Scottish Separation

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Yeah, but east Ukraine was annexed by an even worse country.

I hope for the best outcome. That outcome being a slight majority NO vote but with England showing more respect for Scotland.

--Ocram

[TekindusT 3,809]

Yeah, but east Ukraine was annexed by an even worse country.

 

Not sure of your idea of Russia, but I would like to know what do you mean with "worse".

 

I have several Russian friends including my girlfriend (well, it's complicated), I have set my feet on Russia this last Summer. My friends are not brainwashed, they're not communists, they're not poor, some speak better English than me. Of course Russia's got lots of things to improve in all aspects; just like many other countries, like the US as well.

[piercing_arrow 76]

I have no idea what happens in British or Scottish politics, so feel free to shoot down my opinions.

 

I believe there is a plus and a minus to Scotland seperating. Many pro-Separatists believe they can coast on their wealth they would receive from North Sea oil, but to be honest, we all know that one nation cannot rely on oil for too long (in historical persepctive). But then again, the main reason Britain wants Scotland to stay is so THEY can have access to this oil. To be fair, Scotland does have a textile industry and a tourism industry, which I believe would save them from all-too-common fluctuating oil prices. I am totally for Scotland seperating, but I don't believe the Scotish leaders have anything planned out.

 

As an American, this affects me in no way whatsoever, but it is an interesting topic to discuss and debate about.

 

Feel free to contradict any of my points.

[GMT 389]

I'm more interested in seeing what happens, in europe, if the referendum ends in favor of a separation.

not just would it light a wildfire of new separational ideas in some of the areas known for strong independence-movements (corsica, catalonia, basque country just to name some of the more prominent).

this would also mean to rethink certain foreign policies in the western world and shed a new light on the crimea/eastern ukraine thing, because "we" certainly won't call a possible scottish pro-separation vote as quickly a foul play as we did with the crimean referendum and this imho must bring up a lot of inconvenient questions

[Cyclone Boom 16,875]

Well, now it's just a waiting game:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results

 

The first results should be revealed in under 2 hours, with the final outcome expected at around 06:00 GMT.

[Haljackey 17,302]

There's a video on YouTube of Willie announcing his candidacy for the Scottish First Minister's post if we go independent.

 

Scary thing is a lot of us would preferably see Groundskeeper Willie in charge rather than Alex Salmond. Me included.

 

Still voting YES on independence today though.

 

Found it!

 

[Nesral Sredna 62]

But what will happen with BBC Scotland tomorrow if  Scotland breaks free from the union? Surely the brits wont like to spend taxes on a foreign country's TVnetwork    

 

Nice of them to broadcast BBC Scotland and BBC News live internationally though, but having two seperate broadcast surely must expensive? ? http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-scotland-29130277

[Meg 368]

At this time, it appears that "no" has about 55% and "yes" has about 45%.

 

I find that I'm rather disappointed.  This would have been interesting.

 

As I see it, either London is going to recognize the unhappiness in Scotland or Scotland is going to vote "yes" the next time around.   If the vote is split along generational lines, the "no" crowd will die off and the "yes" crowd will win.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

At this time, it appears that "no" has about 55% and "yes" has about 45%.

 

I find that I'm rather disappointed.  This would have been interesting.

 

As I see it, either London is going to recognize the unhappiness in Scotland or Scotland is going to vote "yes" the next time around.   If the vote is split along generational lines, the "no" crowd will die off and the "yes" crowd will win.

 

Yup.  It's officially no: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29270441

[GMT 389]

pretty much what I expected, although I was in favor of a separation.

the vote was basically with the undecided and as a matter of fact, mankind rather settles with the status quo than with change unless status quo is of unbearable nature, the more so if change in recent times didn't turn out to be too good.

therefore I was expecting the undediced to vote against a separation of scotland. no dramatic need for change as the status quo in scotland is pretty good...

sad but I guess we have to postpone the end of the european union a couple more years

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In a demonstration of democracy in action, the Noes have it.

 

And now Westminster has much to do to meet promises made to all parts of the UK and not just Scotland.  This was a very quiet and positive revolution towards devolution.  Will we now see a dual Parliamentary set-up with each of Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England having their own parliament with Westminster the overall overseer?  What it amounts to is "dominion" status for each.

 

The powers of Westminster would be greatly diminished with respect to all things domestic and devolved onto the separate legislatures if Mr. Cameron and his successors keep their word.

 

Well done, Geordie.

[TekindusT 3,809]

First victim on the "Yes" side? Alex Salmond.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29277527

[blade2k5 1,523]

As I see it, either London is going to recognize the unhappiness in Scotland or Scotland is going to vote "yes" the next time around.   If the vote is split along generational lines, the "no" crowd will die off and the "yes" crowd will win.

 

From what I've heard, the youth vote (those under 18) were split 50/50, so maybe not depending on what Westminster does going forward.

