An Independent Scotland ?

Post Reply New Topic

The No voters will be out to vote just as much as the Yes voters. There's a lot at stake here!

As a person with UK and US citizenship and Scottish and English family, I find the whole thing depressing.

On the one hand, the UK is a corrupt old relic and the Tories are hopeless idiots and the English deserve what they get for enabling Cameron's coalition to take power.

On the other hand, nationalism is pathetic and repulsive in all people. We are human beings, not Americans, Scots or English people. Those identities are the product of silly tribalism and social twaddle. The peoples of the British Isles are the result of wave after wave of invasion. A mix and layering of people from prehistory to the present. We should be moving toward more inclusive, larger federations, not smaller and smaller tribal states.

Where does it end? When the United and Chelsea fans have there own nations and armed forces to yob about in?

Feh. A plague on both your houses

That depends. In which nation would you choose to live; where you reside now (with all its problems) or North Korea (with absolutely no problems; they promise)? Nations have obvious differences; many of them terrible. Those differences matter if you judge the quality your life by the rights and liberties it enjoys. While I agree it is a bit like a comic-book worldview to cheer the planetary location in which you live. But, I believe that it is entirely appropriate to support and occasionally cheer the ideas that brought about and protect those rights and liberties, however temporarily flawed.


Centralizing nations and their governments is what gave us the United Kingdom (my lone attempt to stay on topic, yet relevant to the idea of centralized government), the Soviet Union and, more recently, the European Union. How did those larger federations turn out for their citizens? Less local autonomy (including the dissolution of local counties in some EU nations), sycophantic national governments and central governments which offer no practical way to appeal their bad laws and policies. The idea of a one-world government, for example, should frighten people. If such a government (and its courts) ruled against your interests, to whom could you appeal? To where would you be able to relocate to escape its historically inevitable bad leadership?

Remember: The same idea of centralized authority that gave Star Trek its United Federation of Planets also gave it the Borg Queen. With all governments eventually and frequently being corrupted, is it such a good idea to play with the fire of real centralized power? Many people of the old Soviet Union and, now, of the United Kingdom and European Union say otherwise.

I'd like to see Independence happen, just out of curiosity to see how it unfolds.
Pity about the submarine docks though ....

Just make sure Scotland stays in NATO and that they set up a proportional defense force. You can't expect the same amount as the UK since they are only some 10% of the total UK population and it's not the wealthiest region either. The UK bases could remain, there are bases of NATO countries all over the place. I imagine Scotland and the UK would coordinate their defenses since I doubt the UK would stand for a foreign invasion of Scotland since it is their neighbour. Guarding the Atlantic corridor is a shared NATO responsibility. Many small countries only have partial militaries since they can't realistically have all branches.

Don't worry. Everyone would want the Scots on their team. They are legendary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Scotland

Whatever difficulties might come with independence, they will be temporary and manageable.
Why would anyone be convinced to vote against their own nation's freedom?

You are so right!
Long live the Confederated States of America!
/sarcasm

Scotland and England have been a Union for a lot longer than the United States has existed and there are many, many families with equal ties to both nations. Why force us into fractured identities?

The problem with the UK, perhaps an unsolvable problem, is that despite all the window dressing that's been done since, the original Union was part of English imperialism and Scotland was a conquered, occupied nation. Failure to really fix this original sin may have doomed the Union.

Be that as it may, don't kid yourself that breaking the Union will be all saltires, kilts, haggis and Burns readings. There will be huge economic and social upheaval and a lot of ordinary people with connections in both nations will be forced into uncomfortable, unnecessary and stupid choices.

No, it really doesn't depend on which nation you would choose to live in but by which principles you would choose to live.

The United States is quite capable of acting unethically because there is nothing about the nation that guarantees it will live up to it's own principles. I agree that it is appropriate to support ideas, but it's a mistake to confuse those ideas with a national identity. The right wing scum currently infesting Arizona claim the national identity, but have respect for neither life, nor liberty nor the pursuit of happiness. They want free movement of capital, but no free movement of labor (aka illegal aliens/migrant workers) From the absolute denial of the rights of women and nonwhites at its founding, to the Ludlow massacre, to the illegal internment of United States citizens with Japanese ancestry, to the activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the United States is steeped in violations of it's founding principles. It is the principles that are good. The nation is only as good as the current generations of it's citizens. When they tend toward "my country, right or wrong" they are wrong.


Actually. we really do need a world government, or at least meeting place like the UN, so when Putin invades the next place, we don't go straight to global nuclear war.

But this is all strawman stuff. You say that statism inexorably leads to the Soviet Union, I say that antistatism leads to Somalia and Afghanistan. I would rather live in the European Union than Somalia any day of the week. Your imagination of how large scale federalism might work is tragically limited.
If you think the United States is a terrible mistake, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Can you imagine, a weak-centered federalism with protections against excessive corporate power. Imagine that local bodies with active democratic participation were the primary government citizens of a large continental federal state interacted with... is this a vision of oppression and inevitable tyranny to you?

In your terms, if you can't tell the difference between the Federation and the Borg, I would suggest that your ideological filters are diminishing your ability to perceive some fairly salient and pertinent facts. Was the Borg collective formed out of the founding principles of the Federation? Because that is the "idea of centralized authority" that counts. Your reasoning is unsound in this.

The latest polls show more now against independence, with more women, students and retiree's supporting 'No' and more working age men support 'Yes'. Some major financial institutions threatening to leave Scotland if they become independent has also seemed to rattle some nerves.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dence.html

North Korea is supportive of Scottish Independence however. (?)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... dence.html

I always enjoy seeing these political threads, and how they spin out of control.

In some ways I'm dreading the complications that would undoubtedly arise if it's a 'Yes' vote,but at the same time it's fascinating to be in the middle of the process and witness all the twists and turns.
As well as all the economic,emotional and practical considerations I'm sure there are also underlying psychological traits manifesting themselves.In Scotland we have a natural tendency to support the underdogs - this means that every time the polls show one side in the lead,the trailing side becomes the 'underdog' and thereby picks up support again ! We also have an affinity with other areas of the UK
that we consider to be underdogs,such as the north of England,Wales & Northern Ireland,in relation to Westminster and some voters
are conscious that a Yes vote would be abandoning them.
It's looking like the outcome may mirror what happened in Quebec and be a narrow No.

Not unlike nations, eh?

Classical fear mongering...


The current government of Scotland is left wing, far from the right wing of "red america".


Here we go again.

If it's a show of force it's pretty bad idea; it may bring the UK government to make some promises, but this is only some empty promises, quickly forgotten after the referendum.


Exactly, in the the last Quebec referendum, the participation rate was of 93,5%!


The danger of of a victory of the "no" may be what happened to Quebec after the 1995 referendum, a social and political stagnation unable to challenge new problems; as a result things only keep getting worst.

For those who understand french...
https://www.onf.ca/film/confort_et_lindifference/

I was reading an article recently about the Union Jack, and how it was composed from the Scottish, Irish, and English flags. The Scottish flag represents the largest part of the design, so I can imagine that the Union Jack would have to undergo a major redesign if Scotland gained independence. It's such a major icon of British culture however, that I can imagine this being a challenge.

I came across this article which supposedly shows what the redesigned Union Jack may look like, and it is indeed kind of strange and empty looking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dence.html

And Wales has wanted its flag to be included for years. The United Kingdom won't do it. It seems to me like the U.K. government (and its "subjects") has no problem excluding certain constituent-flag elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_t ... ed_Kingdom from the U.K. flag, so what's the problem with removing the St. Andrew's Cross? The royal standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Sta ... ed_Kingdom is constantly changing, too.