Scottish Independence Referendum 18 Sept 2014

[RandBlade]

The Scottish Government has set out its prospectus today on independence, a 670 page book: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25088251

The date of the referendum is 18 September 2014 so less than 10 months to go and if it goes Yes then Scotland is expected to be an independent country on 24 March 2016.

Personally I hope the vote is Yes, I think that will be the best thing for both England and Scotland but I fully expect it to be a No. I'd be very surprised if its a Yes.

[GGT]

Okay, I'll bite.

What does a "safe, triple-locked pension system" mean?

I'll also admit that

Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament

is Greek to me. It makes me wonder how an independent Scotland could have a military, or national security, without still relying on the UK?

[Loki]

The more amusing part is that Scotland wants to remove those nuclear weapons while joining NATO. Good luck with that. It also wants a currency union with Britain. If I were Britain, I'd tell the Scots to go on their merry way and create their own currency and don't expect any favors when it comes to NATO and EU membership.

[RandBlade]

Pensions: Its basically the same policy the Tory party had at the last election so they're just adopting an existing English position. It means that each the state pension will rise annually by the higher of: Inflation, Earnings or 2.5%. So they can basically only gain and not lose.

Trident: Is the name of our nuclear submarines, the UK being a nuclear power these are currently based at Faslane naval base in Scotland. An independent Scotland intends to be a non-nuclear nation like most of Europe and so the submarines will have to move elsewhere which is incredibly awkward as the infrastructure to house nuclear submarines like that is not simple and doesn't exist elsewhere in the UK. An independent Scotland would be part of NATO though which means that basically it'll rely still on the US and UK to provide its defence, like most of the rest of Europe. The irony is today they've announced that once Trident is expelled from Faslane as a member of NATO the UK like the USA would be able to dock, repair etc the Trident subs at Faslane under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy of not knowing if there's nuclear missiles on board. Absurd.

EDIT: Yes the currency bit is the most ridiculous bit of all. They're talking about a "Sterling Area" or "Sterling Zone" like the Eurozone. No, Sterling is not a currency zone if they want a currency zone they should use the Euro. We should just tell them to "bring on the trumpets" and take a running jump.

[Loki]

Another amusing tidbit: Galloway is campaigning in Scotland for a No vote, while a bunch of Scottish Labourites are secretly (some less than secretly) supporting the Yes vote.

[RandBlade]

Labour is the one most desperate for a No vote, especially English Labour. A yes vote would be utterly disastrous for Labour.

[Loki]

It would be disastrous for English Labour, not necessarily for Scottish Labour.

[wiggin]

RB - I'm curious, why do you think a yes vote would be good for either country?

I get the political implications of a split, but politics aside I really don't see significant advantages accruing to either country from a split. I'm curious which ones you find compelling.

[Loki]

Probably the part about Labour becoming extinct.

[earthJoker]

Pensions: Its basically the same policy the Tory party had at the last election so they're just adopting an existing English position. It means that each the state pension will rise annually by the higher of: Inflation, Earnings or 2.5%. So they can basically only gain and not lose.

Trident: Is the name of our nuclear submarines, the UK being a nuclear power these are currently based at Faslane naval base in Scotland. An independent Scotland intends to be a non-nuclear nation like most of Europe and so the submarines will have to move elsewhere which is incredibly awkward as the infrastructure to house nuclear submarines like that is not simple and doesn't exist elsewhere in the UK. An independent Scotland would be part of NATO though which means that basically it'll rely still on the US and UK to provide its defence, like most of the rest of Europe. The irony is today they've announced that once Trident is expelled from Faslane as a member of NATO the UK like the USA would be able to dock, repair etc the Trident subs at Faslane under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy of not knowing if there's nuclear missiles on board. Absurd.

EDIT: Yes the currency bit is the most ridiculous bit of all. They're talking about a "Sterling Area" or "Sterling Zone" like the Eurozone. No, Sterling is not a currency zone if they want a currency zone they should use the Euro. We should just tell them to "bring on the trumpets" and take a running jump.

Well it is not that absurd, I mean Liechtenstein pretty much is in the very same situation. Except the dock and repair part. Of course Scotland is "slightly" bigger than Liechtenstein.

[GGT]

RB - I'm curious, why do you think a yes vote would be good for either country?

I get the political implications of a split, but politics aside I really don't see significant advantages accruing to either country from a split. I'm curious which ones you find compelling.

While you're at it, can you explain why Scotland wants to pursue independence from the UK in the first place?

