahs so they’ll sprint across Cumbernauld eating the lot of you and see if WE care.

Mark Steel's piece today in The Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...h-the-scots-that-was-a-good-move-9727290.html

 

[andysays]

And I'm saying the rUK doesn't have a big enough motive to say "fuck you, then" to iScotland. Certainly, there's no sign of anything similar to the way we got fucked over the border promises.

A hundred years ago, the Paddies had to be kept in their place for the sake of the Empire. Well, the empire is gone now, so why fuck the Jocks the same way?

"Far called, our navies melt away, on dune and headland sink the fire. . . "

No, it wouldn't have a huge motive to say "fuck you, then", but neither would it have a particular motive to say "OK, we'll go along with everything you want for old time's sake." It will be down to hard-nosed horse trading, and iS will have relatively little rUK wants with which to trade.

Once (if...) the negotiations begin for real, the real value of each side's hand will become clearer, and I suspect that some on the Scottish side may be in for a surprise. Again, that's not a reason to vote No, but some realism about what may happen the day after is in order.

 

[Idris2002]

Seriously, though. . .

"If there are independence negotiations, iScotland will essentially be a supplicant to rUK, so weak that it largely has to accept what rUK offers. Scottish voters need to bear that in mind when they head to the poll."

If the situation would be like that after a yes vote, why is London desperate to avoid it?

 

[Idris2002]

That's the real tragedy. A nation that dreamt for so long of Braveheart Mel Gibson, but despite it all, can only ever have Mad Max Mel Gibson

Be thankful it's not real life Mel Gibson.

 

[likesfish]

Roughly 10% or people loss 10% of gdp and a massive headache sorting out th resulting problems

 

[andysays]

Seriously, though. . .

"If there are independence negotiations, iScotland will essentially be a supplicant to rUK, so weak that it largely has to accept what rUK offers. Scottish voters need to bear that in mind when they head to the poll."

If the situation would be like that after a yes vote, why is London desperate to avoid it?

I already said I don't agree with everything in that piece, and the bit you've quoted strikes me as hyperbole, but there's no contradiction between the UK state seeking to avoid Scottish independence but then maximising its advantages at any negotiations.

Of course, if they do as badly at the latter as they have at the former, they may end up pissing away those advantages, but I wouldn't bet on it just yet.

 

[newbie]

And I repeat, why even raise that as a relevant point? Is the SNLA biding its time in the glens, or something? Is the Orange Order stockpiling machetes? (actually don't answer that).

because it's in the strategic interest of the rUK state and the individual interests of its citizens. 'Failed state' are not words that had occurred to me prior to reading the article, but I understand why the author says what he does and I agree with him (and with what andysays).

As for key objectives would be for rUK to retain some kind of military presence in the northern near abroad, so I would expect some kind of fudge that would allow rUK 'treaty ports' north of the wall.

tbh I think that's more an objective for the US than for rUK- but even then Echelon doesn't need Scotland and there's not that much that can be done from north of the border that can't be done from south, is there? Except Trident, which is a Big Question.

Your link raises the point that rUK could be an ally for Scot membership of NATO and EU - an alliance with Scotland inside those bodies would also be an asset for the rUK.

it would, but there have been posts on this thread questioning the iS ability to provide much in the way of army, navy, airforce, and to question whether another tiny state is of any benefit to Nato, so I'm not sure how far rUK will go to gain such a minnow as ally. Nor how much influence that will have, given that its own direct, warfighting reach will be diminished.
As for the EU, I don't see what's in it for 27 of the existing 28 except dilution of their individual voices and promotion of the (unpopular) UK voice from 1 to 2. So although there would be some benefit to rUK, it will come at whatever price the other 27 can extract.

tbh these questions are way beyond my competence anyway, however much I may wibble about them, what I care about is how this affects me. rUK military bases north of the border, Scotland in Nato or the EU, tbh I don't actually care very much, those are their problems. The only affect on me will be, as I said earlier and Danny took umbrage about, passports and currency exchange at the border, which is not a Big Question at all. For me.

I don't think it makes sense to suggest that iScotland would be left to wander alone through the world, like a pregnant servant girl cast out into the snow by her Victorian employer.

fair enough, but that's an appeal to sentiment, not a hard headed negotiating position. Once the dust settles, and the negotiations start in earnest, fledgling iS diplomatic and fiscal institutions will come up against the experienced and hardnosed (r)UK machine. On each and every point both sides will be looking to their own advantage, not at sentiment. And fwiw, I expect those negotiating on behalf of the state that nominally represents my interests to go in hard and extract every single concession they can that's in 'our'* best interests, just as with any other foreign country.

* 'our' is a very loaded term I know, but I can't think of any other way to put it.

 

[andysays]

...And fwiw, I expect those negotiating on behalf of the state that nominally represents my interests to go in hard and extract every single concession they can that's in 'our'* best interests, just as with any other foreign country.

* 'our' is a very loaded term I know, but I can't think of any other way to put it.

Your use of the term "our" reminds me to point out that, if/when these negotiations do take place, those conducting them will be negotiating on behalf of (what they see as) their interests, ie the ruling class of rUK or iS, rather than the interests or wishes of the people.

 

[cesare]

Much of the ruling class in rUK is also the ruling class in iS, isn't it?

 

[DotCommunist]

pretty much. aristocracy and political/business elites.


have we had Duncan Ballntyne's voice on this matter yet?

I just want to hear him say 'for that reason, I'm out' again

 

[andysays]

Much of the ruling class in rUK is also the ruling class in iS, isn't it?

Yeah, there's clearly some overlap (conjures up a picture of those who are members of both running back and forth from one side of the table to the other during the negotiations...)

But I'm referring more to them representing those interests than to who the actual individual negotiators will be. And if all this goes ahead, then the perceived interests of the rUK ruling class will be different, at least in some ways, from the perceived interests of the iS ruling class.

 

[DotCommunist]

Calling it iS makes it sould like an apple sponsored islamic state btw