Will you vote for independence?

[geminisnake]

Because instead of being treated like second rate citizen, we might end up with the economy of Albania and actually be third rate citizens.

I don't see it happening. If you look for unbiased details of the country's assets I think it's perfectly viable to be independent. There are plenty of smaller(size and population)countries do well. There's a variety of energies available, we've got some of the best agricultural land in the country(UK), that's not gonna change.

Anyway, it's Saturday night so I'm bowing out of politics for the night

 

[tar1984]

There's nothing fun about the statement. Norway has right wing parties (who are doing okay, iirc). And I don't think the ruling class is under much threat in scandinavia atm.

The ruling class is everywhere. Nobody is saying Scotland will become a communist utopia. We could, however, emulate the more egalitarian scandinavian models.

 

[mrfusion]

I only mentioned it because you asked why I thought there would be a right-wing party in Scotland. Anyway, heading back out to the pub...

 

[tar1984]

Ok, have a good night

 

[Falcon]

I don't see it happening. If you look for unbiased details of the country's assets I think it's perfectly viable to be independent

It also has one of the highest state sector/private sector ratios, a colossal per-capita unfunded pension liability, the lowest GDP growth of any European country, one of the lowest life expectancies in Europe, and the rotting carcass of one of the world's most spectacular 2008 bank failures (with all its tax-payer purchased liabilities which will have to be refunded to the English taxpayer). I'm looking forward to seeing the balance sheet.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's one of those statements that is fun to make, but actually isn't true. Norway, for example, is a counter example only 400 miles away. Lesley Riddoch makes the point in her book that we are far more like the Nordic nations than the English, and far more influenced by Nordic egalitarianism than by Anglo-Saxon individualism and greed. That might form the basis of a distinctively different politics and society.

That's an interesting idea, but does it really stand up?

Are you suggesting that there is something 'Nordic' about Scotland that has deep roots in Scottish culture - dating all the way back to the Scottish Enlightenment, perhaps?

If so, I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. In 1955, half of all Scottish voters voted Tory. The country had, since 1945, been involved in a massive project of socialism that had even carried the Tories along with it, and which would survive with broad cross-party agreement until Thatcher.

I see no evidence whatever that these socialist/social democratic decades were more enthusiastically endorsed in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Nobody would have understood then the idea that Scots didn't share the English individualism and greed, I don't think.

I suggest, rather, that the divergence has really very shallow roots, that it dates simply from Thatcher, and in that, Scotland is absolutely no different at all from large regions of England in that the ruling ideology was never voted for in those regions. And overall, I would suggest that the Thatcherite project never had majority support in England as a whole. The differences now apparent are not due to some kind of essentialist national characteristics.

I'd go further, in fact, and suggest that the reasons for those emergent qualities that some see as national characteristics are no more or less than social and economic conditions. Scottish socialists are not in any way 'more Scottish' than Scottish tories. However many Scots there are with an egalitarian bent, there are plenty who have none whatsoever - the behaviour of RBS is proof enough of that. I think this way of looking at things and why they happen is dubious at best.

ETA:

Also, I have to say that the problems Scotland faces - inequalities that are reflected in huge social, economic, health and educational gaps between richest and poorest - are nothing like the problems of Scandinavia. Many Scots might aspire to Nordic egalitarianism (many English people would too), but Scotland is nowhere near that kind of society. Pointing to Norway and saying 'we want to be more like them' is fair enough. Pointing to Norway and saying 'we are more like them' seems completely baseless to me. In what way?

 

[geminisnake]

and the rotting carcass of one of the world's most spectacular 2008 bank failures (with all its tax-payer purchased liabilities which will have to be refunded to the English taxpayer). I'm looking forward to seeing the balance sheet.

If you're on about RBS that's about as scottish as a paper bag. Not been scottish for yrs and tbh I've never met anyone who agreed with the bailout. The man in the street couldn't give a monkeys if it had gone down from what I can gather. How the feck is a bail out capitalism?? If you want your institution to reap the benefits of capitalism you also have to take the consequences The shares are worth 16p atm, no-one has any faith in them, they're fecked anyway!

 

[Falcon]

Also, I have to say that the problems Scotland faces - inequalities that are reflected in huge social, economic, health and educational gaps between richest and poorest - are nothing like the problems of Scandinavia.

