Scotland Independence - YES or NO?

[August1991]

For those interested in a very informative account of the Canadian referendum I recommend - " The Morning After - The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Day that Almost Was" - by Chantal Hebert

A good reference to find out how NOT to run a referendum.

"The" Canadian referendum?

In fact, there were two referenda: in 1980 and 1995. And BigGuy, the book you refer to was written not only by Chantal Hébert but also Jean Lapierre. If it were simply a book by Hebert, I'd probably give it a pass. But I'm curious to know why Lapierre got involved with this project.

[On Guard for Thee]

I know of one country that split from the UK and seems to be doing pretty well.

[Smallc]

Yeah as far as rich countries go, the UK isn't the best or them.

[mjrr]

I sure hope those voting for independence have looked at the big picture as to how Scotland will support itself after a separation.

All federal programs will be gone,all government jobs will be gone, All federal subsidies will be gone,all monies coming from the federal government will be gone

Post offices

healthcare

Pensions

Government buildings will all of a sudden be Scotlands to fund.

What will be Scotlands source of income to replace all the benefits it now receives from being part of the British collective.?

[eyeball]

The same source just about every other country has, taxes, royalties, fees etc etc.

[August1991]

I sure hope those voting for independence have looked at the big picture as to how Scotland will support itself after a separation.

Scotland has North Sea oil.

The Orkneys, Shetlands and Western Isles are a majority in Scotland? I'm just saying a lot of Scotland's assumed resource wealth is offshore and much of that would no longer be in its territorial waters should those isles separate from Scotland. That's not a threat, it's geography.

IOW, who is best placed to decide how to use a resource?

=====

It should be no mystery that the richest countries in the world are small countries - with one singular exception, the US.

From Luxembourg to Iceland to Singapore, even Canada and Norway, countries with few people are richer (on a per capita basis) than countries with many people. In fact, the lesson here is that big governments make individuals poorer - China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Russia - all "big" countries but poor on a per capita basis.

What is a small country really? A small country (Iceland, Luxembourg, Chile) has fewer bureaucrats, more scrutiny of public spending.

The US is the exception: a rich large country. But the US Constitution is a truly confederal state: the US is a confederation of small countries.

Nowadays, with FDR Democrats in Washington DC for the past 60 years or so, I fear the US will become another poor large country.

Edited September 16, 2014 by August1991

[jacee]

Scotland has North Sea oil.

IOW, who is best placed to decide how to use a resource?

=====

It should be no mystery that the richest countries in the world are small countries - with one singular exception, the US.

From Luxembourg to Iceland to Singapore, even Canada and Norway, countries with few people are richer (on a per capita basis) than countries with many people. In fact, the lesson here is that big governments make individuals poorer - China, India, Nigeria, Brazil, Russia - all "big" countries but poor on a per capita basis.

What is a small country really? A small country (Iceland, Luxembourg, Chile) has fewer bureaucrats, more scrutiny of public spending.

The US is the exception: a rich large country. But the US Constitution is a truly confederal state: the US is a confederation of small countries.

Nowadays, with FDR Democrats in Washington DC, I fear the US will become another poor large country.

You equate "big government" with big populations, but provide no link to verify that nor to support your claim of higher per person spending on big government in countries with big populations.

IOW, you haven't said anything really.

.

[August1991]

You equate "big government" with big populations, but provide no link to verify that nor to support your claim of higher per person spending on big government in countries with big populations.

IOW, you haven't said anything really.

.

jacee, check the stats. On a per capita basis, the countries with highest GDP are countries with a small population: Norway, Luxembourg, Scotland, Singapore, Belgium, Chile, Quebec - the US is the exception.

----

Why is the US - a large population country - an exception? IMV, the US in fact is an assemblage of small countries. At least, it has been up until 70 years ago or so.

====

Last, critical point, jacee: If you were a politician, would you care about per capita income or total tax revenue? If I were a Putin or a Mao or an Obama, the key question is what total revenue I can command/take.

