Ironic considering the positives you’ve mentioned are within the Union.
I’m curious what, if any, implications there’ll be if Scotland votes Yes as regards Northern Ireland. I’m also curious whether there would be much of a migration out of Scotland in the event of it becoming independent.
It would be interesting to see. As people often say, ‘immigrants vote with their feet’. But given the deprivation of parts of northern England, it’s also entirely possible that people will migrate from there to Scotland.
There’s also the question of what will happen to the UK flag if Scotland really does leave. I’d assumed that they would just take out the white, but there are more, erm, creative ideas out there as well . . .
ETA: Sorry, I thought I was in the general discussion of the split, not a specific aspect of it - if this counts as a hijack, then I apologize.
Because we’re fuckin’ bored!
So he’s no true Scotsman?
Yeah, but my point was not just what would happen now if they tried to promote a (non-English) national language. I meant even in an alternate world where Scotland didn’t join the Union, those same economic and cultural forces are there, so I question the premise that those languages would have survived significantly better under an independent Scotland.
Plenty of languages that were spoken in Europe 300 years ago have either fallen out of use or merged, particularly if the nation / province only has a small population.
Declining or eclipsed languages have been revived by newly-indepenent states - Czech in Czechoslovakia after 1919, for example, and of course there’s Hebrew in Israel, though that is perhaps a special case.
On the other hand, efforts to do this are not always successful. There were efforts to revive Irish in Ireland after 1922; they have had very limited success. Given where Scots and Gaelic are now, in terms of speakers, I doubt if they could be revived as the dominant languages of Scotland (and SFAIK the independence movement does not advocate this).
Regarding Armed Forces, Scotland would have a combined Defence Force for Fisheries, Oil Rig Protection and Civic Intervention and might contribute to NATO peace keeping, although it would not accept Nuclear Weapons on its soil (including requiring the UK to exit the Nuclear Submarine Base near Glasgow eventually. It would expect either to take over some 10% of current Armed Forces or be compensated for them in some way. More Scots are in the Armed Forces than their percentage in the UK.
Regarding finaces, this is disputed and depends on the value of oil remaining. With the possibility of Fracking under sea, this argument is tending toward security fo Scotland. Most analyses show that Scotland is close to break even currently with Scotland slightly over paying when all things are considered.
Regarding the currency, informally retaining the pound is a possibility (as Ireland did for 50 years) or a currency union with agreement over rate setting etc. Worth noting that the Bank of England was founded by a Scot and Sterling is as much ‘owned’ by Scotland as by the rest of the UK. There is some talk of Scotland repudiating its share of the National Debt (which is underpinned by Sterling) if the rest refuse it direct access to Sterling.
If corporation tax is cut, I suspect that there would be net inward migration. Scotland has been growing recently after years of decline. The majority of immigrants are, like me, English.
It’s possible that, by negotiation, traditionally Scottish regiments of the British army could be transferred intact to a new Scottish army, or at least some of them could. Obviously there’d have to be arrangements for soldiers who didn’t wish to be included to switch to regiments remaining in the rump UK army, and possibly vice versa, but it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to devise such arrangements.
The other possibility is that some Scottish units could simply be disbanded, which is what happened to a number of Irish units of the British army in 1922. Individual soldiers from those units might, or might not, choose to enlist in the Scottish forces. The Scots government might, or might not, offer them inducements to do so.
I’m not sure why the Scots would be “compensated” if British military units were not transferred. Military units are a cost, not a revenue source, and Scotland would not have anything like a proportionate share the military commitments and expectations that the UK currently has. My guess would be that the Scots government would only want to take on a proportion of the current Scottish elements in the British army. It would be up to the British government whether to keep the rest, and keep on paying them, or to disband the rest, and pay their pensions. Either way, it’s the rump UK which might feel financially burdened by this, not Scotland.
There is nothing the UK government could do to stop the Scots unilaterally pegging a Scottish pound to the pound sterling, if that’s what the Scots choose to do. But the EU could be awkward (and of course the rump UK could encourage them to be); on admission to the Union, Scotland will need a derogation from the usual rule requiring new entrants to adopt the euro, and such a derogation is much more credible if Scotland has a formal currency union with rump UK than if they have an independent currency which, as a matter of policy, they peg not to the euro but to the pound sterling.
The Capital cost of armed forces would need to be compensated; the rump UK could not be expected to retain all ships, tanks, planes etc.
Regarding the EU it is obvious that even if Scotland was denied full membership by Spain or by refusing to take on the Euro, associate membership such as Switzerland or Norway would be almost automatically available. Additionally, Scottish People and other people living in Scotland would remain full British citizens if they wish (as in Ireland where those born before 1950 are eligible for full Briish citizenship (see Terry Wogan and his knighthood) so all Scots would have full access to the EU even if Scotland as a state was temorarily excluded!
Scotland has little to bargain with and a great deal to lose.
The government of the rest of the UK will act in its own best interests and must take whatever steps are necessary to minimise the disruption the UK economy.
