I read the Scotsman on line every day. They have an article saying Scotland is pushing toward independence. Is that really happening? How long would it take? How do most of the people feel about doing it?
The article said that 2 votes would be needed. Why is that?
Any votes? I’ll vote for it. If the OP commits, we will make it happen!
What I read was that although the nationalist party won the recent elections in Scotland, support for actual independence is low, I think around 30%. The leader of the newly elected party wants to have a referendum on independence in three years. In the meantime they will work on more minor ways of increasing Scottish autonomy.
The first vote would be on the general idea of Scottish independence. The Scottish Executive would take that as authorization to begin negotiating with Westminster on the terms of separation. The second vote would be to approve the terms of the separation.
The first minister of Scotland does not think a second vote would be necessary. I think maybe he’s going to go with the Jacques Parizeau model of attempted separation (ask a facially vague question in a referendum, and take even the slimmest margin in favor as an irreversible declaration of independence).
It’s not happening yet. The story is, last month they held the general election for Scotland’s parliament, and the Scottish National Party, which supports independence, won a solid majority of seats. This is a significant achievement because there are five parties (that have any representation), and because the Scottish parliament is elected through a partial proportional representation system (in a nutshell, districts are grouped into larger regions that have their own MPs based on vote totals); this is the first time since the Scottish parliament was created that it has had a majority government.
However, the Scottish National Party didn’t actually get an absolute majority of all votes cast – they got about 45%. Also, they are far from a single-issue party, so you can’t really say that everyone who voted for them supports full independence, nor can you say that everyone who voted for another party is against independence. So, the election doesn’t necessarily mean that Scotland is pushing for independence. But it does mean that the process for that to happen has opened up, because the SNP’s platform included a promise to hold a referendum on independence, and they will follow through. At the moment it’s still just talk, they haven’t ironed it out yet.
The thing about two votes isn’t really settled. That was the opinion of the Scottish Secretary of State (I have no idea what that position actually entails), that two separate votes would have to be held – the first to decide whether or not to pursue independence, and the second, if the people do vote for independence, to ratify the specific resulting agreement between Scotland and the rest of the UK. However, others such as Scotland’s First Minister have denied that a second referendum would be necessary.
Pretty obvious, non? He’s the government minister sitting in Westminster with responsibility for Scottish affairs. No doubt a much reduced position since devolution, but still.
I know that he’s the government minister sitting in Westminster with responsibility for Scottish affairs. I just have no idea what affairs he actually has any say in.
He’s responsible for the central government’s relations with the Scottish Government. He also has a responsibility for non-devolved matters in relation to Scotland.
More details here.
Scottish independence is currently far more popular in England than Scotland, which is a problem for Salmond.
Personally I think there is / will be no appetite for full monty independence, break-up of the union amongst the Scottish if push comes to shove. A more measured devolution of powers and governance to Edinburgh is on the cards though - (just IMO).
In the 18 years between 1979 and 1997, Scotland’s voting record in general elections diverged more and more strongly from the rest of the UK. In particular we voted increasingly against the incumbent Conservative government, while England’s support for the Conservatives remained about the same. The figures here show what I mean - out of around 70 MPs in 1979, the Conservatives had 22; this dropped to 10 and then finally to zero. This meant that large numbers of Scots (like myself) felt disenfranchised - the minority of Conservative MPs provided all the Scottish government ministers, who made the laws (albeit only with the large voting bloc of their friends south of the border to force these laws through), which were of course often very unpopular, as we’d voted overwhelmingly against them (e.g. the poll tax) but they were still imposed on us.
(A small vignette to illustrate: towards the end of the Major government in 1995 or so, the few Scottish Conservative ministers were so overworked - all of them holding multiple portfolios - that to lighten the workload they handed one of the portfolios to an MP sitting in an English constituency. So this minister was writing laws that didn’t affect anyone who voted for him, and no one affected by the laws could vote him out of office. Democracy, you say?)
So if this was 1995, I’d say the Scotsman had a point. But the devolution bill in 1999 addressed much of the disenfranchisement problem - Scotland is now, I’d say, much more at ease with its position in the UK, so I don’t think that independence is as imminent as the Scotsman claims. They have to sell papers, I suppose.
Yup, that sounds like Quebec. As a native of that politically beleaguered province, you have my sympathies.
Think what you want, but political parties pushing ideas that have less than 50% approval at first isn’t uncommon. That’s how you manage to eventually reach the majority of the population.
Also 1) this thread has to do with Scotland, not Quebec, 2) Quebec isn’t “politically beleaguered” whatever that means, so 3) start another thread if you want to talk about that.
Sorry, I wouldn’t have said anything if Jaques Parizeau hadn’t already been mentioned in the thread.
And conversely this is why there is support for a separate Scotland in England. During the last Labour government, a number of policies that affected England only, were pushed through with the help of Scottish MP’s. The problem was that since devolution, a number of these policies (such as the introduction of university tuition fees) only applied to England. In fact the tuition fees were passed by a whopping 5 votes.
I think the big problem that theSNP will really face is that of taxation. If Scotland becomes independant, tax revenue is surely going to take a massive hit. They are going to have to give up a lot of the current benifits (free prescriptions, free university tuition), somehow attract a lot of new business and industry or raise taxes.
The argument of No True Sco… oh, never mind.
What if they have the revenue from much of the (remaining) North Sea oil?
Yup, this reminded me of the Quebec question as well. Man, those were scary times in Canada. “Politically beleagured” sure seems like a good description to me, although political dynamite might be as good.
The relevance to Scotland derives from the degree to which the referendum in Quebec complicated and disrupted Canadian politics for ages. Worth avoiding in my opinion. Michael Ignatieff (the guy who isn’t PM in Canada) wrote an interesting book some years ago looking at various countries that included multiple ethnicities, looking at their seams, cracks and divisions. The former Yugoslavia was at one end - it was just falling apart - and Canada was at the other. I don’t recall if Scotland was particularly addressed. I’ll see if I can find my copy.
What would happen in the EU? Would Scotland have to rejoin? Or would it automatically be part of the EU? And if that was the case, what real difference, would it make as can’t EU citizens move around and work in any country they want?
Michael Ignatieff certainly isn’t an impartial observer in any meaningful way. As for the whole idea of countries splitting into separate parts, it may be easier in the context of a supranational entity like the European Union, which (to answer Markxxx) I understand an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership into, but would likely be admitted. Belgium, it should be remembered, is another EU member that might very well split in the next future, especially given that the country is apparently ungovernable in the current framework. (And this could be a contentious separation, much more than Scotland’s, given the uncertain status of Brussels. But I also think it’s more likely than Scottish independence.)
What would separation entail? Would this be complete independence?
Would they raise their own army? Do they back England’s endless nosing into the Middle East? Did they back the Iraq war?
I am wondering if politically, they are aligned with England anyway, or would they differ from England’s’ pushy world politics?
What is the Scottish relationship with Ireland?