T Nation

Scottish Independence

I’m not sure if this has made the news internationally but there will be a referendum in April in Scotland about independence from the rest of the UK.

As an unpolitically-minded Scot I’m very interested in this issue and I’d be really keen to hear the views of all the good people on here.

Anyone thought much about it? What do you see as the potential benefits or drawbacks? Would it all go catastrophically wrong?

Thanks

Wouldn’t the Scots more or less maintain as close of an economic and political relationship with England as possible even if they got independence?

I mean, to do otherwise feels to me like economic suicide to both of them.

I really know next to nothing about this, but my basic feeling is that this is more of a nominal and nationalist-type thing from the Scots than any serious attempt to push for an independent country with an independent military and independent geo-political goals and all those other things that would normally come with a truly independent state.

Thanks Magick, that’s all pretty much my understanding too. I was just interested if anyone on here has strong views either way.

Bump.

Anyone got any opinions?

Irn Bru for the win.

Do you think it would be to you and your countryman’s benefit to split from England? I don’t see how Scotland would benefit economically. Is this vote based more on national pride reasons?

[quote]furo wrote:
I’m not sure if this has made the news internationally but there will be a referendum in April in Scotland about independence from the rest of the UK.

As an unpolitically-minded Scot I’m very interested in this issue and I’d be really keen to hear the views of all the good people on here.

Anyone thought much about it? What do you see as the potential benefits or drawbacks? Would it all go catastrophically wrong?

Thanks[/quote]

The vote is in September

Scotland is a Nation already
Scotland is in a voluntary Union (the UK) and has the right to come out of that Union if desired, hence a vote rather than a revolution.
After the vote, I will be no more and no less Scottish, regardless of the result.
Scotland would keep the same Head of State and Currency
I see no point in the vote

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
Scotland is a Nation already
Scotland is in a voluntary Union (the UK) and has the right to come out of that Union if desired, hence a vote rather than a revolution.
After the vote, I will be no more and no less Scottish, regardless of the result.
Scotland would keep the same Head of State and Currency
I see no point in the vote [/quote]

B

I

N

G

O

The point of the vote is to break the United Kingdom down into a lesser country period. At this time with almost ten percent of the population Scotland is a significant portion of the UK which gives it some clout.

It makes absolutely no sense that they should break up the UK in order to gain a little sovereignty, only to in turn beg the EU to take their newly gained sovereignty away from them. In the EU Scotland would be a very minor country that holds less than one percent of the EU population.

Everything that the UK negotiated with EU, including membership would be lost. The EU has confirmed this. This means that the Scots would lose all control over monetary policy because one of the conditions for new member states to join the EU is they must join the Euro.

But Salmond is lying and telling people the exact opposite. Salmond is telling people that Scotland would remain an EU member and they would be able to keep the pound.

The one possible benefit is the English would finally be rid of the Scots who are staunch socialists, who would rather live on hand outs from the government than work. So it would change the politics of the remaining UK.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The point of the vote is to break the United Kingdom down into a lesser country period. At this time with almost ten percent of the population Scotland is a significant portion of the UK which gives it some clout.

It makes absolutely no sense that they should break up the UK in order to gain a little sovereignty, only to in turn beg the EU to take their newly gained sovereignty away from them. In the EU Scotland would be a very minor country that holds less than one percent of the EU population.

Everything that the UK negotiated with EU, including membership would be lost. The EU has confirmed this. This means that the Scots would lose all control over monetary policy because one of the conditions for new member states to join the EU is they must join the Euro.

But Salmond is lying and telling people the exact opposite. Salmond is telling people that Scotland would remain an EU member and they would be able to keep the pound.

The one possible benefit is the English would finally be rid of the Scots who are staunch socialists, who would rather live on hand outs from the government than work. So it would change the politics of the remaining UK.[/quote]

sadly, youre probably right in all your points.

if Scotland were independent, all the current Scottish Labour Westminster MP’s would no longer sit in Westminster, so the Conservatives would find it much easier to get an overall majority of the new Westminster parliament.

btw, the UK without Scotland is no longer the UK. The UK, by definition is Scotland, England, Wales and N.Ireland. Without any one of those 4, the UK no longer exists.

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The point of the vote is to break the United Kingdom down into a lesser country period. At this time with almost ten percent of the population Scotland is a significant portion of the UK which gives it some clout.

It makes absolutely no sense that they should break up the UK in order to gain a little sovereignty, only to in turn beg the EU to take their newly gained sovereignty away from them. In the EU Scotland would be a very minor country that holds less than one percent of the EU population.

Everything that the UK negotiated with EU, including membership would be lost. The EU has confirmed this. This means that the Scots would lose all control over monetary policy because one of the conditions for new member states to join the EU is they must join the Euro.

But Salmond is lying and telling people the exact opposite. Salmond is telling people that Scotland would remain an EU member and they would be able to keep the pound.