I agree with some of your post, and I'm trying to make my mind up so I'm not offering this as a fixed view. However, I live half the time in Norway and I'm not sure what problems you are thinking of. Of course, the same amount of oil as Britain (60 million people) but enjoyed by the same population as Scotland (5m ish) goes along way to sweetening life (and remind us what Scottish Independence in the 1970's might have been like) but they have a highly redistributive tax system, a relatively low ratio between the highest earners and lowest, an astonishing social welfare system, but a population that doesn't rip the arse out of it at every opportunity. There is simply no equivalent of the shell-suited Ned shoplifting in Stavanger to feed his crack habit. Sweden is a cool place and Denmark fun. Finland is a bit odd, I suppose.

It has been put to me that the reason Norway is so egalitarian is because they have never gone through the Feudal Lord/Peasant experience - so much of our class system is just the fossil remnants of social arrangements hardened over the last 500 years into a paradigm. Of course it had its parallels in Scotland but, as far as I understand, it was always less stable. And it's hard to point to any distinct groups in England which experienced policies of systematic genocide to clear whole regions for sheep raising. I think that must have left some racial memory.

I'm not making a big thing of it, and never thought very much about it. But I think we need to be informed, and that there is much to be gained and lost. I've started the daunting Penguin "History of Scotland" to try and get a little more educated on the subject.

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

Bit of a strange argument I keep hearing from Unionists - "Scotland has and does very well out of the union, there are all these benefits which accrue to you - Oh, and you have done SO well out of the union, that were you to become independent tomorrow, you'd immediately become an Albanian basket case".

Good case in hand is the London Olympics - last estimated cost £10 billion, so about £1 billion cost to Scotland - last estimated economic benefit to Scotland - £1 million. "Yeah, give me a tenner and I'll give you a penny back, you subsidy junkie!"

 

[Quartz]

I am far from convinced by Salmond's motives. I reckon he's out for more power for himself. Now, is an independent Scotland worth it anyway? I've yet to decide.

I do have one question, though: what happens if the Shetlands don't want to join Salmond's independent Scotland? I was in Lerwick a couple of years ago and they didn't seem very pro-Scottish. Indeed, their ancestry is Norse IIRC. I'll note that they elected a Lib Dem. The SNP are expecting a deluge of oil money, but if the Shetlands stay with the Union, that's not going to happen.

With regard to the referendum itself, I thought it was the Tories that were pushing for a simple In or Out, with the SNP pushing for adding a 'Devo Max' option, which they expect to win. Seems like the SNP aren't really serious.

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

Well, yes, very obviously if Scotland becomes independent, in the short-term Alex Salmond would have "more power" - the leader of any area seeking independence would inevitably end up with more power when moving from what is in effect still a regional assembly to a sovereign state. Bear in mind though that Salmond isn't immortal, plus upon gaining independence there would be some serious tectonic plate shifting in Scottish politics - it's difficult to see the SNP continue in their current form after their raison d'etre has actually been achieved.

As regards The Shetlands, it would of course be perfectly possible for an independence movement to get off the ground there - if such a thing happened and was democratically successful, no-one could legimately object. it's not hugely likely at the moment, but certainly not inconceivable. Though if you follow that logic, any individual part or constituency of Scotland (e.g. Dundee) that HAS voted SNP in the past should immediately be leaving the Union. I'm not entirely sure what ancestry has to do with anything - you might as well say "many in the East of Glasgow have Irish ancenstry, so they must join the RoI". Much of the north of Scotland and the Islands have historically voted Liberal - I wouldn't see that as any ringing endorsement of Clegg et al - it's much more a case that in those places, they vote a lot more according to views and knowledge they have of individual candidates, not the colour of their rosettes.

In terms of the referendum, might be worth bearing in mind that the Tories were, until very, very recently telling us we shouldn't have a referendum AT ALL. Now, curiously, they (along with Labour and Lib-Dems) demand it happens instantly. last I heard, Salmond was saying he was open to including any question which any party (or other body) thought was reasonable in the poll - I do admit myself that I would prefer a simple yes/no vote, since both the LD and Labour, who previously were in favour of "increased powers" don't seem to be able to articulate what those might be. Labour are currently in the ludicrous position of saying "Vote No to independence, then well have some further powers afterwards, although we're not sure what these might be yet". That ruse has been tried before, in 1979, in relation to devolution.