Salmond and the SNP seem to think that everyone will help them in their efforts to forge an independent Scotland because they awfully nice chaps with a really good idea.
The fact is they have no idea what will happen after independence. They simply assume that everything will be perfectly straightforward and Scotlands future will comparable to some of the wealthier Nordic states.
I suspect that should Scotland vote for independence nothing much will happen until some very long and tedious negotiations take place. There are many international treaties to consider and these things do not get agreed overnight.
Divorce is seldom a very simple and straightforward business and the SNP act as if they are going to get the house, the car, membership of all clubs and a fanfare of good wishes from all the neighbours.
Salmond is peddling snake oil and the future of Scotland will be very uncertain for a number of years once they leave the UK safety blanket.
I have no doubt, that any difficulties will be blamed on the rest of the UK.
Somehow, I cannot see the large number of influential Scots who run large parts of UK business wanting to head back to this small country dominated small minded Nationalists.
But, if that is what they want, that is what they will get.
I really hope they think it through. My suspicion is, that most Scots are rather more concerned with other rather pressing matters political matters like Transport, Police, Healthcare, Education and so on rather that Constitutional matters that have remained stable foe 300 years.
It will be interesting as well, because the voting age has been reduced to 16 from 18, which is a first. Scots who do not live in Scotland are not eligible to vote. Not sure where that well known Hollywood Scotsman Sean Connery is living now, who knows, he might run for president.
I really don’t think anything good is going to come of this. It is just going to make mess that will consume lots of government time and resources, diverting it from sorting out the economy.
I suspect the Guardian might have the best approach. Watching the SNPs hubris before the inevitable nemesis when they discover that untangling two countries after three hundred years might not be as straightforward as they have been telling everyone. The consequences will be entirely the responsibility of Scotland. After all, no-one else gets to vote.
Interesting point of view but without much basis.
The opinion polls are moving fast in the direction of independence. If a vote for independence is achieved, all will need to work together to ensure continuity. Europe is not a problem as Scotland would still be eligible for a relationship with Europe such as Switzerland and Norway- merely accepting all regulations but no representatives initially. And as individuals every current Scot would still have full access to the EU for work and travel as they would still have the right to a full British Passport as with Ireland on separation! They are hardly going to create a special category of British citizenship for current holders of British Passports. New Borns may vary but this would be negotiated over the years! Same with the Pound- it may not be a formal currency union initially, but Rump UK could not stop Scotland using the Pound without them having control over policy- Ireland did for years.
When the Czech Republic separated from Slovakia, matters were sorted very quickly.
I watch with amazement as the ‘Better Together Campaign’ makes blunder after blunder in assessing what the average Scottish voter will think about their negative campaign- it is causing a real sense of resentment up here that feeds into Scottish petty nationalism; if they keep up their current approach, they will drive more into the independence camp.
They wouldn’t have to. They could sell or scrap any that the didn’t want to keep. They could even, by negotiation, sell or transfer hardware to Scotland (and in fact I presume that this is what would happen).
The point is, an independent Scotland probably wouldn’t want anything like a proportionate share of British military hardware, and would have no case for claming “compensation” if they got what they required, and it was less than a proportionate share. They might have a case for claiming compensation if they got nothing, but that’s not very likely. With the reduction in troop numbers and the loss of military bases and establishments located in Scotland the rump UK would have a surplus of hardware, a problem they could partly solve by offloading some of it onto the Scots.
Yes. Even leaving aside grandfathered UK nationality, it’s hard to see Scotland not being admitted to the EEA, and that would give Scotland and Scots nationals the same labour and market freedoms as all EEA and EU member states.
Why would Spain exclude Scotland from the EU?
They are trying to avoid Catalonia declaring independence and need to demonstrate the difficulty of breaking up a country.
By ‘compensated’ I meant financially or in kind. There are no rules about claiming such compensation, but on military matters Scotland has the whip hand of threatening the Nuclear submarine base on the Clyde- it will go eventually, but negotiations about timescale could mean that its removal was anything from 2016 to 2030. As the Armed Forces have been paid for out of general funds reliant on the National Debt, if sufficient Armed Forces were not transferred, it would be open to Scotland to repudiate that amount of the national debt to compensate.
My point, I think, is that there is likely to be no conflict on this issue. The rump UK will be keen to give the Scots at least as much military hardware (and probably military units) as the Scots will wish to take. The only likely argument is over the accounting treatment of the transaction.
Spain was also one of the few Western countries that did not recognise the independence of Kosovo. For the government in Madrid, recognising any secessionist movement anywhere on the planet would give legitimacy to similar movements at home.
Of course they are. Hence the ‘Yes’ Campaign’s repeated references to the Nordic countries. At a time when a London-driven economy is cutting government expenditure in health care, education and other important areas, the SNP wants independence as a way of following a different route. It would be silly of the ‘Better Together’ camp to assume that this is all about Scots hating the English. This is a deeply political process, not a sentimental one.