Why are some people enjoying the possible break up of the UK?

[Ryan_Liam]

@Pjen

I am getting really quite frustrated with outsiders treating the Scottish electorate as in some manner inadequate and not competent to decide their future. I am beginning to appreciate what it must be to be Irish with a Bully State next door!

Yup you’re completely ‘on the fence’ in regard to this. :rolleyes: Good old Anglophobia!

Baron Greenback
Yes, that’s exactly what I said.

There’s a fairly cohesive part of the UK that has some measure of autonomy. It increasingly doesn’t fit politically with Westminster, and there is a vote about that. What is the problem?

Then you change Westminster, and try to change within, not drop out. What’s the problem with me wanting the Union to continue. change it as much as you want in order for it to be relevant.

Dr Drake
Can you articulate a reason why, having lasted 300+ years, the UK must continue?

Because with that Union we are stronger and more able to be a force in the EU, NATO and the UN in regards to international affairs. Reducing the UK to some statelets on the outside of Europe diminishes Scotland and England’s influence.

[Pjen]

@Ryan_Liam

Yup you’re completely ‘on the fence’ in regard to this. :rolleyes: Good old Anglophobia!

Then you change Westminster, and try to change within, not drop out. What’s the problem with me wanting the Union to continue. change it as much as you want in order for it to be relevant.

Because with that Union we are stronger and more able to be a force in the EU, NATO and the UN in regards to international affairs. Reducing the UK to some statelets on the outside of Europe diminishes Scotland and England’s influence.

Yes. I am completely on the fence over whether Indpendence or not is a good thing. I am NOT on the fence in believing that the Scottish people have the right to make the decision by themselves without outside interference.

Change Westminster- so you think that India should have tried to ‘Change Westminster’- reform the Empire, rather than try for Independence. And maybe Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia (not to mention Ireland (should still be ‘dominions’. Maybe in 1776 Washington should just have asked Westminster to be nicer. The same argument applies.

You are free to believe that NATo and the UN will be diminished (as will rump UK) and that is a fair political point, but that gives Westminster no legal or moral right to rule against the wishes of the Scottish electorate.

The road to referendum has been fair, legal and just, and the people of Scotland will decide.

[Batistuta]

@Ryan_Liam

Then you change Westminster, and try to change within, not drop out. What’s the problem with me wanting the Union to continue. change it as much as you want in order for it to be relevant.

Can’t you understand that changing Westminster from within is almost impossible from a Scottish point of view? They are a tiny minority in the United Kingdom, and therefore have very little leverage to change things at the state level. Scotland’s best chance of achieving real change might be through independence.

@Ryan_Liam

Because with that Union we are stronger and more able to be a force in the EU, NATO and the UN in regards to international affairs. Reducing the UK to some statelets on the outside of Europe diminishes Scotland and England’s influence.

Well, we’d have to see how long the UK will remain in the EU, given the Conservative Party’s anti-European escapades.

And I don’t think the UK would be reduced to “some statelets on the outside of Europe”. The United Kingdom without Scotland would still have a larger population than, say, Spain or Poland; while remaining an economic powerhouse and having the strongest army in the continent. Scotland would be a small country, yes. But not much smaller than many of the key European countries: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Austria… I really don’t see the problem.

[filmstar-en]

@Pjen

The road to referendum has been fair, legal and just, and the people of Scotland will decide.

The referendum is not legally binding on the UK Parliament, I am sure you know that.

It will simply indicate the sentiment of the electorate responding to one simple question. A matter that will be very open to interpretation. Lord knows we have heard quite enough of the SNP vision of independence. It all sounds quite splendid. You could sell that sort of dream to anyone.

It says nothing of what independence actually means in practical terms.

If Scotland wants it, the Scots can pay for it. I suspect that it might dawn on the electorate that their sporran is not deep enough to pay for this folly and there is no way the rest of the UK is going to subsidise this extravagance.

It will all come down to money in the end.

