Why not? If the people of Scotland decide that they no longer want to be a part of the United Kingdom, some vague concept of a nation state should not prevent them getting their wish. Would you rather they rose up in armed conflict to achieve that aim?
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Why not? If the people of Scotland decide that they no longer want to be a part of the United Kingdom, some vague concept of a nation state should not prevent them getting their wish. Would you rather they rose up in armed conflict to achieve that aim?
Vague concept?
The sovereign nation state is hardly something that is vague, it is well established and clearly defined. It's the most important unit of international politics and has for centuries underpinned the rule of law and democracy on a domestic level.
What if Cornwall wanted to break away from the United Kingdom? What if an area of a particular British city with an immigrant enclave had a majority of people who favoured breaking away on cultural grounds? Or what if a village with a sense of community in Surrey wanted to break away to form a tax haven? Or the South East of England on economic grounds? Do you allow it if it can return a majority in a referendum? What makes Scotland so special that it should be able to declare independence?
Undermining the democratic and peaceful nation state could be a very dangerous precedent to set. Not so much in Britain, because of course the examples I have given above are purely academic and would never see reality, but elsewhere.
Last edited:
Slovakia ?
You don't think that taking all the oil is taking enough of the assets?
Some other questions I'd like your thinking on.
What about the costs of moving the sub base, will Scotland pay for that or are the rUK just supposed to give up on nukes because Scotland decided it didn't want them or build a whole new base at their own expense?
Will this be the last referendum or will we have to keep having them until Scotland leaves?
If you were a tax payer and lived in the rUK would you invest anything long term in Scotland given the ongoing uncertainty?
Lastly
Don't you think that the entire basis of the economic case for Scotland’s future success outside the UK assumes that a large part of the inward investment isn't predicated on it being part of the UK? Are you at all concerned that you could lose important businesses following a yes vote?
An independent Scotland will want to take debts, even if the UK gives an Independent Scotland the absolute minimum. Anything more would need something in return, i.e. less assets, more debt, cash...
The "no debts" is a terrible bluff that is being called. Scotland will want to be seen as a fiscally responsible nation, and that means its share of debt.
The "no debts" is a terrible bluff that is being called. Scotland will want to be seen as a fiscally responsible nation, and that means its share of debt.
I agree it's not as extreme as some other examples, but when Scotland has it's own national heritage and a lot believe we would be better off to govern ourselves instead of being governed by Westminster, the question should rightfully be asked.
It's more than an experiment, or based on merely pride. A lot of indications shows that we'd be in a position to benefit from managing our own resources and getting the maximum out of them as opposed to being forced to give them to Westminster who can squander them at their own will. A plan to set up our own oil fund and benefit from all of our own resources is much more than an 'experiment', it's a way in which we can benefit from governing ourselves with as little outside interference as possible. We may not be suffering from violence, but I'd say that having a government you voted for governing you is a form of oppression to an extent. People in Scotland do not want a Conservative government, yet they're forced to accept one. Yes, we have devolution which is fantastic, but it's limited and means we can't get rid of nuclear weapons which we don't want, and we've been subjected to the bedroom tax which people here do not agree with. Not to mention that Westminster controls our own budget, and there's a chance that if more cuts follow after a no vote, then our funding could be cut substantially. That could lead to the loss of devolved features we have at the moment and would hope to retain after independence such as no tuition fees, free bus passes for elderly, or or others things we've introduced and could afford after independence.
Just because we're not all being killed doesn't mean we have no right to independence if we wish to vote for it. We clearly have a lot of national identity, much more so than any other region of the UK, and due to that if we feel we have the ability to run a country actually governed by people we vote for then we've got the right to make that choice. If Westminster disagreed, they could refuse the referendum. We're not all being slaughtered and oppressed, but try telling people forced to go to food banks that they're lucky to already be in such a prosperous nation and I doubt you'll get a particularly welcome response.
I've seen several estimates for moving the sub bases. I'd imagine that Scotland would account for part of the expenses. An optimistic estimate said to dismantle them would be £150m. I'd imagine it's more than that, however that doesn't take into account costs for England building a new base. Still, the most sensible options would be to completely scrap them, although I'd imagine rUK will ignore that due to wanting to make it appear to the Scottish people that they have to account for more costs than they really do. The English don't have to give up on them, yet I'd say that's a fairly good option.
We spend around £150m on them per year though, which we'd benefit from immediately.
I could see this being the last referendum for a long time, certainly for a few generations, but if it failed and another one arose then doesn't that simply reflect the desire of many Scots for independence?
On the investment part, why would a lot of people be particularly concerned about our position in the UK? I'd say the currency issue is the main barrier, but barring that, why would someone look at us and say, "Nah, they're not in the UK, so we're not going to invest/deal with them."?
