Scotland has certain advantages in that it was an historic nation state and has always had separate systems of education, law and other responsibilities not shared by other parts of the union. It is also contiguous and separate in the same way as Ireland was. It is clearly recognised as a separate nation culturally. We are already semi- detached and even more so after devolution.
There is a slowly changing sentiment here that I have observed in my time here. As each year passes it seems less and less like the England I left behind. And more powers are to be devolved soon. There is a ratchet effect.
Some nights even now I can watch the BBC ‘national’ news and see not one item that applies to my family- education and Gove, NHS reorganisation, university organisation and fees and grants, council tax and water rates, drought and floods, drink drive limits, shopping hours, alcohol and tobacco legislation, plastic bags etc. None of this applies to me and my family unless I cross the border.
More is to follow now with income tax, discretionary welfare payments to avoid bedroom tax and such, hypothecated VAT, capital expenditure and loans for such, voting age, response to unemployment, air passenger duty, management of the Crown Estate, licensing of gas and oil extraction, rail franchising, air passenger duty, among other powers currently proposed and others to follow next year if the SNP is part of a confidence and supply deal.
There is now considerable difference in the social, cultural and political experience north and south of the border and this sentiment is only going to increase.
I suspect you are right. The atmosphere in the newly enlarged (five times increased since the referendum) SNP is febrile and in some cases verging on insurrection and anger.
In a democracy no party should be stopped from arguing for its core goals. This includes Independence and a claim of right for the Scottish people to claim Independence if they wish to.
It may not be an easy ride for either Scotland or rUK, but I can see that it is a nettle that will have to be grasped. I cannot see anything less than Home Rule in all but military and diplomatic function within a federal structure being viable by the end of the decade. Maybe English regionalisation-Greater Wessex, Greater Sussex, Greater Middlesex, London, West Midlands, East Midlands, Yorkshire, Lancumbria and Northumbrian, Wales and Northern Ireland each having devolved power like Scotland with Westminster as the Federal authority.
My cites would be last years GERS report which showed Scotland in a decidedly worse financial state than the rest of the UK, even when a geographic share of the oil is assigned to it. Incidentally, that’s Scotland in a worse financial position than England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the latter two being infamous money sinks and hardly can be described as bankrolling the rest of the country. Scotland compared to England alone would be even worse.
Incidentally, with oil at $69 a barrel, and looking to remain that way for the remainder of this decade at least, the GERS reports for the next few years should be absolute barnstormers.
Scotland also has a larger percentage of its workforce working in the public sector than England. Scotland receives substantially more public spending per capita than England, to the tune of about £1300 per head, waved away by Nationalists as necessary spending due to Scotland’s low population density and unique geography, though why I should care about Scotland’s geography as an Englishman is never really explained. Scotland also receives a larger percentage of all research funding for its universities than it would receive in a purely geographic split of that funding (my wife’s relatively famous former PhD supervisor testified before the Scottish parliament that independence would be an unmitigated disaster for Scottish academia because of that fact). If England were to be independent, our already world-class universities would receive even more funding just by keeping research spending constant as a percentage of GDP. Scotland also curiously receives disproportionate numbers of Royal Naval contracts: the two new supercarriers are, strangely, being built ten miles down the coast from Gordon Brown’s hometown, and the recent Royal Navy destroyer contract was, again, curiously, also awarded to shipbuilders on the Clyde at the expense of shipbuilders in Portsmouth. Other bureaucracies if not conceived then strengthened by successive Labour administration stuffed to the gunwales with Scots, such as the Student Loans Company, that serves English and Welsh students almost entirely these days, are also curiously situated in Glasgow, a Scottish Labour stronghold.
