Scottish Independence

Am not sure that the Baltic states is a helpful example. On a recent trip to Estonia we were told that wages are being quartered even halved and that was for professionals like teachers etc. Also that most of the investment in the country still comes from Russia - and often from less than reputable organisations if you get my drift.

Jess I hope that Scotland votes to stay in the UK but if they decide to leave the practical machinations that you refer to - tax, oil, territorial waters, etc., can't be insurmountable.

Look at the Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia & Estonia - they successfully broke away from the Soviet Union and joined the EU, and they have very small populations, one of them is just about a million strong!

I used to be proud of being British. Proud of the way incomers were absorbed into our British culture. Yes, there were differences between our four nations but we were still family. Since the rise of multiculturalism we've become clannish and sadly the family is being destroyed. I no longer call myself British. I am English.

You cannot have an AGREEMENT if the parties do not AGREE with each other.
You cannot have a Union if one party refuses to unite, or to remain united to the other.

WhenIwas your age thanks for the support - I was beginning to feel like a voice crying in the wilderness.

Of course we all have our own opinions, and quite right too, but I would just like to say that I agree with Granny23, but that she can put it much better than I can!

I have various reasons for planning to vote Yes but top of the list is the chance of getting rid of Trident. When I heard that the problem with putting Trident in Devenport was that it would be too close to major centres of population, I was outraged! Most of my GC are too close to Faslane for comfort, but they are obviously not as important as they would be if they were down south. I don't want anyone's GC to be anywhere near these obscenities, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Yes campaign had a certain amount of support from anyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who, like me, sees it as the only way we have of getting rid of nuclear weapons from these islands. As Granny23 points out, Trident is under US control anyway, so we get all the risks with none of the deterrent "benefits", quite apart from what I see as the sheer immorality of having the thing in the first place.

Can see I'm seriously out of my depth here....just wanted to know if people felt like me about it. Methinks Granny23 is probably far more expert than some politicians.

Granny 23 Yes, but don't both or all (whichever) parties to the Acts have to agree to repeal them? (I don't have much grasp of constitutional history or constitutional law.)

Absent The only acts that apply are the ACTs of UNION - one passed by the English Parliament and one passed by the Scottish Parliament in 17?? in which the Scottish Parliament agreed to dissolve itself and instead send representatives to Westminster and the English Parliament agreed to reserve places for them.

Need to check my facts here - get back to you but the bottom line is that when/if these two acts are repealed the Union between the countries will be over.

Hilda Scotland could only exercise the right to control is own land, territorial waters, and finances if it was fully independent of the UK. And it is oil not gas that is the major asset. The Westminster government have been predicting that oil was about to run out for 40 years {Please google the McRone Report} but it continues to flow and new fields are being discovered. Hopefully, within 30 years we will all have gone over to renewables and it just so happens that Scotland - blessed with an extensive coastline and many firths (=fiords) and a temperate climate (= usually neither too hot nor too cold, neither too windy nor windless) and umpteen lochs and fast flowing rivers - is ideally placed to benefit from wind, wave and water power, not to mention reserves of shale and coal, which could be utilised if needed now that carbon capture technology is well developed. Currently, Scotland is a net exporter of energy (to NI & England, via the grid), when all the tidal and wind projects come on stream, Scotland will be entirely self sufficient in energy for the forseeable future.

Jess Obviously you cannot have 9% of a single naval base but I think you will find that with all the recent closures and cut backs Less than 10% of bases are within Scottish Borders now, so a proportional division of bases copuld be achieved simply by each keeping what we have already. It is proposed that Scotland will have no nuclear weapons on land or within her territorial waters* and that Faslane will become Scotland's main conventional naval base. There are suitable deep water ports elsewhere in the UK but politicians are worried that no one wants them near to where they live (neither do we!). As the nuclear subs are ultimately, under the orders of the USA why not let their government find a base for them?

And Yes, the National debt is taken into account in the figures. Scotland will not of course have to pay off her share in one go but would continue to make payments of mainly interest as at present. Scottish people are of course paying their share of the national debt through their taxes now, when these taxes are payable to the Scottish Exchequer there will be exactly the same amount available for paybacks.

