[POLL] Should Scotland be an independent country?

[featured_spectre]

Willie makes his opinion known...

[6Foot2]

Willie makes his opinion known...

 

Same image but bigger:

 

http://i.snag.gy/SZ7rX.jpg

[penfold_99]

If Scotland voted yes, there will be a vote in Shetland and Orkney and the western island asking do they want independence, be part of Scotland or remain in the uk.

 

If they go for option 3, it will blow slamonds plan to finance Scotland spending on oil tax receipts out the water as the majority of the oil fields are in the island territorial waters.

[tmcd35]

I saw an interesting tabloid show by Kevin Bridges the other day that explored the Yes/No debate. He interviewed Billy Bragg who had what I thought was a rather interesting take on the debate. Scottish independence could be viewed as whats needed to kickstart proper constitutional reform at Westminster. Add that to the Trident question and as a Englishman I find myself hoping the Scots vote yes today if only to give us down south a bloody nose!

[localzuk]

Its quite interesting, the Shetland/Orkney issue, as the response I've seen from the "Yes" side is one of "they're part of Scotland, tough". Which seems a little hypocritical - surely they have the same right to self-determination that Scotland has?

[featured_spectre]

Its quite interesting, the Shetland/Orkney issue, as the response I've seen from the "Yes" side is one of "they're part of Scotland, tough". Which seems a little hypocritical - surely they have the same right to self-determination that Scotland has?

 

This opens up a whole can of worms...Several northern Italian states want to go for independence, As do several Spanish states. Germany is also having a bit of internal strife, with Bavaria looking to become its own nation also. The outcome from todays vote will alter the face of Europe, as it opens the door for anyone that wants to secede from their respective nation an option to pursue this.

[pcstru]

Its quite interesting, the Shetland/Orkney issue, as the response I've seen from the "Yes" side is one of "they're part of Scotland, tough". Which seems a little hypocritical - surely they have the same right to self-determination that Scotland has?

Reductio ad absurdum : It's then hypocritical not to allow independence down to the level of each individual household.

[penfold_99]

This is an interesting article . Shetland may reconsider its place in Scotland after yes vote, says minister | Politics | theguardian.com

 

A petition of more than 1,000 signatures raised by islanders from Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles calling for a separate referendum on whether they could themselves become independent was rejected last month by the Scottish government, which said it had promised new powers to the three island groups.

 

So Alex Salmond is being a hypocrite, he bangs on about being governed from westminster but in turns denies calls for a similar independence vote on the islands.

[featured_spectre]

He turned it down because he knows that they hold a large chunk of the oil and gas reserves in their territorial waters which would mean Scotland loses out on the revenues.

[sparkeh]

Reductio ad absurdum : It's then hypocritical not to allow independence down to the level of each individual household.

Not really, it's a very valid point. Those areas are traditionally very anti independence and have a very strong, separate identity having more in common with the Norse culture than Scottish (having being part of Norway for so long). It's hypocritical for Alex Salmond to bang on about Scottish independence and deny a vote for those islands.

 

Apparently support is strong for being a crown dependency rather than full independence.

[CAM]

If they go full independent, they will end up locked inside Scottish shores out of reach of the oil reserves. If they stay with the UK, they will have not only the UK to protect them but the ability to at least contest the oil fields.

[localzuk]

If they go full independent, they will end up locked inside Scottish shores out of reach of the oil reserves. If they stay with the UK, they will have not only the UK to protect them but the ability to at least contest the oil fields.

 

If they go independent, or are part of the UK they would have their right to 12 miles of territorial waters - that's enshrined in international law. The same as islands such as the Isle of Man. So, they would contain a significant amount of the oil fields.

[featured_spectre]

No matter how much it may hurt them, the SNP cannot set the UK's borders - only the UK parliament can do that. At present there is no distinction between "Scottish" or "English" waters, they are British waters. And until such times as Scotland or England legally separate from the other they always will be. The SNP like to draw an east-west line through Berwick on Tweed, which puts the vast majority of North Sea oil in Scotland. But in 1999 Westminster changed the boundary to follow the Tweed in a north-easterly direction, going along with the current border across England and Scotland, putting closer to 50% of the reserves in Scotland. Now if Scotland voted to leave the UK today all it means is that the Scottish parliament has the right to start negotiations with Westminster about leaving the UK. The boundary would be part of those negotiations. Only after setting the boundary would international law apply for allocating revenues, not before.

