An Independent Scotland ?

Post Reply New Topic

The polls show the Scotish independence movement gaining momentum and the lead (47% for, 45% against) going into this week's referendum.

Is it real? Will it actually happen?

Personally I suspect it may be primarily a show of force, to get concessions for greater self administration, prior to the vote. And the English government is scrambling to do just that in the next few days. But I do not know, as I haven't been following this in the last few years. Last I looked it was still a minority initiative and some guy dressed like an overweight Braveheart with a cell phone, was getting a lot of publicity.

It's real, and it could happen.

Yes, it's real and yes, it could happen. Next week, though, not this week.

For some reason, the English seem only now to have realised that this isn't some kind of joke!

And no, it's not some national conspiracy to scare the UK (not English) government into giving us more powers under devolution.

a divided united kingdom. can you imagine?

Danke for correction.

I don't mean conspiracy. More like unorganized flexing of muscle as more and more Scots consider it or sign on to the idea and see England Scrambling now.

But, when they vote, how many will have second thoughts/cold feet when standing on the edge of the plunge?

That's why I think it is mainly a demonstration rather then revolution. I guess this year at least it will not pass.

It will likely be the same issue that Quebec has... they want independence but still want to be economically held up by their host country.

An independent scotland would likely plunge into a bad economic situation within the decade. They'd be responsible for their own defense, trade and currency...that takes an enormous amount of resources. Scotland is used to a certain standard of living and that standard will drop significantly once they start paying for all those things.

I wonder if these "celebrities" (some of whom I like) http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/peop ... s/14099825 are now, suddenly, feeling foolish what with their own compatriots seeing them in their rear-view mirrors. "Run, celebrities, run! You might -- just -- catch up with your fans, but you can't be certain that they won't see you as the turncoats you are."

As always, Sean Connery is a class act. He wins by putting his opinion out there regardless of the vote result next week.

I love this photograph!

THEGUARDIAN.COM: "England?s love-bombing of Scotland is a pathetic afterthought" (September 8, 2014)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... estminster

They are paying for defense through taxes for the UK, right? They could use the money they save on that to spend on their own military if they want/need one. They are in a pretty safe area of the world so I'm not sure what they would need a military for anyway.

The closer we get to voting, the more the gap has been closing between yes and no. It does seem to me that people are more likely to move from no to yes, than the other way around, and similarly, those who're not sure might be more likely to go for a yes when it comes to it.

And if you're talking about opportunities to make a decision like this, it's less about "this year", than this "several decades"! That is another factor which people are mentioning. If a no vote now, then when, if ever, will we have the chance again.

Supporters of the status quo (regardless of the issue or candidate that represents it) generally have a more difficult time getting their voters to follow through and actually attend their polls (the rallying cry of "more of the same" hardly motivates); at least, when compared to opponents of the status quo who see a moral obligation to punctuate their opinions with a ballot vote. This will likely be the reason stated next week by the unionists if they lose ("many of our voters just stayed home").

Thanks again for correction. I assumed the matter could be voted on in any given year, like it is with Puerto Rico and my own country.

But as someone mentioned above it will likely be a difficult path financially, once out of the larger safety net of the (dwindled) UK, in exchange for self determination. Are people aware/expecting that and prepared for that sacrifice?

But let us say it happens. Are there rumblings in Wales and Northern Ireland as well, to follow suite?

And this is out of left field, but has it ever been considered to unite Scotland, Wales and Ireland as a reconstituted Keltic Confederation. (With maybe Brittany France thrown in for good measure.)

That could be interesting, but I would worry that every Frenchman calling himself a Gaul would want to join. Then where would we be?

[Humor]

Well if Gaul is reconstituted then the 2nd Roman Empire can't be far behind. Perhaps Silvio Berlusconi would overthrow (buy) the Italian Government, declare himself Ceaser, and invade again.

Nah. Well, I can almost see the first part. Italy has a bribe controlled economy. But I think my relatives aren't quite up to the last bit. Definitely not La Dolce Vita. But who knows in a few generations. Everything's changing...

"I amar prestar aen
The world is changed
Han mathon ne nen
I feel it in the water
Han mathon ne chae
I feel it in the Earth
A han noston ned gwilith
I smell it in the air
Much that once was is lost
For none now live who remember it."

If it's a Yes vote I reckon we'll end up with the most complicated break up in history,especially as we're on the same island as England and Wales. Even in the event of independence,most Scots who vote No (nearly half the population) would most likely want to retain their British citizenship,as they would be entitled to do. After all they were born in Britain and lived in it all this time. The Scots in England (800,000) and around the world would be left in limbo - they weren't considered Scottish when votes in the referendum were being granted,whereas
foreign nationals who reside here temporarily are getting votes.
Alex Salmond's blueprint for 'independence' includes retaining the British monarchy,the pound Sterling controlled by the Bank Of England,
membership of NATO (but getting rid of it's nuclear submarines based on our shores),and open borders (with England and Northern Ireland) despite advocating a different immigration policy from them.

That's not how it works. The UK has built bases and has equipment in Scotland which is partly paid for by Scottish taxes.

I'm not saying they can't afford a military, I'm saying they can't afford one of anywhere near the capability of UK forces stationed in Scottish territory.

They do need a self defense force. Do you know how often Russian subs violate those waters? How many illegal fishing boats and smuggling ships operate in their waters? Scotland on its own would barely have a military equivalent to the Irish military...which is practically nonexistent.

Granted, given their neighborhood it is unlikely they'll need a large air force or army...but they do need a navy, particularly since they are on the 'curve' of the northern atlantic where russian ships (civilian and military) would sail down through or into the atlantic.

Like I said, its very similar to Quebec. They can't be independent without losing a significant chunk of their quality of life. Its like the US basically..if a single state breaks off they would hardly be able to afford the infrastructure they have because it is federal money that kept that running.