Scottish independence referendum 2014 -Yes or No?

Post Reply New Topic

The Republic of Ireland was a poor, mostly-rural, agrarian country where the Catholic Church had an iron grip on society for at least 50-60 years after independence. It's only with the Celtic Tiger (and the secularisation and modernisation that was going on at the same time) that Ireland started to change although that bubble eventually burst and they are paying for it dearly.

But the SDLP do.



It wouldn't be "England" that would have to join, but the rump part of the United Kingdom. The UK could carry on without Scotland (just!) but couldn't survive losing England.

We'd have a Common Travel Area in much the same way that the land border between the one between Ireland and Northern Ireland presently works. You're right, Scotland wouldn't be able to join Schengen but to be honest it's usefulness is pretty limited anyway, considering that it's part of an island.



Now, you see, I don't see how that would be entirely successful. Nationalists want a UI. That's it. I've seen very little evidence of them welcoming an idea of a Northern Irish state, perhaps with them being kept an eye on with the UK and Republic of Ireland.

Repartitioning wouldn't work due to the very geography of Northern Ireland; I've had this discussion elsewhere. Anyway, it isn't mentioned as an option in the GFA.



Not quite - the UDA and UVF (as much as many of them had any thinking going on) wanted to keep Northern Ireland in the UK because they felt that was best for Northern Ireland and they were opposed to a UI. There was a brief flirtation with Ulster Nationalism (and, as you know, this can be seen across Northern Ireland on the lampposts!) but it fizzled out. Interestingly, I've forever wondered what must go through the minds of those who put up an Ulster Independence flag (i.e. not the Ulster Banner) next to a Union Jack! The two flags are a contradiction in terms.

What seems to reign in NI Unionism now seems to be "Ulster particularism" or a sort of, I don't know how you might call it, a "Northern Ireland separatness".

I suppose England could leave the UK.



It does seem strange that the national (Westminster) parliament has to deal with local policy of England, when other (smaller) regions have some self-governance. Even more strange is that MPs from outside England can vote on policies that do not affect their constituents.

I think this should never have been allowed to happen. It causes nothing but arguments and disharmony between the different parts of the UK. It's shameful when a Scottish MP can vote Yes on a policy in England, but his MSP counterpart can vote No, on a similar policy in Scotland. This happened with the university fee votes and I'm angry that the Scottish MPs chose to vote on the matter at all. I don't think many of the Scottish public knew this was going to be possible, after devolution.

No, I'm actually talking about the UK (England) expelling Scotland from the UK.

It has happened elsewhere in the world. It would be interesting if such a thing could actually happen here - i.e. that a much larger part of a country has expelled its smaller relation from its union.



At least two political parties - mainly UKIP and the English Democrats that I can remember offhand - now support an English Parliament. UKIP was originally anti-devolutionist but has now taken a different tack.



But English MPs cannot vote on similar matters that only affect Scotland, Wales or NI as they're devolved!

Last edited by Tequila on 12 Sep 2012, 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Scottish MPs can vote on issues that affect England (and only England) but English MPs cannot vote on issues that affect only Scotland as those are devolved matters!

It's just wrong, isn't it. If I was an MP (as if), I would not feel right voting on matters that would not affect any of my constituents. The fact that some English people feel resentment about it is understandable and the Scottish people do not think it should be going on either. I also believe that some of that resentment is focused on the Scottish people, which is also wrong. The English need to kick up a bigger fuss about it.

I think that, combined with the fact that Scots can get healthcare and parts of the welfare state that English people are denied (but still have to pay for regardless) and the fact that Scotland is considerably more subsidised than most other parts of the UK doesn't help matters.

Given how vague the United Kingdom Constitution is it may well be possible.

To get this through the house of Lords would be virtually impossible though.



This problem was first raised with regard to Irish independence in 1886, and in 1977 with regard to devolution. A (devolved) English parliament (or would they want multiple regional parliaments?), with a smaller UK parliament would be one solution. Limiting the voting powers of non-English MPs in Westminster would be another, however a lot of bills (such as the controversial tuition fees one) have some elements that affect other regions, even though they mostly cover England.

Even with Scottish Independence this problem would not go away as Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would still be in Westminster.

Most countries have to redistribute wealth from richer to poorer regions (if England was independent the rich south would have to subsidise the poorer north).

If Scotland was independent the central belt would have to fund the highlands (as partly happens at the moment).

The Eurozone is currently demonstrating that if you have multiple regions with different economies, but sharing a currency, wealth needs to be redistributed between regions.

The only healthcare that Scots get that the English don't is free prescriptions. But, that money has come from within the Scottish budget, i.e. something else isn't getting as much money put into it as it might have. We did not apply for more money from the UK taxpayer to fund this venture. I'm aware that many English people resent this, but it's down to budget management, not handouts. I'm not aware of any extra welfare benefits that Scots get, primarily because the welfare state budget is controlled by Westminster. Region by region, there are parts of England way more subsidised than Scotland. Scotland is a poorer country than England, just as Lancashire or Cornwall are poorer than Kent or Surrey. But, we don't have the benefit of all the big companies centralising themselves in one of our large cities. They centralise themselves in London, so loads of money comes into London and the SE. London happens to be in England, but it's also the capital of the UK. Take London and the SE out of the picture and the story would be way different. I doubt anyone from any of the poorer English counties is subsidising Scotland. Maybe those from the SE are, but they are definitely subsidising your county more than mine.

NB We're also paying 30% more council tax than someone in the same band, in your area, and there are some Scottish councils charging way more than mine.

It isn't necessary to remain in a union to be friends with England anymore than England needs a union with France or the USA to be allies with them.

Theres not just the oil and gas, I think Scotland could fare well if it builds upon its tourism and fishing industries. Besides Scotland has a comparitively far lower population to support.

True, but it is necessary to be in a union in order to have influence over monetary policy, fiscal policy and trade policy.



But Scotland also has a lower tax base on which to fund that support, and it lacks the economies of scale that come with being a member of the United Kingdom. Why does Scotland get more than England from Union? Because almost every service that government delivers is more expensive to deliver in Scotland.

Distances are farther. Roads to small communities cost the same amount to pave, per km--but with fewer people using the roads, the cost per user is higher. Fewer good are carried along those distances, making the marginal cost of transporting each good higher. Even if a teacher costs the same in a large city as in an small village (and remoteness incentives suggest that the city teacher is cheaper), that teacher teaches fewer students, raising the cost of education on a per-pupil basis.

Almost ever service that government provides can be assessed in the same way. Remoteness and community size have a huge impact on the cost per citizen.

Though I am of Scottish descent, as a non-resident I don't feel I can possibly know enough to advocate for or against the independence of Scotland. I will say I am for self-determination and democratic means of attaining it. So if they vote to secede, then I think that is their right. However it seems they would just be exchanging one master for another in the EU.

The tail doesnt wag the dog, now that Scotland has a devolved parliament the Union makes even less sense in my opinion. The Scottish people have no say about what happens in Westminster yet what goes on in London directly affects Scotland. I don't see how that is fair or sensible regardless of your views on independence.

There are MPs representing Scottish constituencies in the House of Commons.