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. You think the Scots have more of an indepent identity than the republican majority in Northern Ireland, or the Welsh? Wales has its own language! Scots Gaelic is only spoken by about eight people in the Outer Hebrides.
If the rUK move the nuke base that will take more money from the Scottish economy than you would gain but it’s your choice. Building a new sub base would cost billions. I honestly think that since it would be Scotland’s choice to change, that cost and in fact all the extra costs to the rUK of independence, should be met by Scotland in full.
If you vote to stay in the UK that should be final, if we are going to keep revisiting this over and over again, which I think is inevitable, I'd sooner you vote to leave to be honest. I'm tired of hearing about what Scotland wants or doesn't want, you have a population the size of Yorkshire, I don't see why your future deserves more debate or thought than people who live there like I do. All the time we spend talking about it in our body politic is time others don't get to air their agendas.
Re the not voting Tory but getting an imposed Tory govt point. That is how democracy works. Yorkshire has never voted Tory either nor England for Labour I believe.
On the why people should be concerned. Your biggest market becomes a foreign country with no reason to care about how changes or policies affect you. You get a different currency and exchange risks. Your businesses are moved outside its biggest market. What advantage would there be in placing a company in Aberdeen rather than Newcastle which would offset those risks?
Why would we meet it in full?
We don't want nuclear weapons in our country if we vote for independence. England have a perfectly sensible option to scrap these awful weapons of mass destruction. They should take that option. We'd surely help them out with the costs if they were determined to relocate these weapons instead of being so nice to pap them on our coastline, but if they're silly enough to want to relocate these weapons then we should not take the bulk of the cost.If we're revisiting it over and over it shows a desire from a number of people in Scotland to become independent. People may not want to vote for it in 2014, but if they want to vote for it in 30 years then why should they not be given that opportunity?
Yorkshire is not a country. It may have some minor form of national identity, but it doesn't have it's own national football team. It doesn't have it's own national rugby and cricket team. It doesn't have it's own devolved system of government. It doesn't have it's own national flag which it regularly uses and it's own unofficial national anthem. We do. We have a large sense of national identity, but people here do not want Conservative governments. That's not democracy to us. You can say what you want about us being part of the UK, but when you look at our country, we do not want Conservative governments, and that is a pretty damn good reason to vote for independence. I don't see why we should take governments we don't elect and just think, "it's cool, we're part of the UK so we're getting a government we don't want a doesn't represent our own interests". Surely it makes much more sense for us to be ruled to a government which has only the interests of the Scottish people at heart? Instead of being ruled largely by one where the opinion of the Scottish people only accounts for roughly 10% of their overall population. I don't see why we should just take this lying down just because we're part of the UK already.
The two countries have significant cultural differences too. Very few Scottish people associate with this British image often perpetrated in London. For example, while some Brits were mourning over the death of Thatcher, Scots were partying on streets because she is absolutely despised up here. That's not to say parts of England don't hate her too: a lot of the northern working class areas do too, but they belong to England as a country. If you ask someone from Liverpool or Newcastle, what country they come from, they'll say England. Ask a Scot where they come from, and 99% will say Scotland. They won't say Britain. They see themselves as being from Scotland, not from the UK, and that's where this increased sense of national identity comes in. I don't see why we should just accept Conservative governments because we have a chance to change this because that's democracy. When we see ourselves largely as a different country, it's not democracy to us.
Really enjoyed reading your views here folks.
I'm on other forums (tend to just visit here) and unfortunately they have a no 'politics' or 'religion' rule which is a shame.
I'm on other forums (tend to just visit here) and unfortunately they have a no 'politics' or 'religion' rule which is a shame.
From an identity point of view I totally agree although 99% may may be pushing it a bit.
That said it's a common misunderstanding amongst Scots that English people think of themselves as 'British'. Many consider themsleves to be English and no more.
I'll agree on that, although a large part of the English/British image link into each other. That's not to say everyone in England is a patriotic Brit who sings the national anthem daily - just that there's a much bigger sense of British nationalism south of the border than there is north of it, where there's very little. A lot of Scottish people simply have different outlooks and political views/ideas, and it varies massively in comparison to England. Although I take your point on the British nationalism in England which I exaggerated.
You should meet the cost in full because otherwise, on the one hand you don't want the rest of the UK to have a say in the decision but on the other you want the rest of the UK to bear most of the cost of the change. That is pretty obviously an untenable argument.
The six million people in Yorkshire are less important than the six million in Scotland because they don't have a national football team/ rugby team?
It’s OK for Scotland to impose a Labour govt on England but when it happens the other way it is somehow deeply wrong.
