Scottish Referendum

And since this may lead to the break up of the UK shouldn't the English, Welsh and Northern Irish also have the right to vote?

I wonder at a different minimum age for a referendum on a single issue which is lower than the current voting age. Is this a level playing field? I also wonder whether 16-18 year olds are more or less likely to vote for independence and if that is why this decision has been made.

Presumably something DC conceded to in order to stick with one question. Butwill the 16 yr olds actually vote? I agree they are more likely to vote for independence if they do.

My thought on this is that it is setting a precedent for genuine democratic decision making by asking the people to decide. So why does that not apply to our EU membership? We were promised a referendum and now that the Scots have been granted one, when do we get one re the EU?

I heard that 16-18 year olds only make up 2% of the voting population, so they are unlikely to sway the vote in either direction.

I heard the same thing janeain. I also heard an economist say recently that, even with the oil revenues (which are not going to last forever), they will struggle to pay their benefits and pensions bill, not to mention the cost of equipping and running a separate armed services. I don't know enough about the Scots economy to make an informed opinion, but will be interesting to watch this develop and I hope, if they do vote to break away, the Scots are not going to fall on their faces. At the risk of sounding unkind, I also hope that if they do, we will not be called upon to bail them out!

I would say that the younger voters are more likely to be idealistically inclined toward total independence, and less likely to see the problems. This is a cynical move by Mr S to get his own way, whatever older wiser heads may vote for.

There is the interesting question of the national debt. Scottish banks are partly to blame. Shouldn't these issues be sorted out so that people know what they are voting for? No good the scots thinking they are going to get all the N Sea revenues and none of the debts and then a post-referendum negotiation delivers something they are not expecting.
I can also foresee that there will be a huge cost involved setting up parallel and separate government processes like tax collection. This will take a long time, cost a lot of money. This is not a small matter of a few new letterheads and a new logo! How long would it take them to work out their new tax regs and then get a computer system up and running to deal with it? Years not months that's for sure. And what happens in the interim period?

Is there such a thing as a 'Scottish' bank? They are multinational companies nowadays, aren't they? e.g Some Australian outfit bought out Clydesdale Bank quite a long time ago. UK govt owns most shares (80%) of RBS, etc.

Votes for 16 & 17 year olds is hardly 'opportunistic'. Having been SNP, Green and Liberal Policy for many years the idea is supportd by the vast majority of the Scottish Parliament. As jane says it is unlikely to make a significant difference to the result but surely the young people who will be living with the outcome for the whole of their adult lives should partake in the decision.

Gaga - good question - I agree. If Scotland becomes independant the Scots will then have an 'in or out' referendum on the EU.

Economists can (and do) make a case either way depending on their own standpoint or who is paying them. Press and Media are all biased towards retaining the Union and tend to feature articles from those who support that perspective. Currently, according to UK government figures, Scotland, with 8.4% 0f the population contributes 9.6% of UK tax revenues and receives 9.3% of UK spending. Besides receiving revenue from the 95% of North Sea oil & gas which is in Scottish Waters, an independent Scotand would save billions by not having nuclear weapons and would be able to SELL its surplus water and electricity, which currently crosses the border unmetered.

As to the banks - The Bank of Scotland, was doing quite nicely until it was taken over by the greedy HALIFAX, becoming HBOS, headquartered in HALIFAX which is in England. RBS is still nominally a Scottish Bank, but it was wild speculative enterprises world wide which led to its downfall.

It is generally accepted that UK assets and debt would/will be split on around a 10%/90% basis under international law.

It's a UNION! Two parties! Give the vote to the rest of us, not just Scotland. And what about the Scots living outside Scotland? And the English, Welsh and Irish living in Scotland? It's a constitutional mess.

Lilygran What would be your thoughts if there were to be a referendum on UK membership of the EU? Would you think that it was necessary that the franchise was extended to the voters in every country in that UNION? Do you think that a divorce should only be granted to a spouse citing abuse if the other spouse agrees to the divorce?

