# Where does the Scottish Everendum stand? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026 "2014-12-01T12:53:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/141 "2014-12-08T15:26:39Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Exactly, by agreement, and here International Law is largely irrelevant. Scotland will agree to taking a population share of the oil in exchange for assigning Coulport and Faslane as Sovereign Base Territory. Isn’t that what I said? I’m not sure what The Hague has to do with this as the agreement will be between the UK and Scottish governments. Scotland wouldn’t want a costly, time-intensive court case at The Hague whilst all its business flees South to a more stable economy (see Quebec). > > Incidentally, what are Scottish territorial waters? Isn’t that exactly what the negotiations are intended to define? Most of the oil lies on the UKCS, which is split by joint treaty between the UK, Norwegian and Danish governments into zones. Scotland is not a party to this treaty. If Scotland wishes to obtain a share of the oil situated in British waters, then it will naturally be something that will be discussed in any separation agreements and will be something that Scotland will have to make major concessions to obtain. > > I’m not sure why you think that Scotland has an automatic “right” to the possessions of the UK state, such as embassies, parts of the armed forces, and yes, even the currency, but the UK state does not have an automatic right to oil and other resources that are managed and divided by mutual treaty that it, and only it, not Scotland, is a party to. Seems fair enough to me: if you’re taking a population share of the army, and expecting a currency union, then we’ll take a population share of the oil. No? > > In international relations, the will of the bigger party usually goes, especially so when they have a commanding negotiating position like that of rUK. I’m sure any hard-nosed negotiation with the British state over how to split oil and other joint possessions will stand a newly independent Scotland in good stead in any future negotiations with other, potentially more hostile, governments. > > It’s not just the Scottish that can play hardball. At the beginning of the Referendum process I was of the opinion that any break up would be fairly amicable. Neither side would try to punish the other and risk punishing themselves as a result. As time has gone on I have come to the opposite conclusion. That both sides will be out for the best deal, both sides will play tough, and that both sides will not necessarily aim for the greater good. As an example; The SNP’s commitment to a reduction in corporation tax. Im certain if such a cut was seen as a way of attracting rUK businesses then aggressive retaliatory measures will be taken by Westminster. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/142 "2014-12-08T15:26:57Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > What a load of total tosh. > > Some facts: > > The UK has agreed that should Scotland decide to become independent, then it should be so. This was agreed in the Westminster agreement setting up the referendum. The UK agreed to A referendum. You might have missed it, but that’s already happened. Hell, even this from the YES camp: [https://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/if-scotland-votes-no-will-there-be-another-referendum-on-independence-at-a-later-date/](https://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/if-scotland-votes-no-will-there-be-another-referendum-on-independence-at-a-later-date/) > [@](#): > > Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. > > It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/143 "2014-12-08T15:28:52Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > But THE VOW! Haven’t you heard about THE VOW! Gordon Brown promised stuff that he was in no position to promise and it should have been implemented overnight! > > Do keep up. Um…“the vow” was not based on promises made by Gordon Brown, but on assurances given by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband. Brown was kinda trotted out as someone Scots might actually listen to, and I imagine a reasonable number did - how can you not feel sorry for a guy with one eye who supports Dunfermline Athletic? But as a strategy to put the whole issue to bed, statements that amount to “You fools! You actually believed that crap?” are not guaranteed to succeed. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/144 "2014-12-08T15:31:17Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The UK has agreed that should Scotland decide to become independent, then it should be so. This was agreed in the Westminster agreement setting up the referendum. Nobody disputes this, **Pjen**. Scotland of course will be independent after any successful referendum vote and after a period of negotiation between the rUK and the interim Scottish government. > [@](#): > > Once Scotland is a potential independent state, it owns its own lands including the continental shelf under the International Law of the Sea. The rUK could try to bargain with Scotland but could not force it to give up its own land as this would fail at the International Court at the Hague. No, **Pjen** , this is incorrect. For a start, I see no reason why rUK would be compelled to entertain any Scottish action at The Hague. What reason would rUK have to throw away its commanding negotiation position and allow some other party to dictate the terms of separation between Scotland and rUK? The only way rUK would enter into such a court case would be if it allowed itself to be bound by such an action, and doing that would be especially stupid. Second, you keep yammering on about the International Law of the Sea when in fact many of these laws, including UNCLOS which presumably you are referencing, are specifically