# Whither Scotland? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261 "2014-09-02T16:28:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/181 "2014-09-05T02:44:52Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > He has also lived in the US. > > I can imagine an English emigre teaching Americans the finer points of patriotic expression and the nuances of their Constitution would have gone down very well. > > There is probably enough material for an episode of the Simpsons. > > The Scots are indeed blessed to have such fund of wisdom in their midst to help compose their arguments about national destiny and find reasons to blame their misfortunes on those contemptible people south of the border. > :rolleyes: > > Emigration is a wonderful thing. Sarcasm is an indication of failure of argument. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/182 "2014-09-05T02:52:34Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > The British PM can’t advise the Queen (i.e. tell her what she must do) as to Canadian, Australian or New Zealand affairs, true. But he can advise her - or get a bill passed by Parliament, to which she must assent - to relinquish a crown anywhere, or to decline a crown now offered to her. It is a constitutional issue and she must take such advice. > > Consider the alternative. If the Queen were offered the crown of (a) a country with which the UK was locked in a bitter trade dispute, or (b) a genocidal police state with which the UK had broken off diplomatic ties, or (c) a country with which the UK was actually at war, would the PM really have no right to advise her as to whether or not to accept it? And remember, “It would never happen” is no fit answer to a question of principle. > > Bagehot said a modern British monarch had three rights: “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.” He said nothing as to keeping, or taking, a crown in the teeth of ministerial advice. You completely misunderstand the nature of the Monarchy. Cameron can certainly require the Queen of the UK to pass legislation of any kind and she must do that. What it cannot do is require the Queen of Australia or the Queen of Canada, or the person who is Head of the Commonwealth etc etc to do anything. Each role is seen as a different person. The British Prime Minister could require QEII of the UK to sign into law an Act making Australia a part of the UK again subject to laws of the UK. The legislation would be in force but have no meaning for the Independent state of Australia and its head QEII of Australia who would be required to oppose such illegal and unenforcible action. The British Parliament cannot legislate for the other realms, or for how the Commonwealth works- those decisions are made by separate polities who happen to share the same human being as head of state or head. Cite to something post Bagehot please for your unsupported statement. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/183 "2014-09-05T03:04:21Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > **The Crown** > > The British Queen is not Scotland’s head of state. Scotland doesn’t have a head of state. Right now, Scotland is not a state. There is no Scottish state for anyone to head. > > Nor is she “Queen of Scotland” (or “Queen of Scots”, which was the historic title). This office has long ceased to exist, so no-one can fill it. > > If Scotland becomes a state, it can have a head of state and, if the Scots so choose, she can fill that office. Note that in that event she would not _remain_ Scottish head of state; she would _become_ Scottish head of state. It is, however, unthinkable that she would do so without the assent of her UK ministers, and probably of the UK parliament, if only because her doing so has implications for the foreign relations of the UK. But that assent would, I think, be readily forthcoming. Note that she has received UK parliamentary sanction to her assumption of the crown of all the new Commonwealth realms that have been come into existence during her reign. > > **Citizenship** > > Pjen cites the European Convention on Nationality to argue that new Scots citizens cannot be deprived of British citizenship except with their agreement. He overlooks, however, the fact that the UK has neither signed nor ratified that Convention. They are not a party to it. It does not apply to them, or bind them, or restrict in any way what they do. > > In any event, the Convention does contain language which could allow the loss of citizenship when part of a state is split off to become a new state. Under Article 7.1.e a state may deprive someone of nationality where he habitually resides abroad (e.g. in Scotland) and where he lacks A “genuine link” with the state of nationality. So a British citizen residing in Scotland, who wasn’t born in rUK and doesn’t have parent or grandparent born in rUK could be seen as not having the “genuine link” with rUK that would entitle him to retain its nationality. And this would enable him to be treated exactly as British Citizens residing in other Commonwealth realms on independence were treated. > > Pjen also cites Rottman, but Rottman is only authority for the proposition that a state _may_ withdraw citizenship obtained by naturalisation on the basis of fraudulent representations or submissions (even if this leads or may lead to statelessness). At no point does Rottman suggest that citizenship _may not_ be withdrawn in any other circumstance. On the contrary, it underlines that in general citizenship of a Member State is determined by the national law of that Member State. Cite please for any suggestion that the British Prime Minister and Parliament can advise the monarch on any matters other than British ones. This is so neo-colonial and typically British/and specifically English. The UK long ago gave up the pretence that it controlled an Empire and all the realms are equal in legal terms. There is no more reason why QEII should follow the advice of the British state