The one possible benefit is the English would finally be rid of the Scots who are staunch socialists, who would rather live on hand outs from the government than work. So it would change the politics of the remaining UK.[/quote]

sadly, youre probably right in all your points.

if Scotland were independent, all the current Scottish Labour Westminster MP’s would no longer sit in Westminster, so the Conservatives would find it much easier to get an overall majority of the new Westminster parliament.

btw, the UK without Scotland is no longer the UK. The UK, by definition is Scotland, England, Wales and N.Ireland. Without any one of those 4, the UK no longer exists.
[/quote]

so technically, as the UK is the Member of the EU, and the UK would cease to exist, the remainder of the UK,(England, Wales and N.Ireland whatever it would be called) would surely need to apply for EU membership too.

Is this appropriate?

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Is this appropriate?

http://youtu.be/f1CB-D1TtXc[/quote]

yeah, that sums it up about right

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I say go for it.

Im an anti-monarchist. Im a 1st generation Australian, and I am keen for Australia to break away from the Commonwealth. For whatever reason I think the “anglo-saxons” of Australia think that by gaining independence we will be over-run by “ethnic” people which are generally given a bad reputation via the main stream media. Modern day Australia has got nothing to do with the Queen. It made me sick the other day when Kate and Will visited Sydney and people were giving them gifts for their new baby. As if the kid who is born into royalty needs fucken gifts from strangers in Australia.

Anyway, Ill stop ranting on, and I will say you to to vote for independence.

Fuck the Queen.

tweet

[quote]theBird wrote:
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I say go for it.

Im an anti-monarchist. Im a 1st generation Australian, and I am keen for Australia to break away from the Commonwealth. For whatever reason I think the “anglo-saxons” of Australia think that by gaining independence we will be over-run by “ethnic” people which are generally given a bad reputation via the main stream media. Modern day Australia has got nothing to do with the Queen. It made me sick the other day when Kate and Will visited Sydney and people were giving them gifts for their new baby. As if the kid who is born into royalty needs fucken gifts from strangers in Australia.

Anyway, Ill stop ranting on, and I will say you to to vote for independence.

Fuck the Queen.

tweet[/quote]

'Research from the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) reveals that the Queen is among the world’s greatest supporters of charities and has the helped the many organisations of which she is patron raise over £1.4bn.

The Queen is patron to 510 charities in Britain, including Cancer Research UK, the British Red Cross and Barnado’s. The wider Royal Family support a grand total of 2,415 charities in Britain, with this figure rising to almost 3,000 worldwide.’

How much time do you spend raising money for charity tweety bird? In what ways what Australia be better off as a republic? How would it change the country?

[quote]theBird wrote:
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I say go for it.

Im an anti-monarchist. Im a 1st generation Australian, and I am keen for Australia to break away from the Commonwealth. For whatever reason I think the “anglo-saxons” of Australia think that by gaining independence we will be over-run by “ethnic” people which are generally given a bad reputation via the main stream media. Modern day Australia has got nothing to do with the Queen. It made me sick the other day when Kate and Will visited Sydney and people were giving them gifts for their new baby. As if the kid who is born into royalty needs fucken gifts from strangers in Australia.

Anyway, Ill stop ranting on, and I will say you to to vote for independence.

Fuck the Queen.

tweet[/quote]

In the event of Independence, the newly independent Scotland would keep the Queen as Head of State.

The original Monarch of Great Britain was King James vi of Scotland, who also took the throne on England to become the King of GB, as King James i

so the Monarchy is not an English thing thrust upon the Scots- quite the opposite.

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

[quote]theBird wrote:
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I say go for it.

Im an anti-monarchist. Im a 1st generation Australian, and I am keen for Australia to break away from the Commonwealth. For whatever reason I think the “anglo-saxons” of Australia think that by gaining independence we will be over-run by “ethnic” people which are generally given a bad reputation via the main stream media. Modern day Australia has got nothing to do with the Queen. It made me sick the other day when Kate and Will visited Sydney and people were giving them gifts for their new baby. As if the kid who is born into royalty needs fucken gifts from strangers in Australia.

Anyway, Ill stop ranting on, and I will say you to to vote for independence.

Fuck the Queen.

tweet[/quote]

In the event of Independence, the newly independent Scotland would keep the Queen as Head of State.

The original Monarch of Great Britain was King James vi of Scotland, who also took the throne on England to become the King of GB, as King James i

so the Monarchy is not an English thing thrust upon the Scots- quite the opposite.
[/quote]

As a “Scot by adoption,” I offer the case for the lineage of Charles Stuart (Charles III, the “Bonnie Prince”) who was the true heir of JamesII/VII. It was the Exclusion and some connivance by Queen Anne that disinherited the Stuarts in favor of the Hanoverians, and the current dynasty of Saxe-Coburg. Does that make me a true Tory, because they were anti-Exclusionist?

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

As a “Scot by adoption,” I offer the case for the lineage of Charles Stuart (Charles III, the “Bonnie Prince”) who was the true heir of JamesII/VII.

[/quote]

It’s a case that no one denies. However as James II was an autocratic Francophile who raided the treasury, taxed the shit out of the country and tried to change its religious character he had to go.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

As a “Scot by adoption,” I offer the case for the lineage of Charles Stuart (Charles III, the “Bonnie Prince”) who was the true heir of JamesII/VII.

[/quote]

It’s a case that no one denies. However as James II was an autocratic Francophile who raided the treasury, taxed the shit out of the country and tried to change its religious character he had to go.

[/quote]

I thought I was the only Scottish History bore around here…but no.