And the rUK should continue to spend money north of the border on national strategic infrastructure projects if Scotland decides to stay for a while but should then have to build them all over again if in the future you decide to leave.
Cake and eat really isn’t it?
The six million people in Yorkshire are less important than the six million in Scotland because they don't have a national football team/ rugby team?
It’s OK for Scotland to impose a Labour govt on England but when it happens the other way it is somehow deeply wrong.
And the rUK should continue to spend money north of the border on national strategic infrastructure projects if Scotland decides to stay for a while but should then have to build them all over again if in the future you decide to leave.
Cake and eat really isn’t it?
That's fair enough.
I'm one of those that not only sits on the fence but sees the best and worst from both sides.
I'm in my mid 40s, born and raised in the North West of England. I've lived in Wales, have Irish roots and family (you think we have troubles) and for the last 20 years lived in Scotland. My wife is Scottish and I have 4 kids who are all Scottish.
Whilst I'd never be one of those people who wave Union Jacks or glue themselves to the TV for a royal wedding, I guess I'm somebody that really does consider themselves proud to be 'British' rather Scottish or English.
No, the cost should ideally be largely split, as it would come into the negotiations afterwards. If the English want to relocate awful weapons of mass destruction, then that's their choice. Again, ideally the weapons would be scrapped entirely, therefore getting rid of them would not have to include any cost of relocation.
Where did I say people in Yorkshire were less important? You're missing the point here. The people in Yorkshire belong to the country of England. So do Scotland to an extent, but Scotland is largely seen as a country by many, and we have a much stronger sense of national identity than the people of Yorkshire. The argument of Scotland having it's own international football, rugby and cricket team merely enhances that we're obviously much more than a region of the UK like Yorkshire; we're a country who are currently part of a much larger state. If Yorkshire want to go for independence, they can feel free. They are not a country though. They do not have their own devolved system of government. We do. We're clearly much more of a country than Yorkshire are.
How the feck do we impose Labour governments on England?
The whole point is that our opinion is largely irrelevant in England compared to the English themselves. We may tip Labour over the edge, but we don't 'impose' a Labour government upon them. To impose something you have to have the most influence. It's fecking impossible for us to do so in this case. In the 2010 general election in Scotland, the Conservatives won 1 out of 59 seats and gained 16.7% of votes. 1 seat. That's less than 2%. If Labour won 16.7% of votes in England, or less than 2% of seats, then the entirety of Scotland could vote for Labour and it wouldn't make a difference to the end result. We're clearly minimised by being a small portion of the electorate, and we have a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition imposed on us. The idea that we impose a Labour government upon Britain is nonsensical. The whole point is that we have little power in the UK despite a high sense of national identity. Us trying to impose anything on Westminster would be like Anders Lindegaard walking into training on Monday and deciding that he wants the captaincy and wants to impose his own views and regime upon Manchester United.No, the cost should ideally be largely split, as it would come into the negotiations afterwards. If the English want to relocate awful weapons of mass destruction, then that's their choice. Again, ideally the weapons would be scrapped entirely, therefore getting rid of them would not have to include any cost of relocation.
Where did I say people in Yorkshire were less important? You're missing the point here. The people in Yorkshire belong to the country of England. So do Scotland to an extent, but Scotland is largely seen as a country by many, and we have a much stronger sense of national identity than the people of Yorkshire. The argument of Scotland having it's own international football, rugby and cricket team merely enhances that we're obviously much more than a region of the UK like Yorkshire; we're a country who are currently part of a much larger state. If Yorkshire want to go for independence, they can feel free. They are not a country though. They do not have their own devolved system of government. We do. We're clearly much more of a country than Yorkshire are.
How the feck do we impose Labour governments on England?
1
So after you decide and you made it very clear we shouldn't have a say in it, that there is going to be a cost for independence then you will come and ask us to foot the bill. How very democratic of you.
2
In every post explicit and implied and in every way that counts. More important because when you vote and you don't get the govt you want then that is somehow a big issue whereas when Yorkshire does exactly the same... More important because you get to impose cost on them without giving them any say. More important because you want to pick and choose as often as you want whether to stay or go.etc
Please note that
A. Scotland voted to stay in the union once already, where do you get off saying the govt of the UK is imposed on you when you voted to be part of the UK.
B. The Scottish Tories were not always as rare as rocking horse shite like they are now. It isn't rUK fault that you vote nationalist instead now.
3
You have seats at Westminster which give Labour the majority against a majority of conservative seats in England. I don't think you impose Labour on England, I just used your logic to make your point back to you, and its ridiculous isn't it?
Lastly
You haven't answered the point about national infrastructure projects. So I'll ask you again. Do you think it would be fair for the rUK to rule out all such spending as long as Scotland refuses to rule out leaving the rUK?
