Scottish Separation

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A Summary of the Issues?  (If a BBC article in this case could be unbiased?)

 

Thursday next happens to also be my anniversary on this forum, but it is just a coincidence.

 

The Scots are looking at all that North Sea Oil wealth and feeling slightly taken.  Along with all the other traditional slights they might just decide to pull out of the UK.  If they do, it will be a mess of the first water.

 

Mr. Cameron has already stated if they vote 'yes' they will lose the use of the pound sterling.  So where would they go, then?  To the Euro?  Much disruption all around.

 

This is the same kind of mess we would be in if Quebec managed to pull out of Canada.  I am pretty sure that the Canadian Dollar would be locked out of Quebec and they would be stuck with whatever currency they could find, probably the U.S. Dollar (if possible) or maybe the Quebec Piastre which would probably enjoy the fate of the Cruziero a few years back, or the 1930s Deutsch Mark.

 

A currency crisis would result and there would be much dislocation in world markets.

 

I am really hoping that all this is a tempest in a tea pot.  Mr. Salmond and his cronies deserve to ask their question, and they need to know how the Scottish people really feel about giving up their comfortable pew.

[SteveMSim 275]

I'm almost surprised that a thread hasn't been started on this subject earlier, given that many Simtropolis members are from the UK.  I imagine there are some from Scotland.

 

I have been reading articles about this.  The polls have been split on the subject.  Age is also playing a role with older people, worried about pension loss and other things, being against independence while the majority of younger people, those under 40, are in favor of it.  I guess the younger people do not understand the benefits of living in a truly united kingdom.

 

I note that separatists around the world support Scottish independence, since an independent Scotland will give new energy to their movements.  

 

I personally do not have an opinion on this, given that I am a citizen of a country that once fought a bloody war to stay together.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

The separatists are trying to do what I believe is called "cutting off the nose to spite the face."
 
If this goes through, the situation in the British Isles will greatly worsen. It might spark separatist movements elsewhere. This will only hasten the Fall of Western Civilization.
 
--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If the Scots go their own way, will that re-establish the Stuart dynasty or will they go all the way and try to become a republic?  It didn't work for Oliver Cromwell and I don't think it will work for them either.  They are too used to having a constitutional monarchy where the monarch reigns but doesn't rule.

 

Many corporations have threatened to leave.

 

Youth may have its fling, but what then?  Somehow, I don't think going back into the fold will be possible, and certainly not easy. 

 

Since all the military in Scotland have sworn to the Queen, what will they do?

 

The Scots shouldn't expect a new Sterling, but rather Culloden.

[antsel 841]

I'm not sure why you don't think Scotland could go at it alone.

Your first point has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. Talk is they're going to remain a part of the Commonwealth, but it will be up to the Scots. The plan to draft a written constitution like most modern democracies, unlike the UK.

Why would businesses leave a place that they're already established, when they're already making profits? Companies operate to make profits, they're making profits in Scotland as we speak, so why would they leave? Businesses don't operate under spite.

You are right, the youth are backing the independence vote more than the older folks. But why don't you think Scotland will thrive as an independent nation?

Is it really important who the military swears allegiance to?

Again, what is it about the Scots that you don't think they can make it on they're own?

[Haljackey 17,242]

I'll just leave this here

 

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm almost surprised that a thread hasn't been started on this subject earlier

 

There are two previous threads about this, actually.

 

 

As I see it the impetus for independence is largely emotional and about national pride, there is little practical gain.

 

I am keeping an eye on this though, seeing as I am planning on making a trip to the UK next year which would involve England, Scotland, and Wales. If Scotland actually votes to say "screw you guys, I'm going home" later this week, that might complicate matters for me in several ways.

[urielgarcia 344]

I say VOTE NO Scotland....please.  I really feel they should not vote to become independent.  Together they are stronger.

 

Then again, I am a strong supporter of Catalan Independence from Spain.  (Sorry, its not part of the topic, I just had to mention it though)

 

It is up to you guys to decide. I'm a fool who has no hands in this matter.  I will be looking at it closely on September 18th.  