than the Canadian, Australian or Jamaican in matters not within that realm. the structure is one of equals, not even primus inter pares. Assuming that the British State is more important than her other realms is a misunderstanding of the modern monarchy. Although the UK has not asssented to the Convention of Nationality, the ECJ has seen fit to cite it as the prime reason for stopping another state (Austria) removing a citizen from citizenship and accepted that the convention should have effect in European Law. We have signed a Treaty of Accession to the EU which requires us to accept ECJ judgements as valid and superior to British Law. Your statements: “Under Article 7.1.e a state may deprive someone of nationality where he habitually resides abroad (e.g. in Scotland) and where he lacks A “genuine link” with the state of nationality. So a British citizen residing in Scotland, who wasn’t born in rUK and doesn’t have parent or grandparent born in rUK could be seen as not having the “genuine link” with rUK that would entitle him to retain its nationality. And this would enable him to be treated exactly as British Citizens residing in other Commonwealth realms on independence were treated.” is a red herring. I have never asserted that. All I have asserted is that at the point of independence, every substantive British Citizen retains their right to that citizenship whatever their residence so long as they do not voluntarily claim another citizenship. I have said nothing about there being an absolute right to the children of such people having rUK citizenship, only extant citizens at independence. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/184 "2014-09-05T03:07:02Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Hold on, is it? Queen of Scotland isn’t one of her titles, nor Queen of Scots, nor any other such formulation. It seems to me that the title of “King of Scotland” (and “King of England”) were extinguished by the Act of Union. If the vote passes and the Act of Union is abolished, those titles are restored, and while she’s certainly the obvious choice for Queen of Scotland, it’s a restored title, not an existing one. > > Plus, the Scottish Parliament never passed the Act of Settlement in 1701. In fact, it’s resistance to the Act of Settlement, and English pressure due to that resistance, was one of the things that led to the Act of Union in the first place. So, is hypothetically independent Scotland bound by it? Will it be a law in force in Scotland? Is the rightful monarch the Bavarian pretender? If this keeps up, will we see a union of the thrones of Scotland and Lichtenstein? > > Admittedly, I diverged into a flight of fancy there, but you see my point? An independent Scotland will be a new thing, and we don’t know yet what will happen. Would Elizabeth become Queen of Scots? Probably. Would the British PM stop her? Probably not. But we don’t know any of this for sure, and it’s arrogance to assume that we already know all the answers. There is an excellent book which name escapes me currently on the British habit of Invention of Tradition. This will apply in this case and it may become Scottish tradition that there is continuity from James VI o Elizabeth II as Monarch of the Scots. There is strict legality and tradition- two different processes. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/185 "2014-09-05T03:11:50Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > If it follows the pattern of other Commonwealth realms, I think the initial Scottish constitution would be part of an act of Parliament or order-in-council anyways, so her UK ministers would have direct control over what it said. She’d never have to get their assent because they’d only present something to her if it was at least palatable to them. So, so colonial. The UK Parliament will need to assent to the will of the Scottish people to separate, but will have no say over the Scottish Constitution which will be entirely a Scottish Matter. Previous separations took place in a different and more deferential environment with constitutional legislation for the Realms being initially a part of British law until they were slowly migrated to Stand alone status by later legislation. That will not happen here where the separation and new constitution will happen in a very brief period. I cannot imagine Westminster assuming that it had any power whatsoever to make any decision about the Scottish Constitution during Independence negotiations or after the date of independence. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/186 "2014-09-05T03:19:21Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I spend all my time with Scots. I watch TV here and read the newspapers, I banter with people, we discuss things. > > I am entitled to my opinion based on real experience. Place of birth does not confer any special privileges. Now if I was vacationing here that would be difficult, but I have lived here for over a decade. Sufficient time I think to give some idea about what people around me think. I’m confused. Thought you said 5 decades earlier. Regardless, while you are entitled to your opinion I think that as a non-lawyer type person you should put a heck of a lot less confidence in your interpretation of legal matters. The Rottman case is only tangentially related to a separation referendum and I seriously doubt you can be taken authoritatively on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/187 "2014-09-05T03:21:05Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > . . . I cannot imagine Westminster assuming that it had any power whatsoever to make any decision about the Scottish Constitution during Independence negotiations or after the date of independence. I can! ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/188 "2014-09-05T03:21:51Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Well, if the Irish precedent is followed, the initial Scottish constitution mught be scheduled, in identical terms, both to an Act of the Westminster Parliament and to an Act of the Scottish Parliament which might either enact the constitution, or provide for it to be enacted by referendum. The courts of each country could then treat their own national legislation as foundational. > > But of course the constitution is scheduled in identical terms only because the two executive governments have agreed on its text. So the reality is that the initial Scottish constitituion is a text negotiated and settled between the UK and Scottish governments. And, it follows, the Queen will never be asked to accept the Scottish throne unless both the UK and Scottish governments are minded to advise to to accept it. No British Prime Minister would put the Queen in such a position- it would create a constitutional crisis. If the UK government tried to legislate for any Scottish matter not within the current settlement while negotiations proceeded, that too would become a constitutional crisis. The UK government has accepted that if the Scottish people vote for independence, there is no easy legal and practical way to oppose it in International Law. The UK parliament (including Scots MPs) will have the right to express UK interests in the separation process, but will have no effective power to determine the Constitution of the Scottish State. There is an undercurrent here of colonialist thought and a failure to consider state forming in the modern world. Things have changed in the past century. It would be instructive if people stopped looking at early twentieth century derogation of power in the British Empire and consider instead the cases of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Byelorussia, Ukraine, and other post Soviet states, and of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and the countries of former Yugoslavia. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/189 "2014-09-05T03:26:42Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I can! A cite please for the ability of a predecessor state having a legal right to continue to decide constitutional matters for a successor state. We are seeing that achieved by hidden warfare in the Ukraine. Of course the UK government could pass legislation that imposed a particular constitution on Scotland (as it could claim that the Moon was part of the UK) but nothing would then stop Scotland abrogating that immediately post independence. Any UK legislation on Scottish constitutional matters is meaningless; reaching a compromise on relations between the two future states is negotiable, but that does not give the UK or rUK any power over the constitution of Scotland. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/190 "2014-09-05T03:32:06Z")
> **[Canada Act 1982](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982)** > > Canada portal > The Canada Act 1982 (1982 c. 11; French: Loi de 1982 sur le Canada) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and one of the enactments which make up the Constitution of Canada. It was enacted at the request of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada to patriate Canada's constitution, ending the power of the British Parliament to amend the constitution. The act also formally ended the "request and consent" provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 in relation to C... > [@Pjen](#): > > A cite please for the ability of a predecessor state having a legal right to continue to decide constitutional matters for a successor state. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/191 "2014-09-05T03:32:17Z")
There are many discussions going on in the YES camp currently about what will happen if Independence is approved by a narrow margin. Should the UK start acting as a colonial power, I can see the settlement being enforced through international law rather than in a gentlemanly manner as befits modern nations. Talk of suspending the Scottish MPs between September 2014 and March 2016 or later is going down like a lead balloon, as is any suggestion that the 2015 election be postponed. There is an undercurrent of radicals in the SNP who believe that a campaign of civil disobedience and disruption may be necessary to achieve independence because of the deep seated colonial attitude of the UK political structure so evident in the arguments here. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/192 "2014-09-05T03:32:45Z")
I’ll be voting Yes. I’m not sure what the result of the referendum will be. Either way, I see it as a solid opportunity for the Scottish people to assert whether they wish to be an independent country or a country as part of the UK, rather than simply accepting what was chosen for them a few hundred years ago. The idea of rUK removing British citizenship from everyone the day the votes are tallied is just ludicrous. It’s not even been suggested by anyone serious. The Better Together campaign has so far been incredibly negative. Their inability to find any positives to concentrate on has been very off-putting to me (though presumably it’s convincing enough to some people that they keep doing it). One tactic in particular stands out: their suggestion that rUK will react to a Yes vote like a jilted teenager and deliberately do everything they can to cause financial ruin to an independent Scotland, even to the extent of harming their own economy. It’s oddly ironic that Better Together can’t envision Scotland and rUK working together as allies and friends, but there you go. Having lived in Londonderry/Derry for a couple of years, things like different currencies, borders, working for companies based in “foreign” countries, etc don’t really worry me at all. They do cause concern for some people though. I’ve heard folk say they’ll vote No because they have a family member who works in England and that would have to stop if there was a Yes vote or that Scottish bank notes would no longer be worth anything (as in literally, they would cease to have value on 18th Sep) and