*No Nukes in territorial waters would apply to USA, French, Russian, etc. vessels as well as those of Rump UK.

Would it be constitutionally legal for Scotland to become independent without the agreement of the rest of the UK? Aren't there two Parliamentary acts involved? Or would Alex Salmond declare UDI if he got a yes vote in the referendum but the Uk Parliament said no? Talk about living in interesting times.

Yes Ariadne, do tell him to - he sounds an interesting chap!

Theseus (a Scot) wonders why he is disenfranchised, as he lives in England, while non-Scots living in Scotland will be able to vote. (These are his words, not mine.)

And, he asks, what does Alex Salmond really want? He is up to something, thinks Theseus.

And next time, he can join GN and ask his own questions!

Good for you Grandmanorm, we should all be able to state opinions - and no one has to agree. We just have to remember, me included, that some very nice people can have quite different views to ourselves.

I have already stated my opinion that I most emphatically do not want a separate Scotland and I do not know anyone who does.
I say again, we are a small island and should stick together.
Ofcourse I know others disagree, that is their right. Just thought I would state my opinion again.

That is very informed and informative granny23. You have educated me.
Of course the oil and gas will run out because they are not renewable resources.

I did not doubt for a moment that you had tax offices. But you cannot have 9% of an IT system. I just wonder how many years it would take before you could get up and running writing a new set of software with all the different rules in it. More about the practicalities of the project. (project manager hat on)
Also you cant have 9% of a nuclear submarine base. And you dont seem to want 9% of it either.
Do you envisage that you would ban UK subs from scottish waters so that they would just have to not dock in the only facility where they can dock?
The national debt is another interesting issue. 9% of a helluvalot is a helluvalot. Does that figure in the "we'd be better off without rest of UK" calculations - or is AS only presenting the positives I wonder.
I have no particular agenda on this, just wondering about how it would all work and how a fair case can be presented to the people before they vote.
Which other countries have been granted independence? And have they been part of a large, affluent and complex country with vast shared debts and assets?

Gosh, it all sounds very complicated. So Scottish folks are prepared to fund everything for themselves and it will all be funded by North Sea Gas?
I do hope they get their sums right and that the Gas does not run out.
I have no idea of the economics behind it all but I hope that they are getting the best advise before they set themselves apart. From what you say Granny23 I do find it all very confusing. You say that the Scotts have a right to certain things and yet they are the ones demanding the split? That seems a little counterintuitive to me.

Right Jess I'll do my best but you would get more authorative answers if you put the questions to Alex Salmond next Tuesday. The oil - International Law applies - all Oil and Gas fields currently in British Waters are subject to British Laws, rules and taxes the boundaries are agreed and recognised by all adjoining countries, such that any new field can be easily determined to be in British or Norwegian waters, etc. If Scotland becomes independent of rumpUK, (England, Wales & NI - I call it WINE for short ) then everything in Scottish Waters is Scotland's everything in WINE waters belongs to that country. Approx. 90% of UK oil fields are in the sector deemed Scottish. At present Scotland benefits from around 9% of total revenue as its share on a per capita basis because around 9% of the UK population live in Scotland. David Cameron, or any future PM has no say in this matter. 30+ countries have won their independence in recent history so there are precedents for how the division of debts and assets will be decided. If no amicable arrangement can be reached then the (International) Courts will rule - just the same as in any divorce.

In very simple terms there will be a net gain to the Scottish Exchequer because of the enormously increased income from oil revenues and the decreased expenditure i.e. none, on weapons of mass destruction. Of course there are a myriad of other items in the budget to take into account but the effects of the 'big two' gaining and saving billions in both cases will ensure that Scotland is better off on its own.