written with the possibility that they can be overridden if both neighbouring parties choose to agree that they should. In this case, Scotland and rUK will quickly come to some agreement that massively favours the rUK in their bilateral discussions, as the longer negotiation goes on, the longer the list of companies that flee south from Scotland into rUK grows. The SNP’s rhetoric throughout the entire campaign has been that they have a hand full of aces for negotiation purposes, and it appears that you have bought into that rhetoric hook, line and sinker. In reality, you’ll quickly find out what massively disproportionate terms _Perfidious Albion_, with a population ten times larger than yours, a much larger economy, and your largest export market can enforce if it so chooses, especially when many English feel unfairly maligned by divisive SNP rhetoric and announcements, bluff and bluster about undercutting corporation taxes and refusing to take on debts that sound suspiciously like the opening salvo in an economic war. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/145 "2014-12-08T15:31:48Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > Um…“the vow” was not based on promises made by Gordon Brown, but on assurances given by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband. I know. I am lampooning the reactions of so many on the Yes side, who not only think whatever Gordon Brown said is legally binding but also, apparently, is contents of the Daily Record’s front page. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/146 "2014-12-08T15:33:05Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > Brown was kinda trotted out as someone Scots might actually listen to, and I imagine a reasonable number did - how can you not feel sorry for a guy with one eye who supports Dunfermline Athletic? Oooft, Gordon will not be pleased. He’s a Raith man. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/147 "2014-12-08T15:37:28Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Oooft, Gordon will not be pleased. He’s a Raith man. Ouch. Sorry Gordon. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/148 "2014-12-08T15:41:02Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I know. I am lampooning the reactions of so many on the Yes side, who not only think whatever Gordon Brown said is legally binding but also, apparently, is contents of the Daily Record’s front page. That’s what I was getting at: “you fools!”. Nobody thinks it’s “legally binding”, but some folks who took the assurances offered by the “no” campaigners into account when deciding which way to vote might, perhaps, be a bit annoyed when those people stick two fingers up at them a couple of weeks later. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/149 "2014-12-08T15:41:06Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > At the beginning of the Referendum process I was of the opinion that any break up would be fairly amicable. Neither side would try to punish the other and risk punishing themselves as a result. As time has gone on I have come to the opposite conclusion. That both sides will be out for the best deal, both sides will play tough, and that both sides will not necessarily aim for the greater good. As an example; The SNP’s commitment to a reduction in corporation tax. Im certain if such a cut was seen as a way of attracting rUK businesses then aggressive retaliatory measures will be taken by Westminster. It won’t be amicable. The South East has been elevated to the status of Edward Longshanks, Hammer of the Scots, in the minds of many Nationalists. Westminster is to be blamed for everything. Scotland is under-represented at Westminster, apparently, which naturally leads one to ask who is over-represented. SNP rhetoric and their dogwhistle-style announcements are deeply offensive to many in England (“the English cancer”, really?) Several announcements, most noticeably the SNP’s corporation tax plans, apparent refusal to countenance taking on any debts that have paid for hospitals and roads in Scotland and stick the English working man with the bill, and so on, sound suspiciously close to economic warfare by the nascent state against rUK. I have really no idea why Nationalists such as **Pjen** believe any divorce will be amicable, nor why Scotland really has much to negotiate with. If the rUK economy teeters, or the English tax payer feels they have to pay even marginally more tax because of any ongoing divorce, all hell will break loose. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/150 "2014-12-08T15:56:19Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > That’s what I was getting at: “you fools!”. Nobody thinks it’s “legally binding”, but some folks who took the assurances offered by the “no” campaigners into account when deciding which way to vote might, perhaps, be a bit annoyed when those people stick two fingers up at them a couple of weeks later. I don’t know, there seems to be a fair few that are acting as if it was. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/151 "2014-12-08T16:09:49Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I don’t know, there seems to be a fair few that are acting as if it was. There are plenty of people who are annoyed at what they perceive to be broken promises. I’m not aware of anyone suggesting any law has been broken. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/152 "2014-12-08T16:29:05Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > There are plenty of people who are annoyed at what they perceive to be broken promises. I’m not aware of anyone suggesting any law has been broken. I’d say it is somewhere in the middle, more that they believe there is basis for a new Referendum due to perceived issues with The Vow post-referendum. But hell, there’s those who think the very existence of The Vow broke election rules (Purdah). ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/153 "2014-12-08T17:07:03Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I’d say it is somewhere in the middle, more that they believe there is basis for a new Referendum due to perceived issues with The Vow post-referendum. > > But hell, there’s those who think the very existence of The Vow broke election rules (Purdah). Oh, they were pretty careful not to break purdah rules. But my point is that you’re correct - some people are calling for a new referendum. But for the most part, it’s not because they think anyone broke any _laws_, but rather because they think people broke _promises_. People are quite free to campaign on that basis if they wish, though I don’t really see much coming of it for a good while. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/154 "2014-12-08T17:31:09Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > The UK agreed to A referendum. You might have missed it, but that’s already happened. > > Hell, even this from the YES camp: > > [https://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/if-scotland-votes-no-will-there-be-another-referendum-on-independence-at-a-later-date/](https://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/if-scotland-votes-no-will-there-be-another-referendum-on-independence-at-a-later-date/) And as I have said above, the election of a Scottish government with a further referendum in its manifesto and persistent polls showing the Scottish people wanted independence would be impossible to ignore politically. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/155 "2014-12-08T17:33:55Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Nobody disputes this, **Pjen**. Scotland of course will be independent after any successful referendum vote and after a period of negotiation between the rUK and the interim Scottish government. > > No, **Pjen** , this is incorrect. For a start, I see no reason why rUK would be compelled to entertain any Scottish action at The Hague. What reason would rUK have to throw away its commanding negotiation position and allow some other party to dictate the terms of separation between Scotland and rUK? The only way rUK would enter into such a court case would be if it allowed itself to be bound by such an action, and doing that would be especially stupid. > > Second, you keep yammering on about the International Law of the Sea when in fact many of these laws, including UNCLOS which presumably you are referencing, are specifically written with the possibility that they can be overridden if both neighbouring parties choose to agree that they should. In this case, Scotland and rUK will quickly come to some agreement that massively favours the rUK in their bilateral discussions, as the longer negotiation goes on, the longer the list of companies that flee south from Scotland into rUK grows. > > The SNP’s rhetoric throughout the entire campaign has been that they have a hand full of aces for negotiation purposes, and it appears that you have bought into that rhetoric hook, line and sinker. In reality, you’ll quickly find out what massively disproportionate terms _Perfidious Albion_, with a population ten times larger than yours, a much larger economy, and your largest export market can enforce if it so chooses, especially when many English feel unfairly maligned by divisive SNP rhetoric and announcements, bluff and bluster about undercutting corporation taxes and refusing to take on debts that sound suspiciously like the opening salvo in an economic war. I challenge you to find a single reputable academic source that believes that a Scotland that was becoming independent could be stripped of its continental shelf by the previous ‘colonial’ power. Find me one cite. ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/156 "2014-12-08T18:09:05Z")
Without meaning to jump head first into your ongoing discussion, there’s a paper by the David Hume Institute I once read commentary on that is available [here [note:PDF]](http://www.davidhumeinstitute.com/images/stories/Research/Research_Paper_9-2013_Paterson_Gordon.pdf) that suggests: > [@](#): > > Among the uncertainties requiring to be resolved in the event of independence will be > the question of the international maritime boundary, the location of which will > determine the division of hydrocarbon assets between Scotland and the remaining > United Kingdom. International law provides procedures for resolving this issue rather > than a clear answer. Negotiation could be protracted. Any reference to a dispute > resolution mechanism could delay a final answer for years. **The area of the continental > shelf potentially adversely affected by the resulting uncertainty will be larger or > smaller depending on the scale of rival claims.** Joint development would be a possible > means of dealing with that matter in the interim. **Bold** ing mine. Not stripped exactly, but it’s not necessarily as simple, clean or automatic as might be expected. The _Division of Assets_ chapter starting on page 12 also outlines a few further potential complications. _Quotation above from:_ **DHI/SCDI Energy and Constitutional Change** Conversation - Oil and Gas by John Paterson & Greg Gordon ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/157 "2014-12-08T18:27:56Z")
