# 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:** 61
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1201 "2014-09-24T16:27:07Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > What has independence got to do with anything? The oil revenue was brought up by **filmstar-en** in the context of the Barnett Formula being adjusted, which is obviously tied to staying within the Union. Your own post replying to his didn’t even make reference to independence, but merely asserted a moral claim to extra revenues through the Barnett Formula because the oil is mostly in Scottish water and Scotland has “geographical concerns”. So, apparently your position is that Scotland has a moral right to oil revenue, but London has no moral right to the proceeds of its own revenues, because “independence”? What? Scotland has a realistic and legal right to declare its independence as a separate state which gives it a considerable degree of control over what its long term relationship with England is. Upset the Scottish electorate and an independence vote becomes more likely. London is not blessed with the same scenario. Basically, Scotland has a clear whip hand with long term relations with England as only five per cent of the electorate need to be offended by removal of Barnett formula level of funding for a future YES referendum win, taking the oil and gas with us. Scottish people receive an extra £1600 more tan they are taxed on non oil revenue. Luckily if oil revenue is notionally divided between Scotland and rUK, the apparent deficit disappears. Imagine the political effect of increasing the tax burden on Scotland by £1600 per person per annum. What would the vote for independence be then? ---
**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:** [September 24, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1202 "2014-09-24T16:30:58Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Scotland has a realistic and legal right to declare its independence as a separate state which gives it a considerable degree of control over what its long term relationship with England is. Realistic? No. Legal? Yes, along with any other region in the UK that so fancies it — that’s not unique to Scotland. “Yes” have just been given a drubbing in the referendum with young and old alike voting _en masse_ to stay with the Union. The only time Scotland will have a realistic shot at declaring independence again is after 2044, at the very earliest. Your inability to swallow the fact that the independence movement was destroyed at the polls, with the leader pushing for change being forced to resign as his own constituents rejecting his plan for independence, is really making you type some nonsense in this thread. ---
**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 24, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1203 "2014-09-24T16:36:12Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > That is the English take on what is ‘right’. Up here the elected government believes that parents are heavily involved in such decisions. Additionally we rarely hear up here (in fact almost never) about pupils being suspended en masse for uniform violations or what they are blogging about their school- an almost weekly occurrence in England. Schools do not have Governors here but have Parent Councils that are chosen by all parents when an election is needed, and which has the power to call an all-parent meeting if there are problems over running the school. Such councils are powerful and have a veto over appointment of senior staff and school rules and aims. > When a head we had appointed with her word that she would work with our school for five years reneged on that and sought a development post at a larger school for six months, we were able to refuse to take her back after the secondment and to choose a new head. As parents are fully involved in uniform issues they rarely become contentious here. The local academy tried to introduce blazers for all in place of the current hoodies; the parent council voted it down and the Rector will need to introduce it year by year over the next six if she wishes to continue the plan. Parent power! Sounds awful. The sooner people who vote for things like that are prevented from voting on English issues the better. ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1204 "2014-09-24T16:36:41Z")
Originally Posted by Pjen 'Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were given extra funding because of their demographic and geographic problems. London on the other hand gets the same per head allocation of resources purely because it is the capital. Scotland has an additional claim, moral and political, to extra money because of oil revenues. Morally in that oil from Scottish waters sustained the UK for the past fifty years, and politically because, should Westminster equalise the subvention and send Scotland into penury or high taxes, they will be aware that offending the voters of Scotland sufficiently to encourage five per cent of the population to change their 2014 votes it would result in Independence being claimed in a future referendum or other method of leaving the union. The Barnett formula or something like it is virtually guaranteed.’ * * * Well all of that sounds highly contentious and debatable. > **[Barnett formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula)** > > The Barnett formula is a mechanism used by the Treasury in the United Kingdom to automatically adjust the amounts of public expenditure allocated to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to reflect changes in spending levels allocated to public services in England, Scotland and Wales, as appropriate. The formula applies to a large proportion, but not the whole, of the devolved governments' budgets − in 2013–14 it applied to about 85% of the Scottish Parliament's total budget. > The formula is nam... It was only intended to be a temporary measure for a year or two and heavily influenced by the party politics and demography of the time, back in that heady year, 1978 when the whole country was facing ruin. Even the originator of the formula, Lord Barnett, considers its continued use a terrible mistake and it is wrong to use for the basis of allocating funds to devolved parliaments. Especially when there are a politicians like Salmond who have been using the money to bribe the electorate. Listen to the man himself: > **[What is the Barnett formula?](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/1580787/How-the-Barnett-formula-works.html)** > > The Barnett formula dictates levels of public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - but has it created an unfair balance in spending? There is a case for modifying the Barnett formula and I expect demands will become louder as the English (and the Welsh, for that matter) find their voice on the subject. The offshore Oil in Scottish waters is a UK asset and it was exploited using UK finance. There is no moral question to answer. That is a diversion. If it is the policy of the SNP to cry for another Referendum in response to anything to do with fixing these serious constitutional and economic imbalances related to devolution, then the public are going to lose patience pretty quickly. I don’t think anyones nerves would stand another one. That particular seam has been exhausted. Scotland decided to stay in the UK and it is now a UK problem that has to be solved. There are no easy answers but a continuing subsidy for Scotland from the rest of the UK cannot be allowed to go on, it simply is not fair. :dubious: ---
**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 24, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1205 "2014-09-24T16:39:44Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Scotland has a realistic and legal right to declare its independence as a separate state which gives it a considerable degree of control over what its long term relationship with England is. Not in any meaningful sense. If you declare independence, the UK can keep on doing exactly what it’s currently doing, including governing Scotland, and there’ll be nothing you can do about it. At least without massive support from things like NATO, the EU, the UN, you know, all those bodies that the UK is a member in good standing of. You can’t, in practice, become independent without our consent. You (personally) need to accept that, ditch the ridiculous Braveheart fantasies, and work within the political system. A system that has consistently and decisively rejected independence. ---
**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 24, 2014, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1206 "2014-09-24T16:43:57Z")
The oil isn’t Scotland’s, it’s the UK’s. It is in UK waters. There’s no such thing as Scottish waters, as Scotland isn’t a state. ---
**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:** [September 24, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1207 "2014-09-24T16:44:41Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Scotland has a realistic and legal right to declare its independence as a separate state which gives it a considerable degree of control over what its long term relationship with England is. Upset the Scottish electorate and an independence vote becomes more likely. London is not blessed with the same scenario. > > Basically, Scotland has a clear whip hand with long term relations with England as only five per cent of the electorate need to be offended by removal of Barnett formula level of funding for a future YES referendum win, taking the oil and gas with us. > > Scottish people receive an extra £1600 more tan they are taxed on non oil revenue. Luckily if oil revenue is notionally divided between Scotland and rUK, the apparent deficit disappears. > > Imagine the political effect of increasing the tax burden on Scotland by £1600 per person per annum. What would the vote for independence be then? Scotland does have all these rights. Just as it has the right to feel the wrath of international monetary markets when it declares an independence vote this time without the agreement of Westminster. Just as it also has the right to feel the economic wrath of a pissed off Westminster. If you think the scare stories during \*this \*referendum were bad just wait until we face an England that openly opposes us economically. Your figure of needing only a 5% change in electorate opinion is therefore largely irrelevant. The entire debate(for better or for worse) will have shifted. I have stated before that Westminster politicians will live to regret the promise Devo Max. We can already see where the fight is headed. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1208 "2014-09-24T16:46:46Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Scotland has a realistic and legal right to declare its independence as a separate state which gives it a considerable degree of control over what its long term relationship with England is. What is the source of this legal right? ---
**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 24, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1209 "2014-09-24T16:50:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What is the source of this legal right? The International Court of Justice has said that declarations of independence aren’t against international law. To my knowledge, they’re not against UK law, either. What **Pjen** fails to understand is that Scotland declaring its independence would be like me declaring myself Emperor. Perfectly legal, and perfectly ineffective. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1210 "2014-09-24T16:57:52Z")
I assume he is saying Scotland has a legal right to an _effective_ unilateral declaration, rather than merely being allowed to claim it’s independent. ---