If England were to be independent, we’d be able to spend all the money currently being spent elsewhere on ourselves. Maybe then we’d not have absurdities like Cambridgeshire, where I currently live, having the lowest education spending of any locality in the UK, with barely a single motorway or railway line to its name, despite playing host to the likes of ARM, AstraZeneca and the 1500 Biotech and thousands of other technology companies that surround the city, with all their tax income, due to it being spent elsewhere. We’d also not have English voters being subjected to student loans and foundation hospitals foisted on us by another Labour administration that had to rely on Scottish MPs voting on matters that did not affect their constituents.
After all, isn’t that essentially the argument that you and other Nationalists have been advancing with the “Scottish” oil, that 45%, if not more, of your fellow countrymen bought into? Don’t seem to like it when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?
You misunderstand what I’m saying. If they win a referendum for independence, they can keep their seats in Westminster until the day Scotland leaves; but any government of the day that relies on SNP support for its continuation in office while negotiating Scotland’s withdrawal from the Union would be unacceptable.
None of this negates what I said in my comment. The SNP are poisonously anti-English in their rhetoric sometimes, and that is undermining any willingness by the English to work with an independent Scotland. I myself was fully willing to respect Scotland’s wishes and have a constructive engagement with an independent Scotland even though I would have deeply regretted Scotland’s independence, but now your attitude it just making me disgusted at your immaturity. The bad blood in the aftermath of September’s referendum is on the hands of the SNP as well as Better Together.
Interesting cites but not the cites that were requested- essentially using straw man again- nowhere have I said that the financial going for Scotland would be easy- in fact I believe the opposite. But I was looking for cites for just how difficult a rump state could ,make it for a successor state:
You said:
“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.”
I was looking for any cites for how England might retain Coulport and Faslane, Scotland’s continental shelf, stop Scotland using the Pound as a de facto curency in the medium term, enforcing payment of proportion of the national debt whilst refusing to share joint assets such as the Pound Sterling, fail to share joint assets such as the armed forces and diplomatic service and so on.
Perhaps you would find a reputable source for the suggestion that any of these could be forced in international law…
I am a moderate compared with many in the SNP admittedly. But if you analyse by arguments I am solely arguing for the democratic right of a people to decide how they are governed. I cast no aspersions on the English as I am English culturally and genetically.
I am interested to see you point out where our disagreements indicate that I am ‘immature’.
Certainly. The SNP goal is and will always be Independence. That is how politics work. Similarly Labour and Conservatives will always be Unionist (for different reason- Conservatives from sentiment and Labour from political necessity.) It will be interesting to see whether Labour will become less Unionist if they lose most of their Scottish Westminster seats to the SNP next year.
Nobody could stop Scotland using Sterling as an interim currency. But that isn’t what you and other Nationalists have been arguing. You have been arguing for a currency union with rUK, not Sterlingisation, the latter of which would leave Scotland without a lender of last resort and see Scotland’s massive banking industry running for the exit door. Sterling is, of course, freely traded on an open market and anybody can adopt it as their own currency. But a currency union requires the consent of the rest of the United Kingdom, which will not be forthcoming.
Incidentally, you keep referring to Sterling as an “asset”. This is simply incorrect as a matter of law. Sterling is not an asset, it’s a currency, and even a simple thought experiment, wherein the rUK decides to create a new currency post separation that Scotland has no history of using, will demonstrate that to you.
But again Pjen, you seem unable to understand the argument being made, and are hung up on “international law” as if it is some catch-all saviour that will get Scotland out of the sticky situation that it freely places itself into. The negotiations between Scotland and rUK will be bilateral negotiations. International law is completely irrelevant here. rUK will state their price for passing the act of Parliament necessary to make Scotland an independent state, UDI of course being practically impossible, and will almost certainly see Scotland locked out of the EU by Spain forever more and largely unrecognised by every other state in the world due to rUK, with its almost all-encompassing diplomatic network, refusing to recognise Scotland as independent.
The point is: rUK can name whatever price they want in these negotiations. Scotland has to agree to become legally independent. If rUK demands 90% of the oil, and Coulport and Faslane as SBTs, then Scotland has to agree as Scotland simply does not have a bargaining position to speak of at all.