[Meg 368]

Is it really important who the military swears allegiance to?

 

 

Yes, it is.    If the military of any country suddenly decides to switch loyalties, things could get very messy very quickly.  

 

For instance, suppose that Country-A and Country-B have different viewpoints on various significant issues.   Then imagine what would happen of the military of Country-A decides it is going to fight on the side of Country-B even thought the head of Country-A does not want them to.   It would be a mess, to put it mildly.

 

I imagine that, if Scottish separation happens, it will be done peacefully.   But the military in Scotland will need to un-swear its allegiance to the Queen and re-swear to whatever authority is put in place to run Scotland.

 

Otherwise, Scotland will have a military that has sworn allegiance to a different head of state.   I believe this is known as being an occupied territory.

[Duke87 1,070]

I imagine that, if Scottish separation happens, it will be done peacefully.   But the military in Scotland will need to un-swear its allegiance to the Queen and re-swear to whatever authority is put in place to run Scotland.

 

Otherwise, Scotland will have a military that has sworn allegiance to a different head of state.   I believe this is known as being an occupied territory.

 

On the other hand if Scotland remains part of the Commonwealth than the Queen will still be their head of state. So no problem with that allegiance, then.

 

The messier issue is sorting out which soldiers are Scottish and which are Anglo-Welsh-NIrish. I imagine as things currently stand armed units are not segregated along these lines and would all have to be reorganized.

 

And then you have issues like:

- do all citizens of a new independent Scotland get to keep their British citizenship? If not, what are the ensuing implications for legal residency and employability?

- do you determine who is a Scottish citizen based on birthplace, current residence, or something else

- will Scotland be part of the EU?

- Since the UK is non-Schengen, will the border between England and Scotland have to have customs controls set up along it? If so how strict will they be and what rules will there be for traveling between the two countries?

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

 

I imagine that, if Scottish separation happens, it will be done peacefully.   But the military in Scotland will need to un-swear its allegiance to the Queen and re-swear to whatever authority is put in place to run Scotland.

 

Otherwise, Scotland will have a military that has sworn allegiance to a different head of state.   I believe this is known as being an occupied territory.

 

On the other hand if Scotland remains part of the Commonwealth than the Queen will still be their head of state. So no problem with that allegiance, then.

 

The messier issue is sorting out which soldiers are Scottish and which are Anglo-Welsh-NIrish. I imagine as things currently stand armed units are not segregated along these lines and would all have to be reorganized.

 

And then you have issues like:

- do all citizens of a new independent Scotland get to keep their British citizenship? If not, what are the ensuing implications for legal residency and employability?

- do you determine who is a Scottish citizen based on birthplace, current residence, or something else

- will Scotland be part of the EU?

- Since the UK is non-Schengen, will the border between England and Scotland have to have customs controls set up along it? If so how strict will they be and what rules will there be for traveling between the two countries?

 

 

Part of the military issue would be probably due to ancestry, as well as your place of residence over the last x years.

I feel that customs may involve a non-Schengen customs union, as I'm sure people would not be happy over having a border propped up where there was not one before.

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

I am Scottish, and there is no reason that we can't make it alone. Why does England and most of Europe think we will be the only nation on Earth with oil that can't make the books balance?

 

Oh wait, that oil is the very reason they don't want us to go. Given the amount of tax revenue that Westminster squeezes for every drop of petrol sold it's no surprise that they are frightened and running scared. The argument over the pound? What argument, Alex Salmond (And believe me, I don't like the idea of him in charge, but he's got two years maximum after a yes vote and his party will fragment) forced Alastair Darling to admit mid-debate that there is nothing that the English parliament can do to stop us using the pound sterling if we want to. Technically this leaves us without a lender of last resort, possibly a good thing if it will force banks to constrain their gambling activities on the markets. Personally I'd like to see an independent Scottish Pound. There is no way we'd accept the Euro, and given how badly things are going in the Eurozone, there's no way to force us to take it either.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

I imagine that, if Scottish separation happens, it will be done peacefully.   But the military in Scotland will need to un-swear its allegiance to the Queen and re-swear to whatever authority is put in place to run Scotland.

