Independence For Scotland. Yay or Nay?

[De La Fleur]

The more the merrier.

[SD_Film Artists]

The real question is "what is Scotland." What unites the Scots?

Ethnicity, Culture, History.

You can say the same about the UK as a whole.

[L Ron Cupboard]

I did ask in the NI thread, but does an independent Scotland mean an end to the UK, in which case should NI be given a choice of whether they wish to go with Scotland or England, seeing as the NI settlers were Scottish rather than English?

[Materado]

Here are 650 constituencies in the United Kingdom, 59 of which are in Scotland. That's roughly 9% of seats for 8.4% of the population.

Counting the recent House of Lords reform, the number is roughly 4%.

[The UK in Exile]

Here are 650 constituencies in the United Kingdom, 59 of which are in Scotland. That's roughly 9% of seats for 8.4% of the population.

Counting the recent House of Lords reform, the number is roughly 4%.

We don't, the House of Lords is unelected. nobody gets to pick.

[Great Kleomentia]

Nay.

[Jukraina]

Why not? If they want independence then I can't see any problem.

[Tagmatium]

Counting the recent House of Lords reform, the number is roughly 4%.

We don't, the House of Lords is unelected. nobody gets to pick.

Well, the people who matter get to pick...

Not us mere hoi polloi.

[The UK in Exile]

We don't, the House of Lords is unelected. nobody gets to pick.

Well, the people who matter get to pick...

Not us mere hoi polloi.

and Scotland has as much say in who gets to pick as the rest of the UK.

[Rio Cana]

I don't think Britain wants certain areas of its land suddenly having Spanish names (looks at two of its current disputes).

Maybe it's what Panama would be called if the Nazis won the war.

I mean if the Darien scheme had worked.

Seems I am misunderstood. On Spanish world maps it would be La Republica de Escocia. In Scotish maps they would most surely continue using English thus the Republic of Scotland.

And concerning Panama, you mean the former New Caledonia
Large map which shows that historic Scottish territorial claim which went bust.

http://www.mapahistorico.com/mapas/mapa ... 103jpg.jpg

Question, when it came to New Caledonia Panama, did the Scottish ever do an audit to make sure all the money was used for its intended purpose. Seems the Scots would have done better by having reinvested that money into Scotland and not the Panamanian jungle.

Currently, the coastal region where New Caledonia use to be is part of the native Guna tribe county of Guna Yala. In Panama, the native counties have the same status has provinces.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This was asked already but perhaps you have a better grasp on it. Can Scotland survive as an independent nation?

according to this, it has an enviable amount of resources...

Enough to exist as its own country?

[Souseiseki]

according to this, it has an enviable amount of resources...

Enough to exist as its own country?

yes

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Enough to exist as its own country?

yes

What's the sentiment, overall, of the Scots regarding this issue? And how does Britain feel?

[Souseiseki]

yes

What's the sentiment, overall, of the Scots regarding this issue? And how does Britain feel?

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence

i'd put it, generally, at 30/50/20 for support/oppose/don't know. it depends a lot of where and when the polls happen. some polls have even shown a majority for or close.

i kinda like this one, with a condemning title

" 23% of people think, "Scotland should become independent, separate from the rest of the UK".

67% said the Scottish Parliament should either make all decisions for Scotland (35%), or it should make all decisions apart from defence and foreign affairs (32%).

There continues to be a big difference between the proportion of Scots who would like the Scottish government to have most influence over how Scotland is run (63%) and the proportion who believe it actually does (34%)."

you gotta wonder how you can make ALL the decisions for scotland without being independent though. iirc "devo max" (i.e. more powers for the scottish parliament but still in) has consistently been the most popular option.

i don't think there have been many polls on the issue in other parts of the UK. though sometimes england wants scotland to go more than scotland does (the scottish part is pretty close though)

god this post is a mess

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What's the sentiment, overall, of the Scots regarding this issue? And how does Britain feel?

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence

i'd put it, generally, at 30/50/20 for support/oppose/don't know. it depends a lot of where and when the polls happen. some polls have even shown a majority for or close.

i kinda like this one, with a condemning title

" 23% of people think, "Scotland should become independent, separate from the rest of the UK".

67% said the Scottish Parliament should either make all decisions for Scotland (35%), or it should make all decisions apart from defence and foreign affairs (32%).

There continues to be a big difference between the proportion of Scots who would like the Scottish government to have most influence over how Scotland is run (63%) and the proportion who believe it actually does (34%)."

you gotta wonder how you can make ALL the decisions for scotland without being independent though.

i don't think there have been many polls on the issue in other parts of the UK. though sometimes england wants scotland to go more than scotland does (the scottish part is pretty close though)

god this post is a mess

I'll take a look at those carefully. Thanks.