Scots at present are Brits and members of the EU. Scots pay income tax & NI, VAT, Road Tax - all the taxes at the same rates, by the same rules as those living elsewhere in the UK. We DO have Tax Offices in Scotland you know! staffed by fully trained personel some of whom will have contributed to writing the software, which belongs to, is owned by, ALL of us in the UK. Same goes for military bases, equipement, ships, aircraft etc. Given a split Scotland would be entiteled to 9%ish of all UK assets and (unfortunately ) liable for 9% of UK debts.

Opinion polls consistantly show that the majority of Scots wish to remain in the EU, while the majority in the rest of the UK want to leave. No country has ever been ejected from the EU and I cannot see why the EU or United Nations would reject a civilized, resource rich and oil producing country when they have extended a welcome to the former Yugoslavian and Russian states. With Cameron's referendum on the EU in the offing we might even see in 5 years time WINE out and Scotland in! We live in interesting times do we not?

I am mystified as to what people will be voting on. if I were Scottish (as opposed to Welsh and living in England) I would want to know the answer to lots of questions. YOu may say granny23 that you would get 90% of North Sea Oil revenues instead of the current 9%, But does David Cameron know that and has he agreed that that's what you'd get? Or is it just what you'd like?
Does anyone know how the money would work out? How do you know there would be a net gain in revenue?
How would the tax system get unpicked - would scotland have to write their own IT systems from scratch?
Who owns those nuclear bases and other assets that have been paid for by Westminster? Would Scotland be left with any military assets or would they belong to the rest of the UK?
And would scotland still be part of the EU - would it want to be - and if so would it have to re-apply in its own right?
There are many big questions like this in my mind. Have any of them been resolved and if so which ones please?

Granny23 Phew – that's a relief! I knew that you would be able to explain the whole business so much better than I can. However, I do think that there are still issues that remain to be settled in the event of Scottish independence – national debt, EU membership for both Scotland and the UK rump, defence, currency and, no doubt, much more.

Absent I have no absolutely no problem with your post. I do however, have a 'little' problem with the thought that Intelligent Scots will all vote NO. I do believe that the process has been thought through - many intelligent people + me have thought of little else for 60+ years.

I cannot, having thought about and discussed the topic endlessly, think of anything I value that I would lose come Independence. I can think of loads of things I shall be glad to lose - such as nuclear weapons from our land, being dragged, protesting, into wars which are none of our business, being controlled by the unrepresentative, un-democratic, corrupt Parliament at Westminster and the even worse House of Lords, where a bunch of all male Church of England Bishops have the right to pontificate on matters affecting me - a faithless, non-English woman.

The question is not what Scots will lose but what they will gain - such as control of our own tax and revenue, 90% of North Sea Oil revenues instead of the current 9%, the return of the bit of our costal waters (stolen by Tony Blair who just re-drew the boundary), the opportunity to re-vitalise our Haddock based fishing industry without being ham strung with regulations designed to help a cod based industry. I could rave on all week but instead I invite you to google such things as the 'McCrone Report', Newsnet Scotland,
SNP.org and 'Yes Scotland' and follow links from these.

You see ALL of the main stream media is Unionist and has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - the BBC even has it as a main aim in their Charter to try to bind the nations and Regions of the UK together. I do not blame intelligent English people for thinking that Scottish Independence will be a disaster as all the Newspapers, commentators and pundits assure us that it will be and produce selective statistics to 'prove' their point. Everyone should inform themselves about both sides of the debate before reaching a conclusion.

I don't think it will go through. I think enough Scots have the intelligence to see how much they would lose and also all the things which have not been taken into consideration.

Your post reads most delightfully absent!
Yes, I appreciate that we do not get a vote but part of me feels as if this could be a far reaching act that will affect us. A bit like a divorce when only one side agrees to it.

I hope I phrased that diplomatically or I'll have granny23 after me. I should add that of course there are people who fully understand the implications and know what they are voting for.

I'll leave the Scottish grannies to answer your question. In any case, the rest of the UK doesn't get to vote. However, I don't think the process of becoming independent, if that turns out to be the choice, has not been properly thought through or sufficiently discussed. Like the proposed EU referendum, some people will be voting without understanding or even recognising many of the implications. In both referendums, blind prejudice is bound to play some part.