[Haljackey 17,302]

Breakdown by council:

 

 

Via http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2gupsr/how_scotland_voted_council_by_council/

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I am happy of the results. A huge vote turnout and a fair margin of no votes winning. Ceding from a central government is only sensical when the central government is more oppressive than the local government and that is obviously not the case in the UK.

--Ocram

[Nesral Sredna 62]

At this time, it appears that "no" has about 55% and "yes" has about 45%.

 

I find that I'm rather disappointed.  This would have been interesting.

 

As I see it, either London is going to recognize the unhappiness in Scotland or Scotland is going to vote "yes" the next time around.   If the vote is split along generational lines, the "no" crowd will die off and the "yes" crowd will win.

 

Even with the no to a Scottish seperation from the UK, London definately needs to give more political power to Scottland, but what is interesting is that Wales and N. Ireland doubtfully are going to sit silently on the fence and see the Scots becoming more independent,withouth requesting their piece of the cake...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hopefully this is not a first effort in a "neverendum" like we have had in Canada.  I don't expect a "next time" in the lifetime of anyone now alive in Scotland.

 

Mr. Salmond is making a huge mistake.  I don't think that after all he has done to raise important issues he should just up and quit.

 

The components of the United Kingdom have a lot to work on now that the excitement is over.  Westminster made a lot of promises, and I can see no reason for Wales, N. Ireland, Scotland and England to not pursue them.  I can see the current constitutionless situation disappearing in a flurry of constitutional conventions over the next decade or so.  While Britain may have gotten along on precedent in the past, the time for such a complex system is past. 

 

It is time for the people of the four kingdoms to be more distinct, have each their own parliament and powers in a broad federation moderated by Westminster.  Each could easily become a Commonwealth member in its own right while the UK (renamed Great Britain, perhaps, including N. Ireland) would be the member of existing international organizations.

 

Some people tend for forget that one of the member states of the UK is England.  Let it reassert itself and the English character.

[SteveMSim 275]

Since the people of Scotland have rejected secession from the United Kingdom, a solution is for the UK to adopt a government like its two fellow Commonwealth countries, Canada and Australia, with a division of powers between the national government and the governments of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  The aforementioned regions of the United Kingdom could be named provinces like in Canada and Australia, and each province would have a parliament or legislative assembly, just like their counterparts in Canada and Australia.  Scotland already has a parliament, so just set up ones for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  Each provincial government will have powers similar to their Canadian and Australian counterparts, which include passing laws and levying taxes for their respective provinces.  A national parliament would be retained at Westminster, but their powers would be more limited.  Notice that I am not using the United States as an example of the division of government powers since Brits do not want to be like Americans but they may be open to restructuring their government to something like Canada's or Australia's since they are fellow Commonwealth countries with the same Queen as head of state.

[Yafawlda 2]

The amusing thing about this is that a referendum in which people have rejected constitutional change, has ended up sparking the biggest debate about constitutional change for almost 20 years. 

 

Since reading this topic there seems to be some confusion about the current state of affairs in the United Kingdom, I'll briefly explain it.

 

Power was first devolved from Westminster (the central government of the United Kingdom in London, England) to the other three countries of the United Kingdom in 1997 under New Labour. Scotland has the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, Wales has the Welsh Assembly at Cardiff Bay, and Northern Ireland has the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont Castle. So each of the three countries already has a devolved legislative body.

 

The problems begin to arise when you learn that each of these are "equal, but some are more equal than others." Whilst they all have devolved governments, the powers of the Scottish Parliament far exceed those of the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. I don't have the EXACT powers on hand, but the general powers are that Scotland has control over its own Administrative, Legislative, and some financial autonomy. Northern Ireland has lesser versions of the first two, whilst Wales only has the first. England has nothing. 

 

So the concern here is that we have three classes of devolution forming. First class for Scotland, second class for Wales and Northern Ireland, and nothing at all for England. The promise of more powers for the Scottish Parliament as a result of the No vote seems to stretch this problem further. Wales and Northern Ireland (quite rightly) don't want to be left behind by Scotland.

 

For the first time, English devolution has become an issue as well. This dates back to the "West Lothian Question" in the 1970's. The West Lothian Question is a term applied by political scientists to the fact that Scottish MP's can vote on matters that affect only England, but English MP's cannot vote on those same matters affecting only Scotland. It's a basic issue of fairness, and it's not simply a hypothetical question either. Tuition fees were first introduced in England by the Labour Party, who used the votes of Scottish MP's to force them through, despite these fees not affecting Scotland (devolution had occurred at this point).

 

The problem with English devolution is that right now both major parties (Labour and the Conservatives) are wrestling to get their preferred method of English devolution out there. The Conservatives prefer to apply devolution as having the currently elected MP's for England sit on separate days in Westminster to discuss England only matters, whilst Labour wants to devolve power directly to cities instead. 