[Ryan_Liam]

Batistuta
Can’t you understand that changing Westminster from within is almost impossible from a Scottish point of view? They are a tiny minority in the United Kingdom, and therefore have very little leverage to change things at the state level. Scotland’s best chance of achieving real change might be through independence.

Yeah, impossible to change Westminster, remind me again how Scotland was granted devolution in the first place? That in itself (I support devolution) is what they did to influence something at the state level. They can do pretty much all the things they want to do in a devolved Parliament as they can in a Independent country.

A tiny minority? We’ve had Scottish participation in all levels of Westminster, including the Prime Ministers office.

Well, we’d have to see how long the UK will remain in the EU, given the Conservative Party’s anti-European escapades.

Batistuta
And I don’t think the UK would be reduced to “some statelets on the outside of Europe”. The United Kingdom without Scotland would still have a larger population than, say, Spain or Poland; while remaining an economic powerhouse and having the strongest army in the continent. Scotland would be a small country, yes. But not much smaller than many of the key European countries: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Austria… I really don’t see the problem.

Perhaps half of the Scottish electorate who would like to remain in the Union would disagree with that. There wouldn’t be a UK in the traditional sense if Scotland left. Who’s to say the English and Scottish economies would remain strong with a messy divorce? This is supposition.

[Pjen]

@filmstar-en

The referendum is not legally binding on the UK Parliament, I am sure you know that.

It will simply indicate the sentiment of the electorate responding to one simple question. A matter that will be very open to interpretation. Lord knows we have heard quite enough of the SNP vision of independence. It all sounds quite splendid. You could sell that sort of dream to anyone.

It says nothing of what independence actually means in practical terms.

If Scotland wants it, the Scots can pay for it. I suspect that it might dawn on the electorate that their sporran is not deep enough to pay for this folly and there is no way the rest of the UK is going to subsidise this extravagance.

It will all come down to money in the end.

If Westminster ignored the result, there would be unrest I am sure given the sentiment up here. I suspect it might become dangerous for English up here.

UDI would almost certainly happen and we would have effed up one more retreat from Empire.

[Ryan_Liam]

@Pjen

If Westminster ignored the result, there would be unrest I am sure given the sentiment up here. I suspect it might become dangerous for English up here.

UDI would almost certainly happen and we would have effed up one more retreat from Empire.

While I agree that UDI would be legitimate if that scenario occurred I find fault with your other implied assertion, Scotland isn’t part of the ‘British Empire’, the Empire pretty much ended in 1997 with the effective handover of Hong Kong. Stop trying to associate Colonialism with an integral part of the UK.

[filmstar-en]

It would not ignore the result, that would be untenable.

However, accepting Mr Salmond and the SNPs interpretation of what constitutes independence and who should pay for it is not obligatory. It is not set in stone that that is how it will be, most are aspirations that are ‘subject to negotiation’ with the rest of the UK.

Scotland does not simply become independent the day the votes are counted, you know. The SNP may suggest it is simply a question of handing over the keys and everything will fall naturally into place.

In reality, it will be a protracted process, as you might expect between two nations that have been politically unified for 300 years. The UK is not like the Czechoslovakia which split soon after they were free from Soviet control and able to agree a constitutional settlement.

UDI? Really, what do you think this is? This will be agreed in civilised manner. It is not in the interests of Scotland to have all the responsibilities of an independent state suddenly thrust onto their shoulders overnight. The bill would bankrupt the country. Scotland need the rest of the UK to agree to put the resources into their independence project. I really don’t see how any UK politician could sell that to the UK voters.

I will be interested to see what will happen to the UK Scots MPs, presumably they will all be looking for a place in a Scots Parliament. Mr Salmond is going to have an influx of talented and ambitious politicians to deal with.

It will be most amusing to watch them fight it out.