they’d lose all their savings. Those fears may not be well founded, but they do exist, which is in itself worrying. That’s my rough take on it so far. I wouldn’t be surprised at a Yes or a No win at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/193 "2014-09-05T03:37:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > [Canada Act 1982 - Wikipedia](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982) That was passed because of the need to overturn legislation made on semi-independence previously. The case in Scotland will be somewhat different and will be based on modern ideas of statehood rather than nineteenth century ones. It would of course have been quite possible for Canada’s Government to have made a statement of right to full independence, held a referendum and then declared a new constitution. Because of their nature and respect for QEII, a more subtle way was chosen and power was devolved gradually over the best part of a century. Of course, Canada is now free to change its constitution in any way it wants and that would be no business of the UK! ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/194 "2014-09-05T03:39:45Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > It would of course have been quite possible for Canada’s Government to have made a statement of right to full independence, held a referendum and then declared a new constitution. Because of their nature and respect for QEII, a more subtle way was chosen and power was devolved gradually over the best part of a century. It didn’t have a whole lot to do with respect for the Queen. As I understand it, Britain had been trying to give the Canadian constitution the shove for decades, and it was a mild embarrassment every time a new British North America Act went through Parliament. But the Canadian government couldn’t come to an agreement with the provinces on how the new amendment process would work, so nothing changed. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/195 "2014-09-05T03:40:36Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The UK Parliament will need to assent to the will of the Scottish people to separate, but will have no say over the Scottish Constitution which will be entirely a Scottish Matter. Neither of those statements is true. It’s entirely possible for the UK to refuse independence to Scotland unless it has a constitution of which we approve, and indeed we are pretty much obliged to do that. The UK has a moral obligation to its citizens - which includes the Scots - not to allow them to have an unacceptable constitution imposed on them. All this will probably be moot, as I very much doubt a large enough majority will vote for independence. Westminster isn’t going to let it happen on a 51% vote, regardless of what either side says now. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/196 "2014-09-05T03:42:22Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > …Cite to something post Bagehot please for your unsupported statement. The Queen has remained head of state of many former British colonies because it has been politically expedient for the various Governments of the day that she do so. She is a symbol of unity, shared heritage and continuity for the Commonwealth and other states. But if a newly-independent country offered her its crown and the British PM didn’t want her to take it, she would not, as per the Rhodesia precedent noted above. The Rhodesian white minority government was at great pains to profess loyalty to the Queen in 1965-70, and insisted she was Queen of Rhodesia, but she, on advice of the British PM, did not accept or acknowledge that she was. For more, see the Lacey book I mentioned earlier, or here: [Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia%27s_Unilateral_Declaration_of_Independence) ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/197 "2014-09-05T03:46:06Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > That was passed because of the need to overturn legislation made on semi-independence previously. > > The case in Scotland will be somewhat different and will be based on modern ideas of statehood rather than nineteenth century ones. > > It would of course have been quite possible for Canada’s Government to have made a statement of right to full independence, held a referendum and then declared a new constitution. Because of their nature and respect for QEII, a more subtle way was chosen and power was devolved gradually over the best part of a century. > > Of course, Canada is now free to change its constitution in any way it wants and that would be no business of the UK! So you asked for a cite, I gave you a cite but Canada was only “semi” independent in 1982. Also, as is our stereotype, we were only being polite to the Queen when we had an acrimonious national debate on the subject. Good day to you, sir. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/198 "2014-09-05T03:55:43Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > I’ll be voting Yes. I’m not sure what the result of the referendum will be. Either way, I see it as a solid opportunity for the Scottish people to assert whether they wish to be an independent country or a country as part of the UK, rather than simply accepting what was chosen for them a few hundred years ago. > > The idea of rUK removing British citizenship from everyone the day the votes are tallied is just ludicrous. It’s not even been suggested by anyone serious. > > The Better Together campaign has so far been incredibly negative. Their inability to find any positives to concentrate on has been very off-putting to me (though presumably it’s convincing enough to some people that they keep doing it). One tactic in particular stands out: their suggestion that rUK will react to a Yes vote like a jilted teenager and deliberately do everything they can to cause financial ruin to an independent Scotland, even to the extent of harming their own economy. It’s oddly ironic that Better Together