Poll: Should Scotland Become Independent?

[Barciad]

Owing to the inescapable fact that the Scottish Nationalist Party just won a landslide majority, Scotland may eventually become an independent country. In two years time there will be a referendum on the matter.
Would you support this and why?
Plus there are quite a few plausible options that the Scottish people might take.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Speaking as someone will next to no knowledge about the issue, I'd personally would choose for them to stay integrated into the UK, but a greater effort made by the UK government to deal with their grievances.

 

[FarleShadow]

Whatever the Scottish people want, really.

Although I would specify that if the Scots do want independance from England, that they cannot recieve money from the rest of the UK to pay for their schemes or plans or whatever.

Kinda like, you've off the gravy train! NO MORE GRAVY!

 

[SckizoBoy]

Uh, ninjad [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.284218-Poll-Scottish-independence-yay-or-nay], but never mind.

OT: full independence: no. Greater autonomy: yes, let Scotland be effectively be ruled from Holyrood, but constitutionally be part of the UK (it's more convenient that way, since with independence, they'd have to reapply to be part of the EU).

 

[EvilPicnic]

I don't think a 'yes' vote is actually very likely at all, for various reasons.

But for my opinion: as someone born in England, living in Wales, and with a Scottish paternal grandfather I consider myself very much British. And if Scotland seceded it would kill Britain, a country I feel vaguely patriotic about. I don't want that at all.

Interestingly, my view pretty much chimes with David Mitchell's. Have a read, he says it better than I can:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/15/david-mitchell-scotland-secession-britain

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I would support independence for Scotland, I am Scottish and I find it unbelievable that a lot of decisions about our country are made by the rest of the UK, when it wont affect them. It's our country, we should be allowed to make the decisions for it.

Saying that I am well aware that becoming independent will take some time and it will be difficult but I feel it's worth it.

 

[Barciad]

Whatever the Scottish people want, really.

Although I would specify that if the Scots do want independance from England, that they cannot recieve money from the rest of the UK to pay for their schemes or plans or whatever.

Kinda like, you've off the gravy train! NO MORE GRAVY!

Just a quick pointer. Scotland doesn't need English help and hasn't done so since the mid 1970's. Once North Sea Oil production (which is almost entirely in Scottish waters) was up and running, Scotland theoretically could have been doing very nicely for itself.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf - A good article from 1974 discussing the point quite nicely.
However, the bulk of this oil has been used to pay for all kinds of benefits for the unemployed, largely in England.

 

[Barciad]

Uh, ninjad [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.284218-Poll-Scottish-independence-yay-or-nay], but never mind.

OT: full independence: no. Greater autonomy: yes, let Scotland be effectively be ruled from Holyrood, but constitutionally be part of the UK (it's more convenient that way, since with independence, they'd have to reapply to be part of the EU).

Honestly, hand on heart I searched for an older thread about the topic. Alas I used the word 'Scotland' instead of 'Scottish'. Clearly I didn't search thoroughly enough.

 

[Wulfhramn]

In Canada we have a saying "Maîtres chez nous" (Masters of our own House). It makes more sense for the people of Scotland to have their decisions being made in Edinburgh rather than London. It also makes sense for decisions involving Scotland to be made by Scots, it's just common sense.

Currently the UK House of Commons represents 650 constituencies. 533 for England, 59 for Scotland, 40 for Wales, and 18 for Northern Ireland. Guess which nations get marginalized? If Scottish or Welsh interests are at odds with English interests, which do you think will come out on top?

The sooner Scotland votes for independence, the better off they'll be. Which would you rather do, make your own decisions or have them made for you?

 

[ZombieGenesis]

The big red button in the middle of this:

Scotlands current level of independance (through Devolution of powers) is entirely at the whim of the British state parliament, and can be revoked at a moments notice. It's even written in the act. Wales has it far better in terms of self-sufficiency where the legislation here is concerned.

I'm not saying the Scottish would ACCEPT it if Britain said 'No, you're staying.' and removed all devolutionary powers.

Then again, that's exactly what happened to cause the American civil war when the south posed for complete independance.

 

[Baneat]

In Canada we have a saying "Maîtres chez nous" (Masters of our own House). It makes more sense for the people of Scotland to have their decisions being made in Edinburgh rather than London. It also makes sense for decisions involving Scotland to be made by Scots, it's just common sense.

Currently the UK House of Commons represents 650 constituencies. 533 for England, 59 for Scotland, 40 for Wales, and 18 for Northern Ireland. Guess which nations get marginalized? If Scottish or Welsh interests are at odds with English interests, which do you think will come out on top?

The sooner Scotland votes for independence, the better off they'll be. Which would you rather do, make your own decisions or have them made for you?

The border itself is arbitrary, though, we are no different as a people to the English save for a few cultural quirks. Either way you're having decisions made for you by X government or Y.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

In the words of Hitler...

I love that Scotland is part of the UK. Please don't make it independent UK Parliament, money grabbing assholes that you are.

 

[Gizmo1990]

I would support independence for Scotland, I am Scottish and I find it unbelievable that a lot of decisions about our country are made by the rest of the UK, when it wont affect them. It's our country, we should be allowed to make the decisions for it.

Saying that I am well aware that becoming independent will take some time and it will be difficult but I feel it's worth it.[/quot

I agree to some extent but scotland has a say in british parlement but the rest of britan has no say in scotish parlement. it works both ways.

 

[FarleShadow]

Just a quick pointer. Scotland doesn't need English help and hasn't done so since the mid 1970's. Once North Sea Oil production (which is almost entirely in Scottish waters) was up and running, Scotland theoretically could have been doing very nicely for itself.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf - A good article from 1974 discussing the point quite nicely.
However, the bulk of this oil has been used to pay for all kinds of benefits for the unemployed, largely in England.