It's 2am here and I'm violating Rule 12, but the movie version (Braveheart Freeeedom!) is playing in my head.

I'm also wondering what would become of the United Kingdom if every member wants to de-couple and become their own sovereign nation? It's not really comparable to the dissemination of the USSR into smaller nation states. And it's not really the same as some fringe groups proposing a 51st US state, or seceding from the Union.

So what does this proposal boil down to? What is its essence?

[Timbuk2]

Not overly good for Scotland, not a huge difference for the remaining UK, North Sea oil notwithstanding.

Salmond and Sturgeon (insert fishy jokes here) have not presented a compelling case. Both are rather short-sighted people. The 670 page manifesto was a damp squib and contained very little in the way of actual substance.

My other half and her family are from Argyll. Her folks were life-long secondary-school teachers there, her father more recently a community leader involved in local politics who has met both Tony Blair and Alex Salmond. Her grandfather was a Tory MP for Ayrshire, and was awarded an OBE in the 80s. Over many a dinner conversation we've discussed politics, and more recently the shortsightedness of Scottish independence. Like most of the Scots I've known over the years, they're British first, Scots second.

And allowing 16 year olds to vote, but only in this referendum? What kind of fool does that sort of thing.

The vote will be a No. All polls to date (except for one that I'm aware of) have had the No vote ahead by about 10%.

~

Besides, and most importantly of all, the Union flag sans the Saltire looks fucking terrible.

[Timbuk2]

The Independent sums it up from my point of view ...

It was billed as the Scottish government’s long-awaited authoritative blueprint for independence. Brave Heart and tartan-wrapped aspirations would be minimised in favour of hard-edged economics and unchallengeable number-crunching. The undecided, still key to next year’s referendum outcome, would be won over by “the greatest document of its kind ever published by a prospective nation.”

But on a damp Glasgow morning, inside a spartan steel building resembling a cardboard box factory, Alex Salmond presented a wish-list and a tame marketing manifesto. The birth-of-a-nation moment or a new Bannockburn it wasn’t.

A rainbow was faintly visible over Govan and the River Clyde when the First Minister said the 670-page document he held in his hand showed “what we could be” if next year’s referendum was won.

But the weighty tome, on examination, was like a reverse of Dr Who’s Tardis – big on the outside, but with little of substance inside.

Nevertheless, Mr Salmond warned that Scotland would “stand still” if it remained part of the United Kingdom, and forecast his new state would create “a revolution in employment and social policy” and deliver an economy with Scotland rather than Westminster at its centre.

Without deviance, hesitation, though with much repetition, he offered serial assurances that Scotland would become part of a new Sterling Zone with Westminster’s full backing, and would enjoy guaranteed “continuing” membership of the EU.

The White Paper was headlined “Scotland’s Future” and claimed to “comprehensively” answer a list of 650 key questions on independence. After an hour of direct interrogation by international and domestic journalists, the document’s merits felt thinner and thinner.

Although unable to go beyond aspiration and assumption, Mr Salmond and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, both claimed an independent Scotland would be unquestioningly welcomed and given what it wanted by a range of institutions including Westminster, the Bank of England, the EU and Nato.

Regardless of the fact-limited White Paper, Mr Salmond remained confident that Scotland after the referendum next September would regain “its place as an equal member of the family of nations".

He urged Scotland's four million voters to seize a "once-in-a-generation" chance to create a fairer, more prosperous country by voting to leave the UK and taking control of their own destiny.

He promised to cut corporation tax - initially by three per cent, to honour current pensions with a triple-lock, extend free childcare and to increase the minimum wage.

The childcare changes would mean 30 hours per week in school term times for all three- and four-year-olds.

Although seeking a divorce, he sounded like someone still wanting live-in and visitation rights for the kids. Scotland and the remainder of the UK would, he said, still have close economic ties with each other, and both would still be using the same pound. Buckingham Palace, though in the centre of London, would still be home to Scotland’s head of state.

A free Scotland would take 90 per cent of North Sea oil revenue; within the first term of a fully independent Holyrood, Trident nuclear weapons would vanish from Scottish territory; the assets and staff of the BBC would to a new state broadcaster, the Scottish Broadcasting Service.

The scale of Scotland’s share of the current UK national debt was straightforward. The document simply stated this “will be negotiated and agreed” within 18 months before Scotland becomes officially independent in March 2016.

Without any obligation to adopt UK tax policies, the document nevertheless listed the Westminster pain it would dump.