Last edited:
The UK is still one of the biggest hitters in international politics. If the Scots leave they move straight from pot 1 to pot 4, or lower. They might find they need to go the ROI route and join the Euro, which means giving up much of the independence they would have just gained.
What annoys me is the the SNP's method.
Given how close we are I'm amazed at how little they have to convince me.
Salmond will ramp up the anti English thing which makes sense. As I said earlier it will come down to people voting with their hearts rather than their heads. Can't blame him for going down the patriotic route as he wants to win but it just comes over as childish Braveheart guff at the moment.
Given how close we are I'm amazed at how little they have to convince me.
Salmond will ramp up the anti English thing which makes sense. As I said earlier it will come down to people voting with their hearts rather than their heads. Can't blame him for going down the patriotic route as he wants to win but it just comes over as childish Braveheart guff at the moment.
Voting with your head is overrated I say.
It seems that many Scots fancy themselves as being an independent oil funded liberal progressive state like Norway. The paradox that they face is that realistically they can either join the Euro = not independent; or stay in the Sterling = not independent. Salmond wanted 'Devo Max' on the ballot paper in the first place but Cameron refused, now it seems that he is trying to enact 'Devo Max' by the back door as no doubt he knew all along that true independence is simply pie in the sky.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26215963
it seems the eu are not throwing their arms open to embrase the jocks either
wonder how salmond will spin this one
it seems the eu are not throwing their arms open to embrase the jocks either
wonder how salmond will spin this one
Heard that ,he seemed quite adamant that it would be difficult for them to join the euro.And with lib dems,tories and labour saying a vote for independence will mean walking away from the pound,it's looking bleak for Salmond.
You are a beautiful strong Scotland who don't need no man. I say if you're going to do it do it right. Sever all ties with the outside world and put up the tartan curtain. What is the worst that could happen?
@ Tartan Curtain.Ive already started packing Scotlands stuff into some binbags. First in Rod bloody Stewart.
It seems that anybody who publicly has issues with Salmond's plans is either labelled as ill informed or a bully.
bah, you're such an ill informed bully.
I just want them to be happy.
Seems to be unravelling now the realities are starting to bite.
Salmond seems to be putting his hands over his ears and shouting "la, la, la, I can't hear you!"
Salmond seems to be putting his hands over his ears and shouting "la, la, la, I can't hear you!"
If Scotland is independent then they will have to build a navy, army and coast guard, also they will have ambassadors in other countries which will add up the expenses and then the people will realize that Independence cost money -more taxes. I don't believe Spain will let Scotland join the EU because the big issues they have with Catalunya, Galicia, Basques, etc.
I am frantically refreshing Guardian jobs, hoping that the opportunity for Chief Customs Officer at Passport Control comes up, based near Hadrian's Wall.
That'll teach 'em.
That'll teach 'em.
Don't let 'em through, Al.
One way or another we may have a foreign manager soonish.
Astonishing now that 200 or so days away and the position of the main proponents of independence seems to be the guessed assumption that senior treasury civil servants, the chancellor, the shadow chancellor and the president of the European Commission are "bluffing". A truly remarkable, almost comic, state of affairs. Those inside the SNP for whom this vote represents the very heartbeat of their political ethos, must be privately cursing the Salmond and the SNP leadership for making such a dogs dinner out of this. They have literally had their whole political lives to prepare for this moment and yet with the vote itself just months away they've no secure idea of what currency they'll use or the status of their membership of the EU.
It's a complete mess and is descending quickly into farce. It's why they've been playng the 'English bully' card so often recently because it's almost literally the last one they have left.
It's a complete mess and is descending quickly into farce. It's why they've been playng the 'English bully' card so often recently because it's almost literally the last one they have left.
I suspect they are relying on nationalism from the commonwealth games (be interesting to see if any English people get boo'd)
and sending all voters a copy of Bravehart
Has there been any polls on what % of the whole UK wants Scottish independence (I suspect it might be higher than just a poll of the Scottish)
Booing won't a problem. People who attend these things in Britain seem to be uber-happy *******s who'd give Gary Glitter a standing ovation if he pitched up to take part in the javelin.
It's clear there'd been a rush to get the vote before everything was finalised. On the issue of the EU membership Salmond never had anything more concrete than 'I've been told' and infamously referred to legal counsel that in the end turned out not to exist; on the currency all he's ever had is presumption of cooperation from Westminster. A sensible plan would be to ensure these things were locked down before you even went to the country. Yes it could take years and years to do but that what is to be expected. Instead it looks as if the referendum is being rushed for the purposes of Salmond being the one to lay claim to the fact that he introduced it.