Scottish Referendum

Granny23 You are right about ASs crafty ploys. Reminds me of the time i went with my brother and sister-in-law to see two houses they were looking at. SIL had narrowed it down to two, but the final choice was, of course, to be his.
It was clear to me that she had chosen one that he was certain to like, one which he would reject. He did. He got the one he wanted. So did she.

lilygran Braveheart was great as a fictional adventure, but lousy history.

NFK There is not nearly as much animosity as sometimes appears. As ever, the most vocal are not necessarily the most representative. In fact, I have seen more animosity in comments in english Newspapers against Scots - a lot of it in a spirit of "Good riddance they are just aggresive b******s" than I have among Scots against the english. There are many, many people with toes (sorry typo but I shall leave it in) ties in all parts of the United Kingdom. Do not feel that you are not welcome - that is just not true, any more than it is true that Scots are not welcome in England.

If there is any slight resentment, it is on the same lines as is felt by people in the UK about the USA - a small population overwhelmed by a larger one, and pulled along on their coat-tails in many fields, considered quaint and old-fashioned and a bit Brigadoonish. It was a generation ago that DHs cousin from Devon was planning to visit his relations in a fairly douce suburb of Edinburgh and asked in all seriousness whether it was worth packing his electric razor, but the impression of going to "the sticks" is still around.

The Scottish lowland tongue is regarded by some as a degenerate form of English, (though it is London English that has changed more than any other part of the country) A place for idyllic holidays, but horror strikes any whose job is relocated there.

Do not assume, either, that all Scots want to repeal the Union. Many feel that this is a time for everyone on these small vulnerable islands to pull together, not be pulled apart.

Bags You have to understand that AS and the SNP never wanted a second question. Why would they when it would have simply split the 'Yes'
vote between those in favour of more powers and those for full powers, allowing the 'No' voters a better chance to win? The offer was always on the table to include a second question if any other party - Labour? Liberals? had picked up the gauntlet but they swallowed the spin that a second question would provide a 'fall back position' for AS and so strongly opposed it.

Now AS can truthfully say that it was DC who vetoed a second question thereby forcing voters to vote YES if they want to see change of any sort because a NO vote will ensure no change whatsover for the foreseeable future. The 2nd ? was always a non starter or red herring as no one was prepared to say which additional powers were sought or how they would be achieved given a hostile UK Government.

So game, set and match to AS, Nil points for duped DC.

granny23 I should have made it clear that when I mentioned Mel Gibson I was intending to suggest that films like 'Braveheart' can foster a narrow nationalist attitude among those who might have less of a grasp of the chronology of Anglo/Scottish history than you.

Will they have a separate Eurovision Song Contest entry [mind you, I think they might have that already] and, if they win can they afford to host it?

I find the evident animosity so many Scots seem to have against us very upsetting. It's been a few years since we've been to Scotland but I remember our visits with great pleasure. However, I now feel unsure of a welcome. I wonder how many others feel this way and how it will affect tourism.

It's also made me think it might be rather good to be rid of Scotland if that's the way they feel. It may be rather nice to not have the Scots exerting so much influence on Westminster. Too many Scottish MP's with influence. I think by the time the referendum happens with all the inevitable back biting and nastiness Scotland will no longer be welcome in the Union. Too much damage will have been done.

And just another thought. If England builds say another nuclear power station and we don't need Scottish power, who will they sell it too?

Bags

Gamble indeed.

That's what I understood too. I don't think DC thinks the youth vote will make a big difference one way or the other. It's a gamble. The whole thing is a gamble and everything between now and then is speculation. The arguments and counter arguments will rage nonetheless between the different factions, and we will see some democracy in action. I hope.

I read that the deal was that DC would agree to 16s/17s voting as long as there were only two options.

G23, didn't AS want more than one question? DC appears to have beaten him down to one. Crafty politicking I didn't think him capable of. So it's only grudging 'respect'. No fear it'll stick anywhere.

I just find the whole episode sad.

It has the making of turning English against Scots, Welsh against English, Northern Ireland against Everybody, etc. etc. Just a b----y disaster waiting to happen. It certainly won't be all sweetness and light.