The bedroom tax "rejected at the ballot box in Scotland" would go. The Royal Mail would be renationalised. The minimum wage would rise; air passenger duty would be reduced. And in advance of independence day, the UK government would be asked, nicely, to immediately cancel the rollout of universal credit in Scotland.

On defence, the new independent state would create a Scottish military force of 15,000 regulars, with a security and intelligence agency directed to work closely with Police Scotland.

Scotland’s diplomatic representation overseas would see the creation of 70 to 90 embassies estimated to cost £120m to run.

In his preface to Scotland’s Future, the First Minister said: "It will no longer be possible for governments to be elected and pursue policies against the wishes of the Scottish people. Independence will put the people of Scotland in charge of our destiny."

He added "If we vote no, Scotland stands still. A once-in-a-generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.”

The response to the "promised land" document was predictable. The Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, said what had been offered fell short of its billing and said huge questions remained.

Mr Carmichael said it was "highly unlikely" the Scottish government's plan to keep the pound and retain the services of the Bank of England as part of a "currency union" with the rest of the UK would work.

The former chancellor, Alistair Darling, in charge of pro-union "Better Together” campaign, said the White Paper had “ducked” answering the big questions

He said the promise it contained rendered it a “non-starter“, adding: “How can they guarantee the pound? And what’s plan B if they can’t get that?”

Attacking the White Paper’s scattered assumptions and assertions, Mr Darling said: “We waited months for this. And it has failed to give credible answers on fundamentally important questions.”

He branded it “a fantasy" and a “work of fiction”, insisting that Scotland could not leave the UK and simultaneously keep all the benefits of UK membership.

[RandBlade]

RB - I'm curious, why do you think a yes vote would be good for either country?

I get the political implications of a split, but politics aside I really don't see significant advantages accruing to either country from a split. I'm curious which ones you find compelling.

Politics and economics. The two nations have grown apart too much in my opinion. Scotland wants a very left-wing, socialist nation state and votes accordingly. High spending and high welfare. Their private sector is weak and public sector dominates. The UK spends nearly 25% more per head on Scots than it does on the English. Now to be fair to the Scots despite that they're not a net drain on the Treasury by themselves because the taxes on the oil money covers that for them. But those policies are then imposed on England, Wales and Northern Ireland and there isn't enough oil revenues to cover what the Scots want for everyone.

By splitting up the Scots can elect the 'socialist paradise' they crave and for the next few years can afford it until the oil money dries up. The rest of the UK can elect a saner government that we can afford.

The other non-economic, non-political reason is similar to why I think its good for teenagers/young adults to leave the nest and not live forever in their parents home. Unlike the USA which has so many states no individual one dominates completely, the UK is dominated by England. It has become far too easy for the Scots to blame everything bad on Westminster rather than take responsibility. It is frankly like a teenager blaming their parents for everything. I think we would have a more grown up and ultimately healthy relationship if they move out and ran their own home, made their own bed and tidied their own rooms.

While you're at it, can you explain why Scotland wants to pursue independence from the UK in the first place?

It's 2am here and I'm violating Rule 12, but the movie version (Braveheart Freeeedom!) is playing in my head.

Couple of reasons. Braveheart Freeedommm!! is kind of one. A romantic view on Scotland. An embittered view on England. A notion that Scotland might be better off if independent (keep the oil in the North Sea). The way politics in the two countries have diverged. Etc

I'm also wondering what would become of the United Kingdom if every member wants to de-couple and become their own sovereign nation? It's not really comparable to the dissemination of the USSR into smaller nation states. And it's not really the same as some fringe groups proposing a 51st US state, or seceding from the Union.

The Irish Free State (later Republic of Ireland) ceded nearly a century ago and the UK survived. The UK consists of 4 nations: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - even if Scotland leaves there is no hint that Wales or Northern Ireland would so the union would survive for now. All 4 home nations have kept their identity and so if the one country was to dissolve eventually into 4 it would be possible.

Not overly good for Scotland, not a huge difference for the remaining UK, North Sea oil notwithstanding.

Salmond and Sturgeon (insert fishy jokes here) have not presented a compelling case. Both are rather short-sighted people. The 670 page manifesto was a damp squib and contained very little in the way of actual substance.

Agreed it was very disappointing.

My other half and her family are from Argyll. Her folks were life-long secondary-school teachers there, her father more recently a community leader involved in local politics who has met both Tony Blair and Alex Salmond. Her grandfather was a Tory MP for Ayrshire, and was awarded an OBE in the 80s. Over many a dinner conversation we've discussed politics, and more recently the shortsightedness of Scottish independence. Like most of the Scots I've known over the years, they're British first, Scots second.