When the president of Iceland or Quebec sits down at the international table, she/he doesn't have many poker chips.

Edited September 16, 2014 by August1991

[mjrr]

Scotland has North Sea oil.

Who owns that oil,the government of Scotland or the oil companies.? makes a big difference in who gets most of the money from that oil

Edited September 16, 2014 by mjrr

[Solidarity]

Who owns that oil,the government of Scotland or the oil companies.? makes a big difference in who gets most of the money from that oil

I wonder how much leeway an independent Scotland would have to re-negotiate or tear up existing contracts negotiated by Westminster.

[Rue]

in theory Scotland if it was a foreign country could nationalize the oil wells. In reality it would trigger a massive chain reaction to the world market place.

Scotland's pro independence politicians have said they will renegotiate all its contracts. Easier said than done.

The practical reality is that Scotland is in no position to create its own currency and it would take years to re-stream its tax revenue system to get it out of a deficit budget required in its start up phase.

The Scotts were alienated by Maggie Thatcher. Her poll tax started this desire to pull out of the UK.

Thatcher in reality completely changed the tax structure in Scotland from a system where you based tax based on the value of your home not your income.

Her poll tax did away with that. As a result ever since then Scotland has detested England.

Tonly Blair for heaven's sakes is part Scottish and they considered him a turncoat and he wasn't even Conservative.

Cameron has had to lay low because of the hatred for the Conservative Party n Scotland.

Scotland is the home of some of the most militant of trade unions of all Europe. It sees England as the home of the wealthy exploiters of the common

man of Scotland.

Its a let v.s. right split.

The wild card is the Queen. As much as Scotland never liked England and in essence was taken over by it, the military connection in WW1, WW2, etc., is still there. The history of English and Scottish side by side in those wars is a factor. Its probably why they lowered the age in Scotland to 16 to try get people to vote who have no memories of the wars and their rallying around the Queen.

Right now the will to devolve is stronger than the will to stay.

The question though is there is still a quiet majority of voters saying nothing. At the last second push come to shove, they will push it one way or the other.

A betting man would say they are leaving. I go against the polls. I am going out on a limb and saying practical reality will kick in at the least second as a consideration not to leave and squeak by with a continued union albeit changed to give Scotland control over its taxes completely.

.

[overthere]

gg

Scotland has North Sea oil.

The North Sea oil and gas is in production decline, and would only be about 15% of total Scottish revenue anyway.

The leader of the YES side has said there is far more oil and gas to be found in Scottish waters, which is not supported by actual exploration results despite the industry looking hard for 40 years.

Like the Quebec debacle(s), the YES side has a lot of puffery and outright lies about the economy.

[Big Guy]

Now the major party leaders in Britain are promising "extensive new powers" to Scotland if they vote to stay.

It looks like the YES side had some valid criticisms if "extensive new powers" were available but never applied to Scotland. Why were these new powers not extended in the past so independence would never have come to a vote?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scotland-vote-u-k-leaders-pledge-extensive-new-powers-for-scots-1.2767404

Edited September 16, 2014 by Big Guy

[Guest]

How come English politicians don't realise that the best way to get the Scots to vote for independence is to let them know it pisses them off?

Indifference shown to the whole thing won't get the undecided and the lazy out to vote YES. A chance to really stick it to the English will.

If they had kept their bloody traps shut in the last couple of weeks this wouldn't be such a close thing.

[mjrr]

I hope most of the voters are voting for more than mere national pride as separating from the UK will require the making from scratch a new country the infrastructure required will be a nightmare and will take many years and there will be no guarantee of Scotland being a better place when its all said and done.

If many are voting to separate because they think their taxes will be less i feel they'll be in for a big disappointment.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/scotland-independence-vote/ten-things-know-about-scotlands-independence-referendum-n203511

Edited September 18, 2014 by mjrr

[Argus]

I hope most of the voters are voting for more than mere national pride as separating from the UK will require the making from scratch a new country the infrastructure required will be a nightmare and will take many years and there will be no guarantee of Scotland being a better place when its all said and done.