[Pjen]

@Ryan_Liam

While I agree that UDI would be legitimate if that scenario occurred I find fault with your other implied assertion, Scotland isn’t part of the ‘British Empire’, the Empire pretty much ended in 1997 with the effective handover of Hong Kong. Stop trying to associate Colonialism with an integral part of the UK.

There are still remnants of Empire in British Overseas Territories.

There is a Scottish national feeling that rankles at being ruled by a parliament that does not reflect that- that does not REQUIRE independence, but may validate it. Scotland was only ruled by Westminster for a hundred years more than Ireland to put it into perspective. Ireland was legally an integral part of the UK from 1800 onwards and had been so de facto for many years before that.

It is certainly valid to see this as an escape from a foreign power- a n escape from Empire.

[Pjen]

@filmstar-en

It would not ignore the result, that would be untenable.

However, accepting Mr Salmond and the SNPs interpretation of what constitutes independence and who should pay for it is not obligatory. It is not set in stone that that is how it will be, most are aspirations that are ‘subject to negotiation’ with the rest of the UK.

Scotland does not simply become independent the day the votes are counted, you know. The SNP may suggest it is simply a question of handing over the keys and everything will fall naturally into place.

In reality, it will be a protracted process, as you might expect between two nations that have been politically unified for 300 years. The UK is not like the Czechoslovakia which split soon after they were free from Soviet control and able to agree a constitutional settlement.

UDI? Really, what do you think this is? This will be agreed in civilised manner. It is not in the interests of Scotland to have all the responsibilities of an independent state suddenly thrust onto their shoulders overnight. The bill would bankrupt the country. Scotland need the rest of the UK to agree to put the resources into their independence project. I really don’t see how any UK politician could sell that to the UK voters.

I will be interested to see what will happen to the UK Scots MPs, presumably they will all be looking for a place in a Scots Parliament. Mr Salmond is going to have an influx of talented and ambitious politicians to deal with.

It will be most amusing to watch them fight it out.

How condescending and typical of your attitude “It is not in the interests of Scotland to have all the responsibilities of an independent state suddenly thrust onto their shoulders overnight.”

If the Scottish people decide for independence then the only question for Westminster is how to say goodbye. The people will have spoken and action will be taken- either by agreement or through power politics.

UK Scots MPs fall into two categories- those representing non-Scottish constituencies who will retain their seats and positions in Government and those in Scottish seats who will not retain them after some time.

And there is an interesting time scale-

Independence Referendum September 2014
New Scottish Parliament elected May 2016- planned as an independent nation state.

But what about the 2015 Westminster election- suppose that a Labour majority is returned with a good majority, say 60 or so over all other parties. When Scotland leaves, they would lose that majority and probably have to go to the country or hand over power to a Con or LibCon administration again. Any attempt to delay independence to assist the Labour party would be seen as immoral.

Sippose the Conservatives are returned with a small majority- they would want rid of the Scottish Labour MPs as quickly as possible- especially if it disencumbered them of the LibDems.

If there is a Yes vote, it will be in the current Government’s interests to put themselves in a position where no Scottish MPs are elected in 2015- to have heads of agreements signed very quickly, maybe even agreeing a delay to the 2015 election so that there is a Scotland and rump UK election in May 2016.

[Ryan_Liam]

Pjen
There are still remnants of Empire in British Overseas Territories.

Let’s look at what I said,

the Empire pretty much ended in 1997 with the effective handover of Hong Kong

There is a Scottish national feeling that rankles at being ruled by a parliament that does not reflect that- that does not REQUIRE independence, but may validate it. Scotland was only ruled by Westminster for a hundred years more than Ireland to put it into perspective. Ireland was legally an integral part of the UK from 1800 onwards and had been so de facto for many years before that.

Ireland was Colonised to keep it loyal, Scotland wasn’t, it was a participatory member of the Union. Ireland wasn’t. So your association is completely incorrect.

It is certainly valid to see this as an escape from a foreign power- a n escape from Empire

:rolleyes: so the UK is effectively the British Empire, even though the British Empire was founded by England and Scotland coming together in a Union!