 

Westminster could have a strong case for claiming up to half of the oil reserves. The remaining question would be what happens to the Orkney and Shetland islands if they decided to remain in the UK - something which the SNP MP Angus MacNeil has said would be accepted. If they decided to stay in the UK then they would be seen as detached islands of the UK mainland (so oil revenues from the Northern Isles would still flow to the UK Treasury), and another new boundary would need to be set.

 

As a consequence of all these issues, the SNP cannot guarantee in any shape or form that a separate Scottish state would have 90+% of North Sea oil. It would be legal matter which could eventually be referred to an international court. The statistic therefore loses its credibility

[CAM]

If they go independent, or are part of the UK they would have their right to 12 miles of territorial waters - that's enshrined in international law. The same as islands such as the Isle of Man. So, they would contain a significant amount of the oil fields.

 

That's the big question, how much oil is within that 12 miles?

 

I only hope if the islanders are really vocal about remaining with the UK that the government offers a firm and robust response to the inevitable argument that follows. Last thing we need is Scotland to do an Argentina and start trying to force the islanders against their will. I wouldn't say it'd get as bad as a war but certainly international shenanigans and blockades at hand.

[featured_spectre]

Also...At the heart of the SNP's case for independence is membership of the European Union. Now there is yet another uncertainty about Scotland's potential future in Europe. Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, the Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister, said a separate Scotland "would have to get in line and secure unanimous support" before being accepted as a member. And securing that "unanimous support" could be problematic.

 

Spain is resisting Kosovo’s application to the EU and constantly denying entry, partly because they fear an easy path to EU membership would encourage separatist movements in Basque and Catalonia. There is no automatic guarantee they would not behave in the same way towards Scotland, particularly if Scotland was not cooperative in the negotiations.

 

But there is also the matter of a potential veto from rUK. While rUK and Scotland would want to become good neighbours, there is the small matter of Trident. The SNP are opposed to nuclear weapons (a somewhat ironic position given they are in favour of NATO), and given that they would be a negotiating party they would advocate Trident's removal from Faslane. But in any potential negotiations the SNP are forgetting something: when they say "jump" rUK is not going to ask "how high." In other words, just because the SNP want Trident removed it does not mean that rUK would agree, and potentially a deal may be struck where rUK leases Faslane base from Scotland to keep trident where it is. As Dr Phillips O'Brien from Glasgow University suggested, it is very possible that an independent Scotland would be obliged to keep Trident at Faslane until rUK found a new base in either England or Wales (there is nowhere suitable in Northern Ireland). If Scotland did not agree, then rUK could quite easily veto Scotland's attempt at joining the European Union.

 

Advocates of separation would dismiss this scenario as scaremongering. But what they should remember is that Scotland needs the EU more than the EU needs Scotland, and as a consequence it is the EU member states that would have leverage in any negotiations, not the other way around. This is yet another illustration of just how much uncertainty separation would create and Alex Salmond sticking his fingers in his ears screaming that rUK is a big bully.

[penfold_99]

In other words, just because the SNP want Trident removed it does not mean that rUK would agree, and potentially a deal may be struck where rUK leases Faslane base from Scotland to keep trident where it is. As Dr Phillips O'Brien from Glasgow University suggested, it is very possible that an independent Scotland would be obliged to keep Trident at Faslane until rUK found a new base in either England or Wales (there is nowhere suitable in Northern Ireland).

 

They could just may Faslane a Sovereign Base Areas ( ie British Overseas Territory) like Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus.

[sted]

Also...At the heart of the SNP's case for independence is membership of the European Union. Now there is yet another uncertainty about Scotland's potential future in Europe. Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, the Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister, said a separate Scotland "would have to get in line and secure unanimous support" before being accepted as a member. And securing that "unanimous support" could be problematic.

 

Spain is resisting Kosovo’s application to the EU and constantly denying entry, partly because they fear an easy path to EU membership would encourage separatist movements in Basque and Catalonia. There is no automatic guarantee they would not behave in the same way towards Scotland, particularly if Scotland was not cooperative in the negotiations.

 

But there is also the matter of a potential veto from rUK. While rUK and Scotland would want to become good neighbours, there is the small matter of Trident. The SNP are opposed to nuclear weapons (a somewhat ironic position given they are in favour of NATO), and given that they would be a negotiating party they would advocate Trident's removal from Faslane. But in any potential negotiations the SNP are forgetting something: when they say "jump" rUK is not going to ask "how high." In other words, just because the SNP want Trident removed it does not mean that rUK would agree, and potentially a deal may be struck where rUK leases Faslane base from Scotland to keep trident where it is. As Dr Phillips O'Brien from Glasgow University suggested, it is very possible that an independent Scotland would be obliged to keep Trident at Faslane until rUK found a new base in either England or Wales (there is nowhere suitable in Northern Ireland). If Scotland did not agree, then rUK could quite easily veto Scotland's attempt at joining the European Union.