 

[Falcon]

The Shetlands is a good case in point. It seems a bit arbitrary and self serving to me to claim legitimacy for independence on the basis of cultural identity, while ignoring the fact that "Scotland" is itself simply the arbitrary aggregation of mutually antagonistic cultures comprising the Picts, the Gaels, the Britons, the Angles and the Norse. I can't see why the cultural identity of the combined entity arising from the Act of Union in 1707 should somehow have less integrity than whatever took place between that lot 300 years ago. The mutual antipathy with which Lowlanders and Highlanders regard each other seems to have at least the energy of any antipathy towards the English, and be far more strongly rooted.

 

[geminisnake]

Much of the north of Scotland and the Islands have historically voted Liberal - - it's much more a case that in those places, they vote a lot more according to views and knowledge they have of individual candidates, not the colour of their rosettes.

This ^^ is how a LOT of the North of Scotland votes and is also what a LOT of english people & politicians don't understand! I have voted for every mainstream party over the years, doesn't mean I support any single one of them! Just because a person votes SNP doesn't mean they will automatically vote yes, same as if you don't vote SNP doesn't mean you are against independence.

 

[danny la rouge]

Just because a person votes SNP doesn't mean they will automatically vote yes, same as if you don't vote SNP doesn't mean you are against independence.

Indeed.

I don't vote SNP, but will probably vote for independence. (Depending on the actual wording on the ballot paper etc).

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

Just out of interest, danny, who DO you normally vote for? (if you don't mind me asking).

Been talking quite a bit about the referendum to my mum and sister, both "traditional" Labour voters, who will also be voting yes. Personally, I'll be voting yes mainly for positive reasons, but both of them will for very "negative" reasons.

Sister works in the NHS and is regular contact with colleagues in England- she sure as hell doesn't like the way the English NHS is going. She was also surprised and sickened to see 32 Scottish Labour MPs put their names to a motion in Westminister welcoming the "contribution" the private sector makes to it.

Mum was a shop steward all her days and quite a firebrand back in the day. She was saying "We sat through 18 years of the tories, voting Labour repeatedly, being told "one more push" and we'd get a Labour government. Then we finally did and look how they turned out. If we don't vote yes in this referendum, we'll have alternating red, yellow and blue tories in perpetuity".

Less prosaically, she also reckons Johnann Lamont looks like the robot from Buck Rodgers.

 

[geminisnake]

If we don't vote yes in this referendum, we'll have alternating red, yellow and blue tories in perpetuity".

Thank goodness people are finally realising this!! I hope this message goes right across the country I really do!!

 

[Quartz]

As regards The Shetlands, it would of course be perfectly possible for an independence movement to get off the ground there - if such a thing happened and was democratically successful, no-one could legimately object. it's not hugely likely at the moment, but certainly not inconceivable.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Shetlands not joining Scotland at the point of Scotland's independence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What kind of border do people anticipate being erected?

 

[DotCommunist]

Rebuild hadrians, but this time style it like the berlin wall

 

[geminisnake]

Big nasty pointy sharp things, oh yes Pointing south obviously

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Shetlands not joining Scotland at the point of Scotland's independence.

Currently, that isn't a realistic outcome - the referendum, when it comes, will be a SCOTTISH i.e. the whole country referendum on continuing in the union or becoming independent, as Scotland. There won't be a Shetlands only independence referendum (or any other part of Scotland, for that matter). If you think about it, how would it go? "stay in the UK, vote for Scottish independence, vote for Shetlands independence, vote for joint Orcadian / Shetland indpendence, vote to form an alliance with the Faroes, vote to join Norway, vote for Lerwick and Waalsay to become independent"...ad nauseam. Take it to it's conclusion and you'd have individual islands, towns, streets, as part of different states.

That's not to say such a demand couldn't conceivably arise in future, but then you have to ask yourself why there hasn't been any particular demand from the Shetlands to become independent of the UK already. But then again, we have heard from certain quarters nonsense such as Scotland having to give the Edinburgh zoo pandas back to China upon independence, the very helpful comments from Lord Flight, William Hague threatening the future of whisky, Gideon telling us we can't use a freely traded currency (despite this being exactly what Australia did on independence) immediately turning into Albania, and (predictably enough) murmurings about the resurgence of one-man "terror organisation" SNLA. I am waiting for news that the day after independence, the dead will rise from their graves to devour the living.

 

[Quartz]

Currently, that isn't a realistic outcome - the referendum, when it comes, will be a SCOTTISH i.e. the whole country referendum on continuing in the union or becoming independent, as Scotland. There won't be a Shetlands only independence referendum (or any other part of Scotland, for that matter).