Everyone domiciled in Scotland and on the electoral register at the date of the referendum will have a vote. This will include 'born and bred' Scots and those who have chosen to make Scotland their home, it will also include those who are temporarily living furth of Scotland but have remained on the electoral register as 'absent voters' i.e. all those who will be directly affected by the result.

The EU and the UK are not the same kind of union.

Not the same type of Union? Why not? Both are Unions of Countries who thought that it would be mutually beneficial to stop fighting each other, unite, pool some resources, form a free trade area, whilst keeping control of some things eg. Law, Church, Education.

Different heads of state, for starters, different foreign policies, tax systems....*Granny23*, are you suggesting it is just a matter for Scotland?

Of course I am, not 'suggesting' but rather insisting. I do not think you realise that one of the major complaints about the British State, from a Scottish perspective concerns the 'democratic deficit' whereby voters in Scotland (with less than 10% share of the total votes) get the policies and governments that have been chosen by the other 90%. For instance many polls have shown overwhelming support for Nuclear disarmament in Scotland, no chance of achieving this within a pro-nuclear UK, current UK fisheries policy is disasterous for the (extremely important to the local economy) Scottish Fishing Industry which is Haddock based rather than Cod as in England, the recurring 'Vote Labour - Get Tory' scenarios (1 Tory MP returned from Scotland!). I could go on all night but will refrain .

An insistance on the rest of the UK voting in Scotland's referendum when 'the rest' would have 90% of the votes is anathema because that would mean the result was what the rest want, which is the crux of the matter.

PS: Polls show that 'the rest' would vote to throw Scotland out of the Union if they had the chance.

granny23is it not the case that if it were not for the Scottish Labour MPs in Westminster, Labour would never win a general election?
So that while the non-Scots may be dictating policies in Scotland (though there are many differences such as free social care etc not to mention university fees), the Scots have dictated which party is in power over the English?

Just one of the constitutional messes, jane

If there were a case of a small country somewhere else in the world trying to wrest its independence from another power (thinking of some of the members of the former Soviet bloc, for instance, though I'm sure there are others), would people think it only fair to count what those who live in that country have to say (vote) on the matter as more important than what people other countries want.

Just asking.

Wasn't it argued at the time of the Falklands War that the people living there should decide on who their government should be? Slightly different case as they weren' t asking for independence, only for the right to choose who had 'sovereignty' over them. Is this not what the SNP is demanding for the people living in Scotland?

Or is that too simplistic a view?

Does a group of people have the right to self-determination?

Interesting one bags.
Perhaps there's a critical mass.
John Prescott got egg on his face when he held a referendum for a Northern Assembly and the electorate answered with a resounding 'No'.
I will always remember some woman from Middlesbrough telling the Today programme that she didn't want to be ruled over by people from Newcastle.
As if the rest of the UK could care.

Thinking out loud.... critical mass.... quick skip over to google.... 2008 population of Falklands, 3,140. Hmm.

Granny23 - is Scotland a net exporter of water and electricity? I am interested to know.
How on earth would UK assets be divided? Which assets? The navy and airforce? The crown jewels? What international law is that - has it happened somewhere else?
Who has generally accepted it?
(as a Welsh person living in England, I slightly stand on the sidelines here.)

Bags I don't think Scotland is a small power etc etc. the union was one of equals (under a Stuart monarch, as it happens). It's a romantic view, fostered by Mel Gibson, that the union was the result of conquest and that the Scots were unwilling partners. What concerns me is that both Cameron and Salmond evade discussion of details like those Jess mentions. If Scotland does vote to end the Union, there's every chance of an unholy mess worse than the Midlothian question.

Well, if Scotland decides to go independent, I wil have to emigrate!!
Up North that is.
What a country. I love the place.
But flippancy aside, what is going on at the moment is fascinating. Well, historically anyway.