 

Otherwise, Scotland will have a military that has sworn allegiance to a different head of state.   I believe this is known as being an occupied territory.

 

On the other hand if Scotland remains part of the Commonwealth than the Queen will still be their head of state. So no problem with that allegiance, then.

 

The messier issue is sorting out which soldiers are Scottish and which are Anglo-Welsh-NIrish. I imagine as things currently stand armed units are not segregated along these lines and would all have to be reorganized.

 

And then you have issues like:

- do all citizens of a new independent Scotland get to keep their British citizenship? If not, what are the ensuing implications for legal residency and employability?

- do you determine who is a Scottish citizen based on birthplace, current residence, or something else

- will Scotland be part of the EU?

- Since the UK is non-Schengen, will the border between England and Scotland have to have customs controls set up along it? If so how strict will they be and what rules will there be for traveling between the two countries?

 

No, Scotland will have to reapply for EU membership, and its far from certain that they will get approved. And if they do reapply, they will have to apply on the EU's terms, so all those rebates and special privileges the UK has, well Scotland can probably forget about those. 

 

Interestingly, with Scotland gone, the UK independence movement will get stronger, so there is a much bigger chance that on their own 'independence' referendum the UK will vote to quit the EU. Which might open up the way for Scotland to join again. Which would be interesting, because that would instantly reverse the whole economic argument the UK is currently using to argue against Scottish independence. If London is no longer part of the common market while Edinburgh is, you can bet that all those big financial banks will just tell the English to leave them alone and move to Scotland. And then, the English finally realize the long term consequences of their love affair with Thatcher. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

The separatists are trying to do what I believe is called "cutting off the nose to spite the face."

 

If this goes through, the situation in the British Isles will greatly worsen. It might spark separatist movements elsewhere. This will only hasten the Fall of Western Civilization.

 

--Ocram

 

That is a load of absolute tosh. Scotland is exercising its democratic right to determine its own destiny, something which Crimea and a couple of Eastern Ukrainian provinces did- but for some reason people think otherwise. Scotland is in a pretty good position since, relative to its size and population, has decent amounts of manufacturing, a strong service sector, oil revenues and cheaper prices. Scotland has one third of the the Britain's landmass but 1/13 of the population.

 

As for the issue of dividing the Army and whether Scotland will use a portion of the nuclear arsenal which the UK has. Well there is a precedent for that to. When Ukraine was formed, immediately after the Soviet Union broke up, the country was a nuclear superpower. It had hundreds of tactical nuclear missiles, warheads and nuclear facilities. NATO went in and safely removed the nuclear arsenal with Ukraine's consent, although perhaps a couple of nuclear warheads and missiles went into the hands of the mafia- but who knows?

 

If Scotland wants to be independent then good luck to them. There will still be strong economic and trading ties if Scotland and Britain become two separate entities. I live in the north east of England and if Scotland becomes independent then my area could become a trading hub. Heck it may redistribute all the wealth and capital that gathers around in London and in the South. Ultimately the UK may continue to be partitioned into semi-autonomous states which are bound in some kind of decentralized federation.

 

And if the EU and Britain give Scotland trouble, which they will in some pathetic attempt to get Scotland back in the fold, well Scotland has other potential allies: the BRICS. China and Russia would not pass up the opportunity to trade with an independent Scotland. My biggest worry is that the British government is going to play dirty and sabotage Scotland in any way possible, minus all out war, should a yes vote happen. My next worry is if the Yes vote prevails but by a small margin. I fear Protestant based Unionist groups could arise, like that of Northern Ireland's Ulster Unionists, and wage terrorism in Scotland.

 

As for all this doom-mongering from international banks, Britain and the EU. It's a case of the three having more to lose than Scotland does. It shakes up the status quo.