> [@Aro](#): > > Without meaning to jump head first into your ongoing discussion, there’s a paper by the David Hume Institute I once read commentary on that is available [here [note:PDF]](http://www.davidhumeinstitute.com/images/stories/Research/Research_Paper_9-2013_Paterson_Gordon.pdf) that suggests: > **Bold** ing mine. Not stripped exactly, but it’s not necessarily as simple, clean or automatic as might be expected. The _Division of Assets_ chapter starting on page 12 also outlines a few further potential complications. > > _Quotation above from:_ > **DHI/SCDI Energy and Constitutional Change** > Conversation - Oil and Gas > by John Paterson & Greg Gordon I mentioned that above. The manner in which the line separating each state leaves a coast may be calculated in several different ways. This affects a small amount of the North Sea in a tiny arc originating at the border at Berwick having only a couple of percentage points of the total available reserves. There is no way that rUK could claim, say, oil to the East, North or West of Scotland where the boundaries would become rather than British- Irish, Iceland, Norway borders but Scottish ones. This sort of irrational and neo- colonialist scare- mongering exhibited here by some (not you) just drives more people into the YES camp. Keep up the good work. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/158 "2014-12-08T18:41:47Z")
some facts rather than supposition and scaremongering. Prior to devolution, Scottish Land Law and English Land Law are separate with one leasing to the House of Lords (then- Supreme Court Now) and the other to the Court of Session. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK’s oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits. Recent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and English sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. … Nevertheless a Scottish share of North Sea oil is never formally alluded to as part of Scotland’s net fiscal position and is treated by HM Treasury as extra-regio resources. The BBC economist Evan Davis however reported prior to the 2007 Scottish Parliament election that the Barnett formula already allows Scotland to sustain higher levels of per capita public spending relative to the rest of the UK, which is approximately equivalent to its disproportionately high annual contribution of tax revenues to the central UK Treasury from Oil production. However Scotland’s per capita spending growth, relative to the rest of the UK, has in recent years, been nominally reduced by the operation of the Barnett formula, in order to bring public spending levels into line with the UK average, in a phenomenon that had been dubbed the “Barnett Squeeze”. Summarised from Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/159 "2014-12-08T18:52:44Z")
PJen you mistake me for someone who gives a shit how many are driven to the Yes Camp. As it stands, and the referendum debate neatly underscored this given the undue prominence of economics in the debate, the Union these days exists to transfer money and jobs from England to the other states of the Union. A breakup of the Union would benefit one group and one group alone, and that is the English. The main priority for non Scots lumbered with the Union moving forward has to be preventing the Nationalists from inflicting any more damage to the rest of the country, and when, as seems inevitable now, Scotland declares independence sometime in the future, getting as good a deal as possible for the benefit of the rest of the country using fair means or foul. You’ve thus far categorically misunderstood the argument that I’ve been making, incidentally. Nobody is being stripped of anything. Scotland will merely find it very hard to extract the kinds of concessions or compromises that the common Nationalist seems to imagine they will do, including it seems you, and as a result will voluntarily agree to separation terms that are grossly and disproportionately biased in favour of rUK. A large country and economy such as rUK is very rarely held hostage by one a fraction its size in negotiations and very rarely fails to set the agenda. That’s just a consequence of the power imbalance between the two states, not some hangover from Colonialism. This also holds true for the UKIP types who imagine they’re going to get some sweet trade deal from the EU upon leaving — a body representing 750 million people doesn’t dance to the tune of 65 million. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026/160 "2014-12-08T19:41:08Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > PJen you mistake me for someone who gives a shit how many are driven to the Yes Camp. As it stands, and the referendum debate neatly underscored this given the undue prominence of economics in the debate, the Union these days exists to transfer money and jobs from England to the other states of the Union. A breakup of the Union would benefit one group and one group alone, and that is the English. The main priority for non Scots lumbered with the Union moving forward has to be preventing the Nationalists from inflicting any more damage to the rest of the country, and when, as seems inevitable now, Scotland declares independence sometime in the future, getting as good a deal as possible for the benefit of the rest of the country using fair means or foul. > > You’ve thus far categorically misunderstood the argument that I’ve been making, incidentally. Nobody is being stripped of anything. Scotland will merely find it very hard to extract the kinds of concessions or compromises that the common Nationalist seems to imagine they will do, including it seems you, and as a result will voluntarily agree to separation terms that are grossly and disproportionately biased in favour of rUK. A large country and economy such as rUK is very rarely held hostage by one a fraction its size in negotiations and very rarely fails to set the agenda. That’s just a consequence of the power imbalance between the two states, not some hangover from Colonialism. This also holds true for the UKIP types who imagine they’re going to get some sweet trade deal from the EU upon leaving — a body representing 750 million people doesn’t dance to the tune of 65 million. So no cites, just your opinion. This forum is called Great Debates. Maybe you should try the one called In my humble opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-scottish-everendum-stand/706026.md?page=9)