The Shetlands are a special case. They used to be ruled from Scandinavia, and there was friction over them for a long time. Indeed, the Shetlands were part of the Kingdom of Scotland for less time than they've been part of Great Britain.

 

[weepiper]

The Shetlands are a special case. They used to be ruled from Scandinavia, and there was friction over them for a long time. Indeed, the Shetlands were part of the Kingdom of Scotland for less time than they've been part of Great Britain.

FFS this is a total non-argument. It's a Scottish referendum. The Shetlands are currently part of Scotland. They won't be given the choice in this referendum.

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

The Shetlands are a special case. They used to be ruled from Scandinavia, and there was friction over them for a long time. Indeed, the Shetlands were part of the Kingdom of Scotland for less time than they've been part of Great Britain.

Yeah, and the Romans ruled present day England longer than the UK has existed ergo...err...what exactly? I mean, really, Quartz - and to think the SNP gets brickbats from some for living in some medieval fantasy - I really doubt that Shetlanders these days are fixating overly much on events in the 15th century. I mean, Berwick and large tracts of Northumbria used to be part of Scotland and there was also "friction" over them - why aren't you considering them a "special case"?

 

[Quartz]

FFS this is a total non-argument. It's a Scottish referendum. The Shetlands are currently part of Scotland. They won't be given the choice in this referendum.

So you're okay for a choice for some, but not for everyone? I visited the Shetlands once, a few years ago. They didn't really seem to like being part of Scotland.

And by your argument, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, so everyone in Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland should also be given a vote on Scottish independence.

 

[danny la rouge]

Just out of interest, danny, who DO you normally vote for? (if you don't mind me asking).

I don't normally vote.

 

[DotCommunist]

It only encourages the bastards when you participate.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's worth pointing out that the '97 referendum had 3 choices. The status quo (no devolution), a devolved parliament without tax varying powers, and a devolved parliament with tax varying powers. The last option won.

Those who say it is only possible or seemly to have a referendum with merely two constitutional outcomes will include many who framed and supported the '97 referendum.

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

So you're okay for a choice for some, but not for everyone? I visited the Shetlands once, a few years ago. They didn't really seem to like being part of Scotland.

And by your argument, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, so everyone in Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland should also be given a vote on Scottish independence.

Well, first off, the choice IN THIS REFERENDUM will be for Scottish independence or not! Is that so difficult to grasp? People in the Shetlands, like anywhere else, can be and are at liberty at any time to organise and demand a referendum for their own independence before, during or after that.

Your second point is frankly ridiculous. Perhaps you think the whole of the USSR should have voted on whether or not the Baltic states became independent - maybe Serbia should have voted on Croatian independence? Maybe, should the UK ever decide to have a vote on joining the Euro, all of the EU should vote on it? Come to think of it, should I get a vote in the London mayoral elections?

To get an idea of how silly this is beginning to get, I'll give you an analogy of your logic - There's a UK referendum on joining the Euro or keeping Sterling, and Cornwall decides to adopt the dollar, since they are orginally Celto-Iberian - what would you do then????
I'd be very careful about the "I visited there once, so I know all about how people there feel" line of deduction.

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

It's worth pointing out that the '97 referendum had 3 choices. The status quo (no devolution), a devolved parliament without tax varying powers, and a devolved parliament with tax varying powers. The last option won.

Those who say it is only possible or seemly to have a referendum with merely two constitutional outcomes will include many who framed and supported the '97 referendum.

The three choices were framed in pretty clear, easy to understand terms in that referendum though. The mooted "third choice" so far is anything but -"more powers" is a bit of a nebulous thing to vote for, especially as it would ultimately be in Westminister's power to subsequently "grant" those powers - it's not too difficult to envisage a "yes" vote for DevoMax, or FFA or whatever else it is currently being called, then a new Westminster govt refusing to be bound by the outcome, diluting it down, putting it out to pasture in a never-ending consultation exercise etc.

There's also the matter of what Scottish MPs would actually then be FOR - would they sit there doing nothing other than when defence or foreign matters came up? Would that be sustainable? Would they get paid 4 hours a week? if I was English, Welsh or from NI, I certainly wouldn't be best pleased to see them debating and voting on issues that had no bearing on their constituents. I think "the middle way" would probably end up just stoking up more resentment and drag the whole thing out.