 

In any case, go Scotland! And may it work out for you!

[antsel 841]

 

No, Scotland will have to reapply for EU membership, and its far from certain that they will get approved. And if they do reapply, they will have to apply on the EU's terms, so all those rebates and special privileges the UK has, well Scotland can probably forget about those. 

 

Interestingly, with Scotland gone, the UK independence movement will get stronger, so there is a much bigger chance that on their own 'independence' referendum the UK will vote to quit the EU. Which might open up the way for Scotland to join again. Which would be interesting, because that would instantly reverse the whole economic argument the UK is currently using to argue against Scottish independence. If London is no longer part of the common market while Edinburgh is, you can bet that all those big financial banks will just tell the English to go f themselves and move to Scotland. And then, the English finally realize the long term consequences of their love affair with Thatcher. 

 

 

The argument to vote NO because Scotland won't be apart of the EU is rubbish, considering the UK is planning a referendum to leave the EU anyway.

 

Scotland has already been told that we just need to renegotiate terms with the EU to stay as a member. Scotland is already a member of the EU, the EU isn't exactly in the position to want to lose territory or resources. Former EU parliament member, Jens-Peter Bonde, has explained that there is no interest for the EU to lose Scotland in the event of independence.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, the simplest way for Scotland to find itself alone is for Westminster to repeal the Act of Union.  It would certainly undo something like three hundred years of the United Kingdom.

 

Now, as for the Commonwealth, the EU, the UN, and other international organizations, Scotland would have to apply for membership.  The Commonwealth is almost a shoo-in, especially if they retain the monarchy.  The EU might turn out to be rather dicey given the current problems it is having.  I think the UN would not welcome Scotland without a lot of clarification on the Security Council Permanent membership, which would probably devolve to England.

 

Here in Canada, we've been through a lot of the angst that might accompany a separation.  You may not have noticed, but when the chips were down, Quebec voted to stay with us.  A bunch of radicals should not be able to panic a majority into stampeding over a cliff.  Quebec separation would have been violent.

 

Apparently, the Scottish issue is more restrained.  However, little items like a customs union, free trade, etc. etc. won't get completely sorted out in the eighteen months projected for the negotiations.  These contentious issues will hang on for many years.  One of the clear issues at the moment is the statement by Mr. Cameron that there will be no trial separation, but a divorce.

[antsel 841]

One of the clear issues at the moment is the statement by Mr. Cameron that there will be no trial separation, but a divorce.

And again we hear what the PM of the UK thinks about the Scottish people, having to clarify that independence is forever. What does he take them for? What's the point of the referendum if it's not to leave the union once and for all? I personally think Scotland will be better off without Westminster.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

One of the clear issues at the moment is the statement by Mr. Cameron that there will be no trial separation, but a divorce.

And again we hear what the PM of the UK thinks about the Scottish people, having to clarify that independence is forever. What does he take them for? What's the point of the referendum if it's not to leave the union once and for all? I personally think Scotland will be better off without Westminster.

 

I think it is clear that the mood on a yes vote will be that there is no going back.  This may not be very bright in a few decades, especially since there is really only so much habitable and arable land on the island(s).  It is unlikely that a 15-year old voter will take that into consideration.

 

Frankly, I expect a narrow win by the No side.  When it comes to putting that ballot in the box, a number of people will change their minds.  Remember, the only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.

 

There is a lot of flak right now from the Quebec separatists, who've just been chucked out of office by the people of Quebec, who are looking at a Yes vote as some kind of strengthening of their position.  In the long run, yea or nay, it really won't.  Quebec is more and more filling up with immigrants from other ethnicities who won't embrace some of the things the PQ has been promulgating.  As the cultural mosaic in this country diversifies even further, I expect that Quebec will eventually be as homogenized as the rest of us.

 

I don't believe that Scotland has this problem as yet, but it is clear that England has.  Most immigrants to the UK seem to want to stick to the south.