 

Advocates of separation would dismiss this scenario as scaremongering. But what they should remember is that Scotland needs the EU more than the EU needs Scotland, and as a consequence it is the EU member states that would have leverage in any negotiations, not the other way around. This is yet another illustration of just how much uncertainty separation would create and Alex Salmond sticking his fingers in his ears screaming that rUK is a big bully.

 

I suspect whatever happens short to medium term ~5-10 years the subs will have to stay there just due to the time involved in getting infrastructure in place I cant imagine its something that can be done quickly though you have to hope three is some sort of contingency plan. AS to ruk being a bully if Scotland goes then surely we have to look out for our own best interests if that's to Scotland's detriment then as far as I can see tough not out problem anymore they cant have it both ways and doing anything else would effectively doing to ourselves what the yes campaign accuses us of doing to them

[Gatt]

Somehow I don't see Salmond and his Posse allowing those subs to stay that long - they have made it abundantly clear that they want them out and damn quickly..

[featured_spectre]

There is also the fact that the entire White Paper for independence and Salmonds argument for independence is based on something over which the SNP can provide no guarantee: a currency union. It has been known for some time now that George Osborne is not too keen on such an arrangement. The Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has also expressed his opposition to the idea (note that one of these two would be negotiating with the SNP as UK chancellor), as has the Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones, as he has said it would be a detriment to rUK if Scotland had a currency union and fiscal independence. Add to that the ever growing list of academics, economists, Bank of England experts, and industry professionals who say a currency union is unworkable and completely inconsistent with the idea of fiscal independence. What the Experts say.

 

It is obvious why the SNP have not detailed their Plan B very much, deliberately leaving out large portions, and accusing everything that wouldn't go in their way as scaremongering. Doing a detailed plan B suggests the possibility that not only has the possibility of no currency union been seriously considered, but it is largely expected. Not exactly a winning strategy for them.

 

But the Scottish public deserve to know in detail what Plan B is, just like they did with their Plan A. A responsible government must provide detail on not only what it sees as the benefits of its proposal, but also the risks, and how these risks would be managed or mitigated. It must cover all the angles and give well researched facts to the electorate so that an informed decision can be made.

 

Nationalists like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of scaremongering. But to ignore the realities that would face an independent Scotland is something much worse. It is not only ignorance, it is fraud. Scotland deserves much better than what they have been given as an option.

Edited September 18, 2014 by featured_spectre
fixed grammar

[localzuk]

Somehow I don't see Salmond and his Posse allowing those subs to stay that long - they have made it abundantly clear that they want them out and damn quickly..

 

It'll take years to build a new base to house them, especially considering the cost. I suspect Scotland won't really have a huge amount of say about the base staying for 5-10 years - the subs can't go anywhere else until the new place is built!

[tmcd35]

It'll take years to build a new base to house them, especially considering the cost. I suspect Scotland won't really have a huge amount of say about the base staying for 5-10 years - the subs can't go anywhere else until the new place is built!

 

Which opens up a whole new can of worms and a major discussion for rUK. As I said above, it's almost worth seeing Scotland go just to see this happen...

[featured_spectre]

If Scotland goes, it can almost be guaranteed that it will not be to their Plan A which is that they will dictate terms on their departure and have automatic entry to EU etc etc. It wont happen. Scotlands fiscal economy will be crippled very quickly as businesses leave in the short term, and even if they set themselves up as a tax haven, it hasn't worked out particularly well for many nations or dependencies. Give it 2 decades and they'd likely want to be back in the union when they realise that they were stronger as a part of the UK.

 

*awaits flaming*

[6Foot2]

Link: Scottish Independence Referendum Data Map

 

The Scottish Referendum Data Map shows the estimated declaration times of 32 councils. The numbers in the circular map markers show the estimated time of declaration. The size of the circles is proportional to the electoral population. The color of the markers provides an indication of which way the area might vote, based on an analysis of votes cast for the Scottish National Party in 2012, carried out by the Credit Suisse Economics Research Unit.

 

http://i.snag.gy/A9GKr.jpg

[penfold_99]

So will anyone be staying up to watch the possible end to union or just wait for the cold light of day to get the result?

 

John Snow's swingometer is going to be pretty boring for this referendum plus no exit polls, looks like the commentators will be playing cliché bingo as they wait for results.

[featured_spectre]

I'll be watching what happens.