Hmm, its an interesting read, even if it is alittle out of date, but it does make me wonder about what would happen if Scotland did try to go independant and take its oil with it.

I can't imagine the UK government would allow such a valuable source of income to disappear, even if the investment costs are as massive as they appear for extraction.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Honestly, hand on heart I searched for an older thread about the topic. Alas I used the word 'Scotland' instead of 'Scottish'. Clearly I didn't search thoroughly enough.

To be fair, I didn't actually post on that thread (already a couple pages in, and I was feeling lazy). Still, with these current event matters, there's bound to be repeats: AV; the fucking wedding; this ridiculous spate of end-of-the-world BS; etc.

Anyway, OP, you've asked us what we think, what about your two cents'?

EDIT: Actually, I'd support Scottish independence. That way, England can apply to be part of the Union of Scotland! ^_^ ('cos a lot of their systems/bureaucracy is waaaaaaaaay better than ours.)

 

[Barciad]

Just a quick pointer. Scotland doesn't need English help and hasn't done so since the mid 1970's. Once North Sea Oil production (which is almost entirely in Scottish waters) was up and running, Scotland theoretically could have been doing very nicely for itself.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf - A good article from 1974 discussing the point quite nicely.
However, the bulk of this oil has been used to pay for all kinds of benefits for the unemployed, largely in England.

Hmm, its an interesting read, even if it is alittle out of date, but it does make me wonder about what would happen if Scotland did try to go independant and take its oil with it.

I can't imagine the UK government would allow such a valuable source of income to disappear, even if the investment costs are as massive as they appear for extraction.

What makes the report really interesting is the fact that Whitehall hushed it up for 30 years. They feared that if this report, being very precise and technical rather than sloganeering, might lead to Scottish independence. Remember that this was the mid-1970's and Scottish industry was in the middle of its great collapse. Confidence in Westminster was at a low ebb, and a report like this that gave sound economic reasons for an independent Scotland might well have made it a reality. Considering England was suffering from industrial decline too, they needed that oil as much as the Scottish did.

 

[C95J]

In Canada we have a saying "Maîtres chez nous" (Masters of our own House).

Although I have nothing to contribute to the topic, I just have to say I love that saying

 

[Wulfhramn]

The border itself is arbitrary, though, we are no different as a people to the English save for a few cultural quirks. Either way you're having decisions made for you by X government or Y.

I dare say, there are quite a few of your fellow countrymen(and countrywomen)who would care to disagree. Besides, Sovereignty-Association is the way of the future, as is the further devolution of powers to regions.

People like having their voice heard, and when it becomes clear that their voice is being drowned out, they will take steps to rectify the situation. America, Canada, Australia, India, all the other a's, and nearly every spot where the sun once shone upon the British Empire eventually took steps to walk on their own rather than let themselves continue to be led. Why should Scotland and Wales be any different? Particularly given the vast social, cultural, and historical differences which cause them to be unique.

Suum cuique of course.

 

[Barciad]

Honestly, hand on heart I searched for an older thread about the topic. Alas I used the word 'Scotland' instead of 'Scottish'. Clearly I didn't search thoroughly enough.

To be fair, I didn't actually post on that thread (already a couple pages in, and I was feeling lazy). Still, with these current event matters, there's bound to be repeats: AV; the fucking wedding; this ridiculous spate of end-of-the-world BS; etc.

Anyway, OP, you've asked us what we think, what about your two cents'?

EDIT: Actually, I'd support Scottish independence. That way, England can apply to be part of the Union of Scotland! ^_^ ('cos a lot of their systems/bureaucracy is waaaaaaaaay better than ours.)

I would like to see an independent Scotland, not despite being English, but because I'm English. Or rather because I'm an English Social Democrat. That is, in layman's terms a democratic Socialist, and one that lives in perceptual frustration deriving from 30 years of Thatcherism. In Britain, since 1979, there has been no-where to escape it, until now.
To put it bluntly, Scottish confidence in rule from Westminster has collapsed. They do not see rule from London as rule in their interests, and this has been a long time coming. De-industrialisation, the Poll-Tax, New Labour, and the now the Coalition. To the Scots, they see all Westminster parties as one and the same. All Thatcherites, all interested in London, the South East, and no-where else. They have had enough.
The question remains, did Tony Blair really know what he was doing when he gave the go-ahead for devolution back in 1997? To be honest, he most likely was trying to do some good back then. Admittedly, this was years before Iraq and way before the monomania began to set it.
In two years time, there will be a referendum on Independence. It will be a three-way vote, giving a middle choice of 'further devolution with financial autonomy'. If things remain as they are, this will be the most likely outcome. The Scots will want greater independence, but don't feel ready to take the plunge completely.
Now what will happen between then and now will be very interesting. All three Westminster Parties will do their best to try and delay or sabotage any Scottish self-determination. Losing Scotland will be a massive blow for the English, not just in terms of the oil, but also the prestige. However, anything too blatant will only make independence all the more likely.
The SNP will attempt to hold a steady course of quiet, competent administration. In affect, running Scotland like a Nordic country. Now that is not to say that they will not act without vision. Their main thrust is investing into modern 'green' technologies. Thus providing jobs and energy sustainability in the future. This of course will be funded by the oil money.
Now it will also be interesting to see the state of immigration/emigration to and from Scotland. Will there be a great flow, or merely a trickle of British Lefties, all seeking to escape the coalition? Who knows, only time will tell.
Strangely enough, this is the first time that I have felt any real confidence about the future of the UK for a very long time.