I'm sure all those 16 year old voters are considering all the complexities involved...

[Keepitsimple]

1980 Quebec Referendum Question: The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty - and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?

1995 Quebec Referendum Question: Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

2014 Scotland Referendum Question: Should Scotland be an independent country?

[Guest]

I hope most of the voters are voting for more than mere national pride as separating from the UK will require the making from scratch a new country the infrastructure required will be a nightmare and will take many years and there will be no guarantee of Scotland being a better place when its all said and done.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/scotland-independence-vote/ten-things-know-about-scotlands-independence-referendum-n203511

Many will, but many won't. There will be a lot of Scots who will vote with Bannockburn in their hearts rather than North Sea Oil and the Pound Sterling in their heads.

I hope it's not enough to swing it, as I'm sure everything you say about the process is true.

[WestCoastRunner]

Scotland vote is too close to call. My grandfather is from Scotland. I wonder how he would have voted.

[Derek 2.0]

Many will, but many won't. There will be a lot of Scots who will vote with Bannockburn in their hearts rather than North Sea Oil and the Pound Sterling in their heads.

I hope it's not enough to swing it, as I'm sure everything you say about the process is true.

As I did in the previous Scottish independence thread several years back, I’ll still go with “nay” winning……granted closer than I would have thought, I think largely due to the mishandling by the unity side……

One interesting story I’ve heard though, in the event of an “aye” vote, the nuclear deterrent will be moved rapidly to the United States (temporally), so as to remove a major SNP bargaining chip in the divorce proceedings......

[On Guard for Thee]

My grandparents emigrated from Scotland as well. I also have wondered how they would vote now. I don't think them leaving the UK was any kind of a vote then, or maybe it was. In any case they came to a country that did seperate and it seems to be doing not too badly. In any case, I rather hope they stick together. Probably be best for all.

[WestCoastRunner]

My grandparents emigrated from Scotland as well. I also have wondered how they would vote now. I don't think them leaving the UK was any kind of a vote then, or maybe it was. In any case they came to a country that did seperate and it seems to be doing not too badly. In any case, I rather hope they stick together. Probably be best for all.

I have no problem if they do separate. And I am kind of hoping they do!

[On Guard for Thee]

Well it will certainly be interesting if they do. I still have a number of relatives there and whichever way it goes I think I'll head over for a visit before too long. I'll reread that book about how Scot's rule the world on the way over. Maybe have a sip of Glen something or other while I'm at it.

[Derek 2.0]

I have no problem if they do separate. And I am kind of hoping they do!

I’m curious as to why? For the Scots themselves, it will mean years of economic and diplomatic turmoil, coupled with higher taxes (for those that remain) to maintain a standard of living with a semblance of the Second-World……..At best, they will achieve with generations of struggle, what they already have.

In retrospect, once the divorce is complete, the remaining UK will be far better off without the financial burden that is Scotland…..politically; the UK will shift to the right minus Scotland and almost certainly leave the EU within a few years……….England would be far better off.

With that said, further devolution for all of the United Kingdom, turning the Union into a Federalist state along the lines of Canada is a far better solution for all involved.....

[WestCoastRunner]

I’m curious as to why? For the Scots themselves, it will mean years of economic and diplomatic turmoil, coupled with higher taxes (for those that remain) to maintain a standard of living with a semblance of the Second-World……..At best, they will achieve with generations of struggle, what they already have.

In retrospect, once the divorce is complete, the remaining UK will be far better off without the financial burden that is Scotland…..politically; the UK will shift to the right minus Scotland and almost certainly leave the EU within a few years……….England would be far better off.

With that said, further devolution for all of the United Kingdom, turning the Union into a Federalist state along the lines of Canada is a far better solution for all involved.....

You have no proof of economic, diplomatic turmoil and higher taxes. Perhaps they are willing to withstand the number of years (and no one really knows how many) of uncertainty. That is truly up to them. and perhaps it is a better solution for them.