**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 24, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1211 "2014-09-24T17:34:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I assume he is saying Scotland has a legal right to an _effective_ unilateral declaration, rather than merely being allowed to claim it’s independent. They do have that right, and if the majority of countries in the world recognised their independence, and were willing to act to force the UK to recognise it, it would happen. They don’t, however, have the ability to make anyone recognise them. Having the right to do something doesn’t actually mean that one has the ability to do something, it means that one can’t be prevented from doing it. Scotland, in my understanding, could claim it was independent and solicit recognition of that status without being in breach of any law. That wouldn’t mean UK law didn’t apply there, as long as the UK was willing and able to enforce that law. An analogy would be to “sovereign citizens” in the US. They have the right to claim that they are such, but by itself that doesn’t change anything. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1212 "2014-09-24T17:41:46Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Realistic? No. Legal? Yes, along with any other region in the UK that so fancies it — that’s not unique to Scotland. “Yes” have just been given a drubbing in the referendum with young and old alike voting _en masse_ to stay with the Union. The only time Scotland will have a realistic shot at declaring independence again is after 2044, at the very earliest. Your inability to swallow the fact that the independence movement was destroyed at the polls, with the leader pushing for change being forced to resign as his own constituents rejecting his plan for independence, is really making you type some nonsense in this thread. Nicola Sturgeon has just been on the Scottish news saying that the country is on a course towards independence and she will have no compunction in calling a further referendum if necessary. She says tat stimuli may be a UK decision to withdraw from the EU which would be inimical to Scottish interests, or a failure to keep promises about devolution and funding through Barnett. Scotland stands apart from any other region in the UK in having its own judicial system, approaching two decades of devolution, a viable economy, a recognisable national identity within its boundaries, and recognition from Westminster that it has a right to claim independence. There is no fixed rule that the next available referendum will be in thirty years; it could be quite soon and only 5% of the electorate need to change their minds. I wonder how many NO votes were dependent on the Vow regarding Barnett and Devo max. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1213 "2014-09-24T17:43:24Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Sounds awful. The sooner people who vote for things like that are prevented from voting on English issues the better. So you are against the Tory Free Schools? They have the same parent power structure, but they also control the curriculum to some extent. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1214 "2014-09-24T17:45:55Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > Originally Posted by Pjen > 'Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were given extra funding because of their demographic and geographic problems. London on the other hand gets the same per head allocation of resources purely because it is the capital. > > Scotland has an additional claim, moral and political, to extra money because of oil revenues. Morally in that oil from Scottish waters sustained the UK for the past fifty years, and politically because, should Westminster equalise the subvention and send Scotland into penury or high taxes, they will be aware that offending the voters of Scotland sufficiently to encourage five per cent of the population to change their 2014 votes it would result in Independence being claimed in a future referendum or other method of leaving the union. The Barnett formula or something like it is virtually guaranteed.’ > > * * * > > Well all of that sounds highly contentious and debatable. > > [Barnett formula - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula) > > It was only intended to be a temporary measure for a year or two and heavily influenced by the party politics and demography of the time, back in that heady year, 1978 when the whole country was facing ruin. > > Even the originator of the formula, Lord Barnett, considers its continued use a terrible mistake and it is wrong to use for the basis of allocating funds to devolved parliaments. Especially when there are a politicians like Salmond who have been using the money to bribe the electorate. > > Listen to the man himself: > > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/1580787/How-the-Barnett-formula-works.html](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/1580787/How-the-Barnett-formula-works.html) > > There is a case for modifying the Barnett formula and I expect demands will become louder as the English (and the Welsh, for that matter) find their voice on the subject. > > The offshore Oil in Scottish waters is a UK asset and it was exploited using UK finance. There is no moral question to answer. That is a diversion. > > If it is the policy of the SNP to cry for another Referendum in response to anything to do with fixing these serious constitutional and economic imbalances related to devolution, then the public are going to lose patience pretty quickly. I don’t think anyones nerves would stand another one. That particular seam has been exhausted. Scotland decided to stay in the UK and it is now a UK problem that has to be solved. > > There are no easy answers but a continuing subsidy for Scotland from the rest of the UK cannot be allowed to go on, it simply is not fair. > > :dubious: And if the Vow is disavowed we will be straight back to a referendum. All parties in England and Scotland support the Vow over devolution and Barnett at least for the next few years. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1215 "2014-09-24T17:50:03Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Not in any meaningful sense. If you declare independence, the UK can keep on doing exactly what it’s currently doing, including governing Scotland, and there’ll be nothing you can do about it. At least without massive support from things like NATO, the EU, the UN, you know, all those bodies that the UK is a member in good standing of. > > You can’t, in practice, become independent without our consent. You (personally) need to accept that, ditch the ridiculous Braveheart fantasies, and work within the political system. A system that has consistently and decisively rejected independence. You are ignoring the Edinburgh Agreement. The UK having once agreed that the possible independence of Scotland should be decided by a referendum would find it difficult to go back on that admission. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1216 "2014-09-24T17:51:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The oil isn’t Scotland’s, it’s the UK’s. It is in UK waters. There’s no such thing as Scottish waters, as Scotland isn’t a state. But should Scotland vote for independence, new boundaries would have to be set, and the oil would be largely Scottish. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1217 "2014-09-24T17:56:06Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Scotland does have all these rights. Just as it has the right to feel the wrath of international monetary markets when it declares an independence vote this time without the agreement of Westminster. Just as it also has the right to feel the economic wrath of a pissed off Westminster. If you think the scare stories during \*this \*referendum were bad just wait until we face an England that openly opposes us economically. Your figure of needing only a 5% change in electorate opinion is therefore largely irrelevant. The entire debate(for better or for worse) will have shifted. > > I have stated before that Westminster politicians will live to regret the promise Devo Max. We can already see where the fight is headed. I believe that like Ireland in the last century, Scotland is on an irrevocable paths to either Home Rule within the UK or independence- probably one followed by another. All the arguments being marshalled here were applied to the impossibility of Ireland leaving the UK. Ireland seems to be quite independent currently despite the nay Sayers. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1218 "2014-09-24T17:58:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What is the source of this legal right? The will of the people together with the appurtenances of Statehood. Not to mention that the UK has given de facto agreement by the Edinburgh Agreement. ---
**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:** [September 24, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1219 "2014-09-24T17:59:09Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > You are ignoring the Edinburgh Agreement. The UK having once agreed that the possible independence of Scotland should be decided by a referendum would find it difficult to go back on that admission. A referendum agreed upon with the consent of Westminster not a referendum decided by the Scottish Parliament alone. If you are going down that route Westminster would be as good to boycott such a future referendum. It could simply claim any future referendum result as invalid - once more with the judgement of the international money markets behind it. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/1220 "2014-09-24T18:02:39Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They do have that right, and if the majority of countries in the world recognised their independence, and were willing to act to force the UK to recognise it, it would happen. They don’t, however, have the ability to make anyone recognise them. > > Having the right to do something doesn’t actually mean that one has the ability to do something, it means that one can’t be prevented from doing it. Scotland, in my understanding, could claim it was independent and solicit recognition of that status without being in breach of any law. That wouldn’t mean UK law didn’t apply there, as long as the UK was willing and able to enforce that law. > > An analogy would be to “sovereign citizens” in the US. They have the right to claim that they are such, but by itself that doesn’t change anything. You show no understanding of history or politics. Just keep going with your legalistic arguments; such arguments did not stop Ireland getting Home Rule and almost every colony being given independence despite similar arguments from legalistic imperialists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=60) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=62)