 

Unfortunately, this is mostly for electoral reasons. Under FPTP, the Conservatives are usually the largest party in England, meaning that the Conservative method of devolution will create problems for Labour trying to pass its legislation in England should they form a national government. Likewise, by passing power to city regions, it will create problems for the Conservatives, as Labour tends to do better in more urbanized areas. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

Wish we could get a 85% voter turn out

[hamsterTK 93]

I'm glad No won, for basically all the reasons everyone has stated in this thread.

 

It's been enlightening as an American to learn how centralized some European countries are and how they are dealing with/planning more devolution moves.

[SteveMSim 275]

Although the people of Scotland have rejected secession, I just read that up to 25% of Americans are open to the the idea of their states seceding from the United States.  While there has always been a tiny minority of diehard secessionists, the political mess in Washington has an increasingly number of people thinking about secession as a solution, although the Civil War was supposed to have settled the question 150 years ago.  This is not just red state conservatives that can't stand President Obama but people from all sides of the political spectrum.  Texas is the state where the idea of secession is the strongest.  Although traditionally liberal New England supports keeping the Union the most, there is a secession group in Vermont.  There is a secession group in another liberal area, the Pacific Northwest. 

 

Other people think that splitting states such as California would help resolve political differences, I think it will only add to the political mess in Washington.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Well, it seems there is something in the U.S. Code or the Constitution that makes it impossible (illegal) for states to secede.  Just as well, because the have states do support the have-not states.  Imagine some state like Idaho, in the middle of the country, seceding, and being bordered only by the U.S.A.  How would they trade?  or even communicate?

[Duke87 1,070]

Idaho would also border Canada if it were a separate country.

 

And at any rate, Scotland has something a vast majority of US states do not: a history of having previously been an independent country.

 

Indeed, there are only three states that fit that description: Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii.

[hamsterTK 93]

Texas secession is an unfunny joke popular with people who have extreme views.

 

Not sure of your idea of Russia, but I would like to know what do you mean with "worse".

 

I have several Russian friends including my girlfriend (well, it's complicated), I have set my feet on Russia this last Summer. My friends are not brainwashed, they're not communists, they're not poor, some speak better English than me. Of course Russia's got lots of things to improve in all aspects; just like many other countries, like the US as well.

 

 

I remember what it was like to be on this site and the internet in general during the Bush Administration and the Iraq war. I remember all the Europeans who criticized the US as being a malignant influence on the world. Few people except for a specific mod ever really stood up to these posters and despite a sticky in this very forum asking people to tone it down.

 

Well, tables have turned, haven't they? I don't have shame in criticizing Russia here. The Ukraine crisis is one the dirtiest and most unforgivable things to come from a major world power, since, well, the invasion of Iraq. And I don't really think your personal experience or comments really negate what Ocram said. Every country and every society is mostly comprised of normal, nice people. That doesn't change political realities.

 

Anyways, what does this have to do with Scotland? Well, any separation is bound to generate harsh feelings if it is not a highly civilized process as this attempt was. From our comfortable western perspective we forget how ugly things can get when change happens too fast and negatively impacts too many people. It's kind of nice to be legalistic and be able to say "well doing X is justified because Y" but in the real world the rules are just a construct and can and will be broken if any one side decides it is no longer served by them.

[mrsmartman 200]

I believe that banning secession from US is for national security reasons (public interest).

Looking at Scotland, UK must be praised that it has a long heritage of democracy and freedom for its well-behaved nationals. 

 

In my opinion, language and religion are two important factors in determining ethnicity.

It is undeniable that Russian is spoken by a majority of people in Eastern Ukraine.

Hopefully, peace can be restored after negotiation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Scottish referendum has stirred up the smouldering ashes of Quebec separatism yet again.  This time, I hope the beavers can finally put paid to that nasty old frog.

[Wiimeiser 444]

The Scottish referendum has stirred up the smouldering ashes of Quebec separatism yet again.  This time, I hope the beavers can finally put paid to that nasty old frog.

But then what would become of Newfoundland, Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? Become part of the US? Maybe then Cascadia could separate and take Alaska, the three Californias, Silicon Valley and possibly Yukon with it. Then Texas and Idaho could secede, the latter joining with Nevada and Utah. New York City could secede as well, as could the confederacy. Then the Chicago Cubs will win a world series, causing the curse to enact revenge by creating a race of anthro billy goats who take Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan, calling it Great Sianis. The rest of the now-landlocked United States would later become their own country, except for North Dakota, which would become part of Canada. Who knows what would happen to Hawaii... Given that it's converting to Metric it'll probably secede on its own and change its currency to Yen.

 

EDIT: Almost forgot, what would that map look like?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You need to pay more attention.  M. Couillard (Premier of Quebec) has expressed a desire to sign the Canadian Constitution.  Since Quebec is the only province that did not sign, that would complete the deal.  After that, we only have to contend with neighbours and trade.  Our neighbours are Russia, United States, Denmark (Greenland), and Norway.  Only the U.S. has land borders.

 

And currently the IS bunch is threatening us.  They need to be removed from the scene forthwith.