I am not disagreeing with the right of the Scots to govern themselves. I am disagreeing with your many assumptions that the post-independence institutions will be shared with Scotland with no question or protest. Things like the pound and so on. There’s zero chance Scotland could have any kind of influence over its administration without the consent of the remnant of the UK.
Sorry, the ‘your’ was at the Nats in general, not you.
I have not said that the negotiations will be easy, but each side has some definite needs, and maintaining Faslane/Coulport is one which will play in Scotland’s favour. Replacing it quickly would be too expensive, yet rUK would have to reach some agreement over the matter. There are few such holds that rUK has over Scotland save the pound (which is surmountable without rUK support). Oil is essentially done and dusted by international law. Any attempt to avoid transferring a share of joint assets such as the armed forces and diplomatic service or money in lieu would be met by a quite valid repudiation of national debt.
I suspect that the bargaining would be hard but fair- neither side wanting to lose too much.
See, you believe what you want to, rather than the facts. Salmond gave the definitive answer in the second debate when he said that there were three possible answers to the Sterling question- Share, piggy back or set up a Scottish pound.
I have not been arguing for a currency union, merely pointing out that despite the politicking, some sort of compromise might be beneficial to both sides after independence for a limited period to maintain stability for Sterling.
You do use straw man arguments rather readily.
In your humble opinion no agreement will be reached. You are definite about that with no real support save for plitical statements. All I am saying is that it remains a possibility.
Incidentally, you keep referring to Sterling as an “asset”. This is simply incorrect as a matter of law. Sterling is not an asset, it’s a currency, and even a simple thought experiment, wherein the rUK decides to create a new currency post separation that Scotland has no history of using, will demonstrate that to you./QUOTE]
Access to sterling is an asset- its reputation has been built up via joint enterprise and Scotland would expect some recognition of that fact using and after independence.
Once again you are merely expressing an opinion whereas upthread I have quoted various International laws and treaties that apply and in a previous thread I quoted at length the UN declaration on separation of assets when sovereign states separate.
If Scotland was forced into virtual UDI it would have few difficulties being recognised by other states as most use the principle of de facto control unless the separation was anti-democratic. Spain might throw a few spanners in the works, but it is most unlikely that a post UDI Scotland would become a pariah state. Realpolitik, not magical thinking on your part.
There is no way that international law would recognise a land grab for Coulport and Faslane. Anyway national sentiment would ensure a Greenham Common like demonstration and I doubt the rUK would get away with forcing through Scottish territory using the military or that Scotland would resort to mining the Clyde and Holy Loch.
Pjen please explain how international law enters into any of this as Scotland is not yet a separate country under the particular scenario we are discussing. We’re talking about during separation negotiations between the rUK and Scotland, which if they conclude take precedence over any international law as has already been noted. Until Westminster passes an Act of Parliament Scotland is not an independent nation. There is no “international” as there is still only one country. We’re talking about an internal negotiation between a region and its still lawful and legally recognised government that, albeit it, has just voted to separate but may not, in the end, choose to carry through that separation depending on the terms it can negotiate with the aforementioned government. What we are discussing is a purely internal British matter.
The definitive answer is that whether or not the UK decided to share the Pound Sterling, there are possible options open to Scotland. Supposing that it would be the only country in the world that could not organise access to a currency is just silly scaremongering.
Who is claiming that, Pjen? The claim is that Scotland isn’t going to automatically walk into a currency union with the rUK, as you seem to think Scotland is entitled due to some “expectation” on the part of the Scottish electorate.
Incidentally, your post is a prime example of the kind of trivialisation of important economic matters that plagued the Yes campaign, and ultimately was one of the reasons they were trounced at the polls as virtually every demographic in Scotland rejected their ideas. The differences and effects on the Scottish economy of adopting Sterlingisation or trying to negotiate a currency union are gigantic, and can’t be simply brushed away with “but there’s options open to us!” every time somebody queries them.