 

There is too much emotion going on right now and not enough cold deliberation.  If you look at the big English cities, most of them were built by Scots.  It is a heritage that many will happily abandon, I gather.

[Cyclone Boom 16,829]

I don't think it's right that 16 year olds are being allowed to vote. In normal referendums the voting age is 18, which even still might be too young for some. The question is whether people of this age fully understand the impact their vote has. Can they comprehend the issues being debated, and the consequences it could have on their future? I seriously have doubts over this, and think they'd be more inclined to follow crowds. Of course, Mr Salmond is simply using this alongside his campaign, as a tactic to gain more "yes" votes.

 

As a side issue, there's the question over what would happen with the union flag. With it being used by commonwealth countries around the world, it's an iconic symbol, and could get quite messy if there's a need to change it. Could a change be used by countries as an excuse to leave the commonwealth?

[Meg 368]

16 year olds  will be voting?  They are changing the voting age for this referendum?

 

If Scotland does separate, doesn't that mean separation from things like the National Health Service and pension funds?   Something would take their place but that something isn't going to happen overnight.   I imagine no one has a transition plan yet but one would be needed. 

 

I can see why different generations have a different viewpoints on this.  Most 16 year olds aren't that interested in health care and pension funds but those are major issues for the older generation.

[antsel 841]

16 year olds  will be voting?  They are changing the voting age for this referendum?

 

If Scotland does separate, doesn't that mean separation from things like the National Health Service and pension funds?   Something would take their place but that something isn't going to happen overnight.   I imagine no one has a transition plan yet but one would be needed. 

 

I can see why different generations have a different viewpoints on this.  Most 16 year olds aren't that interested in health care and pension funds but those are major issues for the older generation.

 

The NHS in Scotland is already fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament. One of the big reasons to become independent is to keep our NHS protected from the hands of privatisation. NHS in England has already begun the process of privatization, and with the discussions over TTIP, NHS in Scotland is at risk too. Westminster refused to have the NHS exempt from TTIP during negotiations which means that there's no opt out for the Scottish NHS. Independence would allow us to negotiate an exemption on the NHS because it's something important for the people.

I don't see why Scotland couldn't continue to pay out the pension funds. Westminster currently takes in more Scottish tax dollars than they give back to the Scottish budget, which ends up being roughly £1,700 per person, and since 1980 has contributed £222 billion more than the per capita contributions of the rest of the UK.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Regardless of any implications, positive or negative, I still believe all peoples should have the right to self-determination. If Scotland want's to do their own thing, so be it. I don't want to see another Northern Island over this.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The argument to vote NO because Scotland won't be apart of the EU is rubbish, considering the UK is planning a referendum to leave the EU anyway.

 

Scotland has already been told that we just need to renegotiate terms with the EU to stay as a member. Scotland is already a member of the EU, the EU isn't exactly in the position to want to lose territory or resources. Former EU parliament member, Jens-Peter Bonde, has explained that there is no interest for the EU to lose Scotland in the event of independence.

 

Well that is true. I would sincerely hope the EU would allow Scotland back in without giving them to much trouble. But you have to understand here, that it is not just a matter of the EU wanting it. The EU is not synonymous with 'the will of the memberstates'. The Commission may push for Scotland to join, but the member states all have a veto when it comes to a vote. And there might be a number of countries that are not interested in letting Scotland back in, mainly Spain, which is dealing with its own separatist movement in Catalonia. They might veto Scotland joining the EU in order to send a message to Catalonian separatists. 

 

 

Oh, as a side note to the argument that if Scotland leaves the EU they can just deal with BRIC countries, its not that easy. For one, its pretty difficult to suddenly change trading partners. You have to set up deals, do market research, etc. That takes both time and money, and you might just find that those BRIC countries really don't have any interest in your products and services because other players have already taken the entire market. Secondly, those BRIC's might be interested in selling you their stuff, make no mistake here that a Scotland outside of the EU is just one, pretty small and utterly unimportant market, while a Scotland inside the EU is practically one of the biggest markets in the world. That makes a huge difference in whether countries are interested to invest in you, but more importantly, it makes a big difference under what terms they invest. An independent, non EU Scotland has an incredibly weak negotiation position, while an EU member Scotland has a very solid negotiation position. 