I do understand the reasoning behind it but I do not see how Scotland can or should keep the pound. How Scotland is so sure it will not have to reapply to the E.U. What the hell happens with defence, has nobody noticed we are joined together? How can Scotland keep the NHS if they don't pay N.I. and taxes to the 'pot'. Isn't North Sea Oil known to have a short lifetime of supply. The list goes on.

It makes for an uncomfortable time for those Scots who live outside Scotland and those who live in Scotland from Wales, Northern Ireland and England respectively.

This is far too long a period of time before the vote. It has every potential to damage UK growth for all of us. What sense does it make for investors to build a business in the UK?. Scotland will be just as much in danger of this as the rest of us.

If Scotland decides to become Independant then do it, whole ruddy hog. Do not keep the Queen, do not retain membership of the Commonwealth, do not expect the other countries to protect you, have the euro as your currency, etc. etc. For the SNP to say we want the pound, we want the Queen, we will stay an NATO, we don't need to apply as a new country to be in the EU is having you cake and eating it. We all need to know the truth about about these matter as facts not fiction it seems to me Salmond does not know himself yet.

I am deeply sorry this is happening, I have never thought of Scotland and the Scottish people as being nothing other than our friends, neighbours and a part of our way of life as we are all British. Well we were.

Here I am back again

Jane Since the 1950's Scots have overwhelmingly voted Labour but we have only had a Labour Government when England has swung Labourwards too. It is true that 50 to 60 Labour MP's from Scotland are necessary for Labour to have a majority at Westminster, probably the reason why New Labour have set themselves implacably against Scottish (and Welsh) independence, which was ironically part of the Labour platform when that Party was founded. If the Scots secede, Labour may never gain a majority in rumpUK parliament.

Jess Currently electricity is exported over the border (and undersea to NI)via the grid. Part of the row over the forthcoming giant pylons which are to be placed right down the middle of Scotland is that they are designed, not to meet local demand, but to carry surplus power down south. The National Grid charges Scottish power companies more to put their power onto the grid than they charge companies in the South of England because the Scottish power is furthest from the SE of England where the power is needed - another of these 'Union dividends' like high speed rail, funded by taxes from the whole UK but planned to stop just short of the border.

There is plenty precedent for division of assets between countries splitting up eg the old Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia who managed to accomploish this task quickly and amicably. There are already separate English & Scottish Crown Jewels. At the Union of the Crowns James, who had already been crowned as James VI King of Scots, using the Scottish Regalia, was crowned James I King of England using the English set. The Scottish Regalia was carried before the Queen at her Coronation in 1953. She is not Queen of Britain or the UK but properly Queen Elizabeth II of England and Elizabeth I, Queen of Scots. Technically, Sovereignity lies with the Crown in England - exercised via HM Government, whereas in Scotland Sovereignity lies with the People who have the power to choose or depose their Monarch. The Queen is not head of the church in Scotland and it has long been a bone of contention that a bunch of English Bishops have, of right, seats in the Lords and can block or amend legislation which relates to all of the UK.
Lily I think you are confusing the War of Independence, (early 14th Century) when Edward of England was attempting to annex Scotland and set up his own puppet King. Scots regained their Independence as a result of the comprehensive defeat of Edwards huge army by a small Scots army at Bannockburn in 1314. Thereafter, and until a hundred years after the Union of the Crowns, Scotland remained an independent nation with its own sovereign parliament until that parliament, comprised of course only of the nobility, decided in their wisdom (influenced by bribes and threats, or as Burns had it 'bought and sold for English Gold') agreed to form a Union with the English Parliament becoming the United Kingdoms, with certain provisions such as preservation of a separate legal system - Scots Law - and guarantees that the Anglican church would not have jurisdiction in Scotland. There was rioting in the streets as the common people, who had no democratic say in this agreement, were almost without exception opposed to the Union.

Bags I don't understand your sudden RESPECT for DC - hasn't AS just reeled him in and DS has fallen for it Hook, Line and Sinker. AS comes out of the negotiations with exactly what he wanted.

Bags is just plonking down discussion points for the sake of it, as usual. My own take is "what fun politically and we'll see". Salmond is renowned for being a canny blighter, so for the first time evah! David Cameron has a modicum of my respect. Don't worry; I don't expect it will last long. [wikkid emoticon]

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.

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.

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.)

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

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.

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?

Just one of the constitutional messes, jane

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?

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.

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

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.