Pale skin, hatred of garlic-guzzling Frenchmen and the sun?
It doesn’t take an idiot to realise the English are actually vampires 
I’m aware of Scots. What’s your point? I didn’t list every minority language in the UK because it seemed expedient to pick the most divergent for the sake of example.
It’s only “better” if people share your assumptions about what is “good”. And why should they? If someone values Scottish nationality, identity and culture, a “more cohesive identity” in which they are assimilated with “a much bigger constituent part of a union” may be pretty much the opposite of what they think good.
Not wanting to get personal or anything, but your username points to an ethnicity for whom this viewpoint should not be completely novel.
The Scots, the Irish and the Welsh will always be somewhat marginalised within the UK. The issue for them is to decide whether this is a price worth paying for whatever advantages accrue to them as part of the union and, if they are dissatisfied, they can either (a) seek to reduce their degree of marginalisation or (b) seek to leave the union. The Irish, or at any rate the bulk of them, chose the latter course about ninety years ago. The Scots are now debating it. Why should this be surprising?
Can someone explain to me… is there any concrete disruption that would happen to anyone’s life (either Scottish or the rest of the UK) if the Scottish leave? Are people’s basic human rights or property rights or contractual rights going to be disrupted in some way?
On the leaving scenarios that are plausible and that people are discussing, no. It’s proposed than an independent Scotland would be part of the EU, so Scottish and rump-UK citizens would still have complete freedom to travel to, live and work in, etc, one another’s countries. There is no reason why commercial relationships should be at all disrupted.
There’s some dispute over whether Scotland could keep the pound sterling as its currency, or adopt the euro; a change in currency mght affect people’s financial interests, but hardly their basic human rights. Since both currencies are freely tradeable, anyone aggrieved at having his savings redesignated in euros could immediately sell his euros and buy sterling instead; anybody wanting to be paid wages (or anything else) in sterling could contract for that.
It’s possible that some people would not like to have to make a choice between Scottish nationality and rump-UK nationality, but then it’s also possible that the UK could allow anyone holding UK nationality at the time of Scotland’s departure to retain it. That would be a matter for negotiation, I think. (British nationals resident in the Irish Free State acquired Irish nationality, but did not lose British nationality, in 1922).
I think the real issues are not about people’s fundamental human rights, but about their financial and political interests.
Huh. Well, I can’t really see what people are complaining about. UDS, what about UK-funded safety-net programs, like the NHS? How would those be handled?
As for currency, I’m of the view that no country should ever be in a currency union with any other country, but if that’s what the Scots want…
It would be up to Scotland to fund its own NHS, out of Scottish revenue.
But, if anything, the Scots are more communitarian than the English. The Scottish parliament has already reinstated social programmes that were withdrawn by the UK authorities, e.g. free university education. The more realistic fear in an independent Scotland is higher taxes to pay for social spending, not lower social spending.
They’re already in a currency union with another country. And it seems that an independent Scotland is not contemplating a stand-along currency; the only options on the table are sterling or the euro.
(And, realistically, nothing else is possible. It’s a requirement for admission to the EU that new entrants adopt the euro. Scotland might hope to negotiate getting grandfathered in with sterling, but not with a wholly new currency.)
Well, I should more accurately say that I don’t think a country should be in a currency union unless the union can meet the basic criteria for Optimal Currency Area theory, but that’s a discussion for a different thread.
An interesting (and completely uninformed) question is whether a Scottish welfare state would be more sustainable than an English/British one. Since life expectancy in Scotland is comparatively low, I guess tax payers wouldn’t have to provide old people with 20 years’ worth of old-age pensions. Or is my maths completely off?
Maybe, maybe, not. It would depend on which people aren’t living as long in comparison. Although if the life expectancy is lower because more people aren’t making it to old age in the first place, I guess there wouldn’t be as many pensions to give out (but also not as many taxpayers).
Because the Irish were not the masters of their own country, and were treated as such, in Scotland, we had Scots integrated entirely into the political and economic establishment with England, in Ireland it wasn’t the case whatsoever. As for my username yeah, you’re right, on the outward view it seems the case, but being British, which is a shared nationality between 3 nations, I don’t see it as something which contradicts my viewpoint.
Why should independence be automatically considered good, when a Union pretty much guarantees all the freedoms that they want anyway, and which could be provided under a devolved government.
Unionism isn’t some political anachronism, there are plenty of people on both sides, including myself, where we see the continued partnership between both nations as something to be celebrated, because it has created a shared nationality for one Island.