can’t envision Scotland and rUK working together as allies and friends, but there you go. > > Having lived in Londonderry/Derry for a couple of years, things like different currencies, borders, working for companies based in “foreign” countries, etc don’t really worry me at all. They do cause concern for some people though. I’ve heard folk say they’ll vote No because they have a family member who works in England and that would have to stop if there was a Yes vote or that Scottish bank notes would no longer be worth anything (as in literally, they would cease to have value on 18th Sep) and they’d lose all their savings. > > Those fears may not be well founded, but they do exist, which is in itself worrying. > > That’s my rough take on it so far. I wouldn’t be surprised at a Yes or a No win at the moment. I am in agreement with you. I started out a decade ago as a believer in devolution as I have always been (I wanted initially stronger counties a la Redclffe Maud or regional government for the whole UK- Wessex, Yorkshire, Devonwall, Mercia etc. On moving to Scotland I supported the LibLab Government generally but voted SNP in 2007 and in every election since becasue I agree more closely with their general policies than any other party than the Greens (I am a lapsed Social Democrat). Entering the campaign I was an advocate for getting the vote over, losing it and then achieving Devomax, and then going again in a decade or so as people bacame more comfortable with a Scottish State. The campaign has turned me into a straight Independence supporter because of the Better Together campaign and the Neo-colonial attitude adopted here and elsewhere. Even my liberal and leftist friends in England seem to have lost sight of basic democratic principle about self determination, When faced with a Scottish exit, their main concern is the negative effect it will have in the rUK. There is an undercurrent of envy in the matter with wild stories about Scotland overspending (London and the South East have the highest per capita spending and no-one complains about that!). People resent the fact that life is different here- in most ways more communitarian and libertarian, and rather than ask how England could progress like that, they resort to petty envies. There is a concurrent blindness to the growing differences between Scotland and England- now greater than the actual difference between the states in the USA. It is not only Free Tuition fees and student grants, Free Prescriptions, no reorganisation of the health service and so on, it is also relaxed licencing laws, the fact that we have 24 hour shopping and a real right to roam and free camp. There are socialist and liberal principles in action here that are lost to England. Also lacking is a massive left/right split in politics at every level. The longer the campaign goes on, the firmer set are my views and this is an experience shared with others in the YES campaign. On the Last Leg comedy political show on Channel 4 the Australian presneter related a propos Scotland that when the Republic debate happened in Australia, although it was rejected as they chose a questionable system to replace the monarchy, people came out of the campaign feeling more Australian than before. The same seems to be happening here during this campaign and I think that augers well should the referendum be lost- another referendum in a decade or so would be much more likely to result in a vote for independence. The desire is going to get stronger as confidence improves. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/199 "2014-09-05T04:00:53Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Neither of those statements is true. It’s entirely possible for the UK to refuse independence to Scotland unless it has a constitution of which we approve, and indeed we are pretty much obliged to do that. The UK has a moral obligation to its citizens - which includes the Scots - not to allow them to have an unacceptable constitution imposed on them. > > All this will probably be moot, as I very much doubt a large enough majority will vote for independence. Westminster isn’t going to let it happen on a 51% vote, regardless of what either side says now. I cannot imagine a more combustible scenario than England trying to enforce a constitution on Scotland against its will. Do you want riots on the streets? Scotland will have spoken twice- once with a massive vote for the SNP in 2010 against all the predictions about the impossibility of single party rule under PR, and again in a referendum. How then does the UK claim to better represent the people of Scotland than their own vote. And what would stop Scotland as a nation changing its constitution immediately to what the people wanted? There is so much colonialism here- overt and covert. What right do you think Russia had other than military prowess over the constitutions of its successor states. Is that what you are proposing. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/200 "2014-09-05T04:03:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Neither of those statements is true. It’s entirely possible for the UK to refuse independence to Scotland unless it has a constitution of which we approve, and indeed we are pretty much obliged to do that. The UK has a moral obligation to its citizens - which includes the Scots - not to allow them to have an unacceptable constitution imposed on them. > > All this will probably be moot, as I very much doubt a large enough majority will vote for independence. Westminster isn’t going to let it happen on a 51% vote, regardless of what either side says now. That would be interesting. I would say that a Scottish Government, freely elected in 2010, desiring independence and a majority in a referendum would be quite sufficient to lead to a bloody exit if England tried to impose its will against the expressed wish of the Scottish people. Colonialism again! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=11)