[Pjen]

@Ryan_Liam

Let’s look at what I said,

Ireland was Colonised to keep it loyal, Scotland wasn’t, it was a participatory member of the Union. Ireland wasn’t. So your association is completely incorrect.

:rolleyes: so the UK is effectively the British Empire, even though the British Empire was founded by England and Scotland coming together in a Union!

I think you need to read Scottish history more carefully. Although the monied classes (temporarily indebted becasue of darien) agreed a Union of Parliaments, that was not originally a popular feeling. There is an undercurrent of resistence from Robbie Burns:

Parcel O’ Rogues

(Trad / Robert Burns)
Fareweel tae all oor Scottish fame
Fareweel oor ancient glory
Fareweel even tae oor Scottish name
Sae famed in martial story
Now Sark runs tae the Solway sand
Tweed runs tae the ocean
To mark where England’s province stand
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation

What force or guile could ne’er subdue
Through many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor’s wages
The English steel we could disdain
Secure in valour’s station
But English gold has been oor bane
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation

Oh would that ere I saw the day
That treason thus should sell us
My auld grey heid was laid in clay
Wi’ Bruce and loyal Wallace
But pith an’ power tae my last hour
I’ll mak’ this declaration
We’re bought and sold for English gold
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation
to the current AnyOneButEngland fervour in the World Cup.

Ignoring this Nationalist anti-colonial feeling is missing a strand of the independence debate.

And the Better Together Campaign and many of the neo-colonial sneering attitudes here just stoke that fire.

[Ximenean]

It’s preposterous to suggest that Scotland has ever been a colony of England in the way that Ireland was.
Here’s former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who you may recall is Scottish, in the *Scotsman *(so it’s going to be difficult to duck this one under your “typical English attitude” all-purpose get-out clause), saying that if anything the SNP’s plans would make Scotland more like a colony of the UK.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-snp-plan-makes-scotland-a-colony-claims-gordon-brown-1-2613246

[filmstar-en]

Tosh!

That is just emotional nonsense brought about by playing on long held insecurities that come from a small country living next to a big one.

Scotland was bankrupt when it joined the Union. The failed Scottish colonial experiment in Panama had consumed all the resources of the treasury. They were facing a generation of poverty. The Union with England promised access to the resources of a much larger economy embarking on the same sort of enterprise. It was a no-brainer.

Burns may have not liked it, but who was to blame? An independent Scotland and the poor judgement of its leaders was to blame. The bet the farm and lost it.

The likes of Salmond and the SNP are an echo of that monumental hubris and will lead Scotland to suffer a similar economic nemesis. They want independence to be financed by the rest of the UK.

The Scots with their monomaniac mentality can be quite insufferable at times. Very useful when pointed at the foes in some joint enterprise, but a royal pain in arse when they start scrapping with their own side.

Scotland is a small country, too small to contain the ambitions of many Scots.

I really do not see how you can take this nationalistic baloney seriously, it is the creation of the stay-at-home Scots. Those who are content to sit around and argue about dividing an increasingly small cake. My guess is that Scotish nationalism is simply a code for some sort of idealised socialist state - all the benefits of a comprehensive social system except for one thing: the money to make it work. Scottish socialists look at the Nordic nations and want to carve out something similar.

Best of luck with that one! It will more likely end up like Ireland or Iceland where mavericks convinced the voters that they had the ‘gold touch’. The Nordic countries have cultures that pull together in the same direction under a general consensus. They cut down tall poppies, tax the hell out of everything and everyone knows exactly how much everyone else earns. There is much to admire when it works, but they are niche players in the world economy and they can just as easily find whatever advantage they had slips away. They are also militarily weak, which is not an advantage being so close to Russia.

The Scots are not at all like that. They are competitive, assertive and ambitious. Or maybe my judgement is influenced by the Scots who make their careers in London. God help those north of the border if Scotland is denied a safety valve of the road to England. London is full of people who have escaped the stultifying confines of their own countries for a place where there is the freedom to work hard and prosper.