The point about Tory governments for a long time is overblown. The Blair governments, for example, would have won easily without their Scottish votes. I think that’s true for most Labout governments since the eighties (not sure about the time prior to that).
Frankly it is quite wrong to talk about the “Scottish” and “English” identities. Especially regarding England, vast areas of England feel the same way that those in Scotland do, but project their dissatisfaction towards the South, especially London, whereas those in Scotland often do it to purely England as a whole.
Take, for example, the left-leaning nature of Scotland. Large areas of northern England are as working class and left-leaning as Scotland yet somehow people throw them in a big bag called “England” where everyone is assumed to be a Tory. Large areas of England are marginalised in many ways like Scotland is but they don’t get the benefit of their own Parliament. Hell, England as a whole doesn’t get its own, even though the three other major parts of the UK get at least their own assembly.
To put it short, those that want to refer to just an “English” identity and a “Scottish” one are just plain wrong. It is shades of grey, not so black and white.
For the record, I’ve a Dad from Sheffield and a Mum from Renfrew.
I hesitate to support the claim that Scotland is more leftwing than England, actually. I am quite convinced that should Scotland become independent, a right-wing party just as conservative as the Conservatives would arise. I think the reason the Tories do so badly north of the border is because of the Tories’ overt Englishness more than anything else.
I suspect that if, as has been regularly proposed, the Tories shut down operations in Scotland and allowed an entirely independent Scottish Unionist Party to form, akin to the Bavarian CSU’s relationship to the federal CDU, then Scottish right-wingism would show itself to be quite vibrant.
I’d simply put it down to memories of Thatcher. Scotland was quite supportive of the Tories up until she came around. The figures on this page back me up:
Yes, that makes sense. I think the Tories were perceived to become more Anglo-centric during the 80s.
Is the Scottish economy strong enough to stand on its own? I know there’s oil and gas reserves in the North Sea as well as Scotland’s many distilleries*, and the financial services sector and of course tourism, but ultimately I can’t help but feel the average Scot may end up worse off after Independence. I’d love to be proven wrong, though.
- I’m not being facetious, they’re worth billions to the Scottis economy
One of the main reasons Scotland joined in a union with England and Wales was because it was bankrupt. It tried to create a colony in the Americas. Hibernia in swampy mosquito infested Panama. Small countries delude themselves that they have some sort of secret sauce to make themselves great. What now of Irelands ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy? Or the Icelandic financial fairy dust that grew money out of nothing. I don’t doubt that it will happen again. This time the Scottish Nationalist Salmon points to the Nordic countries for his model. Best of luck with that one.
The United Kingdom, a much larger country, became the vehicle for many an ambitious Scotsman. Some historians say that the Scots created the British Empire. This is a far cry from the ‘Home and Hearth’ politics of the likes of the SNP.
Independence will be hugely distruptive. The next government will spend a huge amount of Parlimentary time untangling 300 years of constitutional legal infrastructured. Moreover the character of the political parties will have to change on both sides of the border.
This will have dire consequences for both England and Scotland at a time when steady management of the economy is important.
Across the UK, I really don’t think people understand how bad this is going to be and look at it in simple emotional terms. ‘Do I look good in this’?
My prediction is the Independence vote will be to stay in the UK, but with lots of extra tax raising powers for the Scottish Assembly. I suspect that this is what the SNP really want in the first place. Losing might be winning.
I think they call that being ‘canny’, north of the border.
As to whether what the Guardians position on all of this. Who cares? It pleases its readers, like most newspapers. I don’t think the people of the UK are really that interested in what they regard as a matter for pompous politicians to sort out amongst themselves. Explaining the constitutional and economic consequences are not what people want to read about. I really don’t think this vote is being taken seriously at the moment in England because they have not been asked to vote on the subject.
Whether the Scots are concentrating their minds on the long term consequences and are willing to accept the SNPs blather and rhetoric on the subject. The debate should start heating up soon as we approach the September vote.
It is rather like one half of a couple deciding they are unhappy and want a divorce, yet giving scant attention to the practical consequences of seperating two lives that have been a unit for many years. It will get messy and there will be a cold reality and many unintended consequences to deal with. The Union with Scotland has lasted for 300 years. If the Scots were unhappy with the arrangement, I don’t doubt iit would have ended long ago.
The rest of the UK should have had a vote on this as well, since they will be directly affected economically and politically.
Couldn’t of put it better myself. It annoys me that the narrative on this subject is wholly negative on the aspects of Unionism that have been beneficial to both countries.
Who here is putting forth a wholly negative narrative?