My father-in-law is like many Scots I've known over the years very much Scottish first, threaten to stab you if you say England second

And allowing 16 year olds to vote, but only in this referendum? What kind of fool does that sort of thing.

Salmond clutching at straws

Besides, and most importantly of all, the Union flag sans the Saltire looks fucking terrible.

Actually the Union Flag would not be changed if Scotland leaves, that's already been confirmed. The Union flag pre-dates the Act of Union which merged our nations, it dates back to 1606 when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England uniting the crowns. It is originally a royal flag he'd created nearly a hundred years before the Act of Union and the Queen will still be Queen of both in the act of them leaving. Besides its a common misconception that the diagonal cross represents Wales, it doesn't it represents Ireland and despite the bulk of Ireland leaving nearly a hundred years ago the diagonal cross was kept on our flag. Nothing on the flag represents Wales.

Given that the Union Jack is in the corner of many other now-independent nations flags (eg Australia, New Zealand etc) unless the UK dissolves completely I see no reason why it would be changed nowadays. It is historical now more than anything else.

[RandBlade]

It would be disastrous for English Labour, not necessarily for Scottish Labour.

Depends. In the Scottish Parliament Labour are very much now the second party (just 37/129) whereas in Westminster Scottish Labour is completely and overwhelmingly dominant (41/59). The best career path for the most ambitious Scottish Labour people is to join Westminster and aim for power over the UK as a whole. The career path for the most ambitious SNP people is the Scottish Parliament.

Independence will kill off the dominant Scottish Westminster path completely and would be a major boon for the SNP reinforcing them as the primary party of Scotland.

For the key leaders of Scottish Labour independence would be a disaster. In less than 20 years Labour will have gone from completely dominating Scottish politics taking over three quarters of seats since 1997 down to being the second party.

[Flixy]

Trident: Is the name of our nuclear submarines, the UK being a nuclear power these are currently based at Faslane naval base in Scotland. An independent Scotland intends to be a non-nuclear nation like most of Europe and so the submarines will have to move elsewhere which is incredibly awkward as the infrastructure to house nuclear submarines like that is not simple and doesn't exist elsewhere in the UK. An independent Scotland would be part of NATO though which means that basically it'll rely still on the US and UK to provide its defence, like most of the rest of Europe. The irony is today they've announced that once Trident is expelled from Faslane as a member of NATO the UK like the USA would be able to dock, repair etc the Trident subs at Faslane under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy of not knowing if there's nuclear missiles on board. Absurd.

Moving a submarine base sounds like it would take quite some time, considering the infrastructure as you mentioned. Wouldn't it be easier to simply allow the UK a naval base in Scotland in that case? I mean, the US has bases all over the world. Speaking of the military, wouldn't this also break up a lot of units in the military if a part is suddenly member of a different country?

[wiggin]

Moving a submarine base sounds like it would take quite some time, considering the infrastructure as you mentioned. Wouldn't it be easier to simply allow the UK a naval base in Scotland in that case? I mean, the US has bases all over the world. Speaking of the military, wouldn't this also break up a lot of units in the military if a part is suddenly member of a different country?

Generally the US doesn't base its entire second strike nuclear deterrent in a foreign country.

[Loki]

Depends. In the Scottish Parliament Labour are very much now the second party (just 37/129) whereas in Westminster Scottish Labour is completely and overwhelmingly dominant (41/59). The best career path for the most ambitious Scottish Labour people is to join Westminster and aim for power over the UK as a whole. The career path for the most ambitious SNP people is the Scottish Parliament.

Independence will kill off the dominant Scottish Westminster path completely and would be a major boon for the SNP reinforcing them as the primary party of Scotland.

For the key leaders of Scottish Labour independence would be a disaster. In less than 20 years Labour will have gone from completely dominating Scottish politics taking over three quarters of seats since 1997 down to being the second party.

For the top Scottish leaders, sure, Westminster was always an option. But for most Scottish Labourites, the choice is between a role in a devolved Scottish Parliament or a role in an independent Scotland. Where do you think there's more prestige and more opportunity to make a difference?

[Hazir]

Isn't that whole referendum a bit of a joke anyway? The things I've seen so far sort of makes me think it would be a lot easier if they'd simply ask the English to leave the UK, because it seems they want to keep everything UK otherwise.

[RandBlade]

Interesting claim I've just read - if Scotland were to leave then by 2030 the rest of the UK population will be the same as it is today for the whole UK with Scotland. It would take just a few years to recover the missing population.