Scotland will shoot itself in the foot if it votes for independence. Sadly I suspect it will also cause untold problems in the rest of the UK.

At the moment there not a lot of discussion around the debate. Just the usual positioning statements from Salmond. The real campaign will start at the end of May and I suspect both sides will begin to make their points in earnest in the run up until the September vote. I suspect most English voices will remain quiet and let the Scottish Unionists slug it out with the SNP. Who knows, maybe the Caledonian mafia will all return to Scotland, join the SNP and sit around with all those town councilors of Glasgow and Edinburgh and have debates about trams and bus passes.

I think the rest of the UK will have no problem holding onto the best of the talent in Scotland…unless they screw it all up by leaving the EU after some ill judged referendum. That is entirely possible. Scotland has no monopoly on snake oil salesmen posing as politicians.

[Pjen]

@Ximenean

It’s preposterous to suggest that Scotland has ever been a colony of England in the way that Ireland was.
Here’s former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who you may recall is Scottish, in the *Scotsman *(so it’s going to be difficult to duck this one under your “typical English attitude” all-purpose get-out clause), saying that if anything the SNP’s plans would make Scotland more like a colony of the UK.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-snp-plan-makes-scotland-a-colony-claims-gordon-brown-1-2613246

I did not say that Scotland was a colony, just that there is an anti-colonial feeling abroad in Scotland whatever the facts of governance.

[Malden_Capell]

@Pjen

I think you need to read Scottish history more carefully. Although the monied classes (temporarily indebted becasue of darien) agreed a Union of Parliaments, that was not originally a popular feeling. There is an undercurrent of resistence from Robbie Burns:

Yes, but no government on earth back then based its principles on popular feeling. Not even the Scottish Parliament.

[Pjen]

@Malden_Capell

Yes, but no government on earth back then based its principles on popular feeling. Not even the Scottish Parliament.

Agreed. But knowledge of this and a sharing of that sentiment leaves Scotland with an anti-colonial feel, even though it was never a colony.

Edward I, The Hammer of the Scots, Braveheart, and so on loom large in popular belief- think flower of Scotland.

[Dr.Drake]

@Ximenean

It’s preposterous to suggest that Scotland has ever been a colony of England in the way that Ireland was.

“Preposterous” is a bit strong.

It is a fact that the English people (well, the Angles of a couple of the kingdoms like Bernicia) colonized the southern portion of the country in the early medieval period, at around the same time the Irish were expanding in the western part of Scotland and before the Norse colonized the northern parts. Of course, there wasn’t any England per se at that time. It’s also a fact that the Normans made enormous inroads into the Scottish nobility at around the same time they were expanding into Wales and Ireland, although in Scotland it was largely by marriage and alliances rather than successful military conquest. It’s not the same as Ireland, not by a long shot, but it’s not like there weren’t powerful English people coming in to Scotland from the sixth or seventh century on.

[Jackmannii]

Just a reassuring note that there are immense numbers of people who don’t give a rodent’s behind if the tattered remnants of the British Empire break up a little more.

Sort of like 2 billion Chinese don’t give a crap who wins the Super Bowl.

[filmstar-en]

@Jackmannii

Just a reassuring note that there are immense numbers of people who don’t give a rodent’s behind if the tattered remnants of the British Empire break up a little more.

Sort of like 2 billion Chinese don’t give a crap who wins the Super Bowl.

Indeed, why would anyone be in the least bit concerned about about the constitutional wrangles of another country? What other country really cares or knows much about the problems between the Han Chinese and the Uyghurs of Xinjiang? When Americans start arguing about their constitution, the rest of the world just scratches their head and wonders what all the fuss is about.

I am sure these internecine spats in the UK must be like listening the annoying couple next door arguing loudly about their shaky marriage. However, it certainly matters to those involved. Divorce can be a messy business.