[Marcurix]

Except, you know, England hardly ever does that.Wales and Scotland control 99 of the 650 seats,more than enough to make or break a government in Parliament.

If I'm correct, it basically means that 461 seats owned by another people controlled the destiny of the other 99 seats. Do they have a word to say in international affairs? Does Scotland can sign treaties? Because countries with similar population like Denmark, Norway, or say Finland can do it. And I'm fairly sure they wouldn't renounce to such priviliege that easily. Do the Scots have a complete control over all their taxes and income? Can they vote 100% of their laws? If not, they should indeed leave that union. No one will look after your interests better than you will. It's that simple.

If I'm correct, it basically means that 461 seats owned by another people controlled the destiny of the other 99 seats.

Not sure where you got 461 seats, though I did not mention the seats in N.Ireland (though they are included in the 650) because they don't tend to vote for the UK wide parties.

Do they have a word to say in international affairs?

Concerns and interests are taken into account certainly.

Does Scotland can sign treaties?

Scotland is not an independent nation, so why would it sign separate of the UK?

Because countries with similar population like Denmark, Norway, or say Finland can do it.

Because they are sovereign nations. Scotland is not.

And I'm fairly sure they wouldn't renounce to such priviliege that easily.

Why would they need to in the first place?

Do the Scots have a complete control over all their taxes and income?

In what sense? There are certain tax powers given to the devolved government and some are retained by the central government in Westminster.

Can they vote 100% of their laws?

Same as above.

If not, they should indeed leave that union. No one will look after your interests better than you will. It's that simple.

That doesn't make any sense. We vote in representatives that vote upon our laws, some are in Westminster, others in the devolved administration.

Counting the recent House of Lords reform, the number is roughly 4%.

We don't, the House of Lords is unelected. nobody gets to pick.

This.

[Souseiseki]

That doesn't make any sense. We vote in representatives that vote upon our laws, some are in Westminster, others in the devolved administration.

didn't know canada still had westminster MPs o:

[Marcurix]

That doesn't make any sense. We vote in representatives that vote upon our laws, some are in Westminster, others in the devolved administration.

didn't know canada still had westminster MPs o:

Aside from the fact that yes, Canada has Westminster MP's that really has nothing to do with Scottish Independence does it? Unless you're still offended by people working overseas for a little while.

[Saint-Thor]

Not sure where you got 461 seats, though I did not mention the seats in N.Ireland (though they are included in the 650) because they don't tend to vote for the UK wide parties.

My bad, 59 (number of seats held by Scottish MPs) is the number I was looking for. This shit happens when you mix Canadian and UK parliament

Do they have a word to say in international affairs?

Concerns and interests are taken into account certainly.

But they don't have the last word, do they? For example, if the Scots are opposed to a war, but not the rest of UK, you still go.

Does Scotland can sign treaties?

Scotland is not an independent nation, so why would it sign separate of the UK?

There are many reasons why an administrative division would like to sign its own treaties. Sometimes they have more to gain in a treaty than the rest of a union or federation. Free trade agreement for example.

Because countries with similar population like Denmark, Norway, or say Finland can do it.

Because they are sovereign nations. Scotland is not.

My point exactly. Once Scotland becomes independent, it won't take long before they realize they have much more power as a sovereign state.

And I'm fairly sure they wouldn't renounce to such priviliege that easily.

Why would they need to in the first place?

They wouldn't, that's not the point. It just to illustrate that those countries, despite being small and not very populous, are fiercely attached to their sovereignty, and they wouldn't trade it to be a part of a larger union. They already have full control over their foreign and domestic policies. And I'm quite sure the Scots would learn soon enough all the benefits of being independent.

Do the Scots have a complete control over all their taxes and income?

In what sense? There are certain tax powers given to the devolved government and some are retained by the central government in Westminster.

Cool, then the answer is no. It means that someone else is taking care of their money. But if they're content with this, who am I to judge? It's not my country.

If not, they should indeed leave that union. No one will look after your interests better than you will. It's that simple.

That doesn't make any sense. We vote in representatives that vote upon our laws, some are in Westminster, others in the devolved administration.

It does if you take the time to understand my point. I'm not talking about the devolved administration. I'm talking about having full control of all your decisions, foreign and domestic.

[Marcurix]

Not sure where you got 461 seats, though I did not mention the seats in N.Ireland (though they are included in the 650) because they don't tend to vote for the UK wide parties.