[earthJoker]

And the they would have an accent as strong, just different.

[Dreadnaught]

As much as I would love to see a Socialist Scottland fall apart and crumble even more than it has, this really does seem a like a miserable "compromise" that will weaken England and Scottland.

Is anyone seriously entertaining this "Sterling Zone" crap? Do the Scottish just want to make their suckling from the teat of the Bank of England into an almost-literal phenomena?

[RandBlade]

Only the Scots it seems. The Sterling Zone notion is being derided by everyone except the SNP. If the UK wanted to be in a currency zone we'd have joined the eurozone years ago. We don't, we want our own currency and have it. If the Scots leave they're welcome to, they need to realise they'll be using our currency though not a shared one.

[Dreadnaught]

Instruct all English banks not to convert with Scottish banks for an experiment in massive deflation

[Hazir]

Only the Scots it seems. The Sterling Zone notion is being derided by everyone except the SNP. If the UK wanted to be in a currency zone we'd have joined the eurozone years ago. We don't, we want our own currency and have it. If the Scots leave they're welcome to, they need to realise they'll be using our currency though not a shared one.

Not being in the eurozone is a bit different than not being in a sterlingzone where the Scots appearantly are willing to cede their monetary sovereignty. Then again; I think that the Scots if they want to be rid of the constitutional arrangement with the other parts of the UK they shouldn't try to do so by forcing partial continuation on the other parts of the union.

If and when the remaining UK wants to make any preferential treatment deals with an independent Scotland they have every right to let their interests weigh every bit as heavy as the Scots do their own. But the present Scottish government seems to have this strange idea that once Scotland is independent it also is free to demand what it wants from both UK and EU and get it without anything asked.

As for the currency; why should the EU allow Scotland to stay out of the eurozone once it qualifies for full membership? To my knowledge no new member has been given the right to abrogate the Acquis so far. I think honesty demands that the Scots don't only have a referendum about leaving the UK but also about becoming part of the EU as a country not having the opt-out of the eurozone that the UK has gotten.

Oh, and no matter how funny i think a break up of the UK would be, I am of the opinion the Scots would do well to vote against it.

[Loki]

The Scots seem to think that anyone who dares to exact a cost for their decisions is somehow being a bully. They're going to be in for one heck of a shock once they start dealing with the rest of the world, the EU included.

[RandBlade]

Not being in the eurozone is a bit different than not being in a sterlingzone where the Scots appearantly are willing to cede their monetary sovereignty. Then again; I think that the Scots if they want to be rid of the constitutional arrangement with the other parts of the UK they shouldn't try to do so by forcing partial continuation on the other parts of the union.

If and when the remaining UK wants to make any preferential treatment deals with an independent Scotland they have every right to let their interests weigh every bit as heavy as the Scots do their own. But the present Scottish government seems to have this strange idea that once Scotland is independent it also is free to demand what it wants from both UK and EU and get it without anything asked.

As for the currency; why should the EU allow Scotland to stay out of the eurozone once it qualifies for full membership? To my knowledge no new member has been given the right to abrogate the Acquis so far. I think honesty demands that the Scots don't only have a referendum about leaving the UK but also about becoming part of the EU as a country not having the opt-out of the eurozone that the UK has gotten.

Oh, and no matter how funny i think a break up of the UK would be, I am of the opinion the Scots would do well to vote against it.

Regarding your italicised bit, the eurozone is an international agreement to share currency while ceding sovereignty. Sterling is not and never has been. If the Scots want to cede sovereignty they're more than welcome to - by staying in the political union they're already a part of. Or by joining the eurozone if the euro-members will take them, which they probably wouldn't. The Scots seem to want to have their cake and eat it too though, Sterling is not a "zone" it is the currency of the UK and the UK alone. Leave the UK, leave Sterling. Or adopt it but as using someone else's currency. Its like Texas wanting to leave the USA but demanding a "dollarzone" where they partially control the Federal Reserve.

But its also leave the UK and leave the EU. Quite frankly as Barosso said today its hard to believe Scotland will be able to get into the EU at all - let alone Euro or not. Not until the Catalan question is resolved, Madrid would have every right to veto Scottish membership for Spain's own selfish reasons.

[Loki]

Maybe Scotland can join the Eurasian Union.

[RandBlade]

The way the Scots are acting, if anyone suggested they didn't have an inate right to join the USA they'd be bullies.

[Loki]

Can you trade them for Ukraine?