 

At the same time, this also means that while Scotland benefits immensely from being an EU member, the EU benefits only a bit from Scotland. If Scotland goes independent and wants to rejoin the EU, you can expect that it will be on the EU's terms, not Scotland's and that all those privileges granted to the UK will no longer apply to Scotland. 

[mrsmartman 200]

In my opinion, economic terms can be negotiated. London can put more effort on making a concrete plan to encourage unification.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

With respect to the pension plans:  Are these fully funded in the UK now?  Or are they coming out of current revenue?

 

If the former, then it becomes a matter of properly splitting the investment portfolio to support each separately if necessary.  In the latter case, which is likely, the result will be a burden on the smaller Scottish population in general which they could be bearing currently.  In either case, arguments become moot.

 

The lowering of the voting age was a transparently stupid move to garner more "Yes" votes from the rebellious youth.  The rebellious youth will probably vote the same as their parents, not their peers.  That is, if they vote at all.

 

What has to be considered in this is where will Scotland be, on its own, in 2114?

[Meg 368]

 

I don't see why Scotland couldn't continue to pay out the pension funds. Westminster currently takes in more Scottish tax dollars than they give back to the Scottish budget, which ends up being roughly £1,700 per person, and since 1980 has contributed £222 billion more than the per capita contributions of the rest of the UK.

 

 

I haven't crunched the numbers but, unless the pensions are already fully funded, you need more people paying into the system than you have taking out of the system.  What's happened since 1980 is one thing.   What needs to happen from here on is another.

 

Scotland pays more to the UK than it receives in benefits from the UK?

 

On this side of the pond, generally, the states that want to secede receive more from the federal government than they pay into it.

 

Regardless of any implications, positive or negative, I still believe all peoples should have the right to self-determination. If Scotland want's to do their own thing, so be it. I don't want to see another Northern Island over this.

 

Good point.  Problem here is, this seems to be very close.  No matter what happens, half the people in the country will be unhappy with it.

[mrsmartman 200]

The North Sea oilfield is believed to be available to support Scottish public spending for some years.

[TekindusT 3,809]

A lot is being spoken about the acceptance or not of Scotland (and hopefully we will be speaking about Catalonia in a few months), but... Does Scotland win something keeping in the EU and/or adopting the Euro?

Scots, in case the yes wins, do not let your national bank and legitimate, voted government to be manipulated by the EU comission/markets (same dogs, different collar). Get a trade agreement with the EU and unofficially adopt the Euro. Countries (not regions, not strange things, I mean sovereign nations) like Andorra are not part if the Eurozone, but they use Euros through a monetary agreement. They used Euros as a de facto currency until as late as 2011. And I see not much problems each time I go to Andorra, it looks a really developed nation, if you ask to me.

EDIT: the thread about Catalonia's independence exists too, it is buried in the forum. I don't see the point of keeping the discussion there, as I was the only user holding separatist opinions.

[Snugies 91]

Yes for Scottish independence, my opinion we live in a globalized world now which makes national governments useless, and communities can self govern and live off of global free trade. In Canada I don't even know what the federal government does? Probably same for UK what does the UK government do? My electronics are from Japan, exercise bike from China, car from Japan, food from Mexico, clothes from China, meat from Alberta, gasoline from various places, employed by American company, educated by money from oil sold to Americans...seriously wtf does the federal government in Ottawa give me? do they enforce world trade agreements? NO, because world trade operates on self interest. do they issue currency? yes...but I can use yen, u.s. dollar or gold...so why do we need a national government again?...airport security?     

[Meg 368]

so why do we need a national government again?...airport security?     

 

Security is more than airport security.  There are these people stomping around from country to country killing innocents in their path in a quest to impose their own ruling structure over the people still left in the land they conquer.