My bad, 59 (number of seats held by Scottish MPs) is the number I was looking for. This shit happens when you mix Canadian and UK parliament

Ah, I see.

Concerns and interests are taken into account certainly.

But they don't have the last word, do they? For example, if the Scots are opposed to a war, but not the rest of UK, you still go.

Yes, but it would be no different if you split Scotland into Highlands and Lowlands and had them opposed on a certain issue. Disagreements will happen from time to time it's how things go.

Scotland is not an independent nation, so why would it sign separate of the UK?

There are many reasons why an administrative division would like to sign its own treaties. Sometimes they have more to gain in a treaty than the rest of a union or federation. Free trade agreement for example.

But this doesn't happen, not on the international stage. Scotland is represented by the UK as a whole.

Because they are sovereign nations. Scotland is not.

My point exactly. Once Scotland becomes independent, it won't take long before they realize they have much more power as a sovereign state.

More power? That's debatable.

Why would they need to in the first place?

They wouldn't, that's not the point. It just to illustrate that those countries, despite being small and not very populous, are fiercely attached to their sovereignty, and they wouldn't trade it to be a part of a larger union. They already have full control over their foreign and domestic policies. And I'm quite sure the Scots would learn soon enough all the benefits of being independent.

There are benefits to being in the Union too, its not a one sided deal.

In what sense? There are certain tax powers given to the devolved government and some are retained by the central government in Westminster.

Cool, then the answer is no. It means that someone else is taking care of their money. But if they're content with this, who am I to judge? It's not my country.

That doesn't make any sense. We vote in representatives that vote upon our laws, some are in Westminster, others in the devolved administration.

It does if you take the time to understand my point. I'm not talking about the devolved administration. I'm talking about having full control of all your decisions, foreign and domestic.

[/quote]

What you are trying to argue is that having direct control of everything is better than not, but where do you stop? What about cities? Towns? Houses? Should they not have direct control too?

[The Picti]

Well, in light of the upcoming referendum on the the Independence of Scotland, I decided to put the question to you, Nationstates.

Should Scotland be an Independent country?

I have here, two websites for you to look over, the main players and campaigns in the debate;

For the Pro Independence side seeking a Yes vote in 2014: http://www.yesscotland.net/

And the opposite, our unionist opponents: http://www.bettertogether.net/

Now, for me? I'm Pro Independence, I see no reason a borderline Imperialist government in London should rule over Scotland. We're a different culture, a different people, with different ideologies and dreams, not to mention the disgusting way they've governed us over the past 305 years.

I am an active campaigner for the Independence referendum, seeking the return of Scotland's government to Lothian. It's my personal opinion, that the power's given to the Scottish Parliament by London are a complete sham, and could be repealed at any time, against the wishes of the Scottish people. It's my firm opinion, that in the UK's declining economy, England will suck the life out of all constituent part's of the 'United' Kingdom, and frack the remained when they've accomplished that. Effectively dooming us all. Not that I'm anglophobic. I like the English people, but the people they elect sicken me, and it is they who elect the UK Government, not the Scots, or Northern Irish, or the Welsh, all of our votes don't really matter, and that is true, the constituent part's of the UK could vote one way completely, and England another, and we'd end up with English governance, and it's exactly the same with member's of Parliament, for being 1/4th of the Union, we receive 4% of the MP's.

It's out of order, and I firmly believe that Scotland needs to be heard in the world, and for the Scottish people to choose the path of our nation.

I'd also like to mention another aspect of the referendum, which is Devolution, devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament. I quote from their website;

"Devolved matters
Devolved matters include:
agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
transport (including drink-driving and speed limits)."

Reserved matters that can only be acted on in London;

"Reserved matters
Reserved matters include:
benefits and social security
immigration
defence
foreign policy
employment
broadcasting
trade and industry
nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
consumer rights
data protection
the Constitution."

Some believe that devolution is a good midway, but I believe these powers are but a sham, and could be overturned by London if they so wish. This is not democracy.

It's aye fae me.

In the event of a no vote, London will have the power to repeal the Scottish parliament, there will be no further powers . No means, they can do what they want with us. Lets not forget the promise of jam tomorrow after the "78" defeat (where Scotland voted yes, but the dead voted no) Did we get powers for Scotland .......... no we got Thatcher.

So for me it's "Saor Alba!"

[Vicswampia]

The "Union" is not an union at all in my point of view. It doesn't really represent the non-English members of the UK, which again, in my humble opinion would be better and more democratic as a federation. About Scotland, I personally think they would be beter independent, but that's up to them.