The Scotland Situation - Page 2 - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


The Scotland Situation

 
@CaffeineKing: If Trident Base is the UK's only nuclear deterrent facility, I find it more likely that they will find a way to rent the land and facility from Scotland. If Scotland does vote for independence, then they have much bigger worries for the short term, at least, than having a nuclear base. In fact, if the UK and Scotland decided it was a UK base but rented from and was also for the security of Scotland, being neighbors makes this acceptable to the UK probably, it'd be highly likely they both get a nuclear deterrent. I would not be shocked if something like that was worked out if Scotland does vote for independence. In fact, like debt as well, there is likely many such things they'd need to work out if that's how the vote goes. I doubt the UK would deny them their right to secede if that's what the majority want, at this point in time. It may have been different at other times but they are a lot more understanding then 50 years ago.

In fact, if Northern Ireland also wanted to secede (to join the rest of Ireland perhaps?) I think they'd accept it. Eventually. Especially if they can work something out on stuff they need that's currently there.

What I find interesting is that this would have no effect on who the Queen of Scotland is. As long as she's alive Queen Elizabeth II would be Queen of all 4 of the kingdoms. Plus, from what I understand, Scotland likes her as much as the rest of the UK does.

I suppose the cynics would say this is all a big grab for the North Sea oilfield revenues--certainly the main thing that makes Scotland attractive as a proposed national economy is oil--otherwise Scotland is about the same as the rest of Britain in most meaningful economic ways. So there is presumably a group of politicians in Edinburgh who believe that they will be benefit in various ways from the split, and be able to pass enough of those benefits on to the voters to be able to stay in office.

There are lots of historical sensitivities, of course--most Scots still think of themselves as belonging to a nation in some sense of the word, and not as merely a British regional culture. Historically Scotland grew up in rivalry with Britain, and so the touchstones of Scottish identity--William Wallace and Robert Bruce, the Jacobites, the Kirk--all reinforce the idea of difference and opposition between Scots and Englishmen. There is also a powerful narrative of lost nationhood or stolen sovereignty to tap into, going back to Edward I invading and installing a puppet king in the late 13th century; and continuing with the Stuart kings moving to England, hardly ever even making appearances in Scotland, and trying to impose Episcopalian religion on the Calvinist (or closet Catholic) Scots; culminating with the Act of Union passed by Scottish parliament in 1707 but in a way that left its legitimacy open to question. Expressions of Scots nationalism have often involved giving England the finger--sometimes in a playful sort of way, as when Scottish nationalists stole the Stone of Scone (a symbol of the Scottish monarchy) from Westminster Abbey in 1950, sometimes quite literally, as the residents of Berwick are supposed to have done to Edward I (for which they paid a steep price in blood afterwards).

Scots have been of two minds about the Union for a long time. If captured at the right moment, the Scottish electorate might decide to give England the finger once again (polls seem to indicate that this might be such a moment). However, they might pay for it in the long run. I suspect the things that have been said about divvying up the oil money and the national debt by both sides are part electioneering and part laying out bargaining positions, and eventually there would be some sort of compromise between the two sides. However, it is questionable whether Scotland would do well economically once the oil wells dry up. They would almost certainly have to join the EU to counterbalance the problem of being a small country with limited sources of wealth, after that. It might be remembered that having all its economic eggs in one basket and dropping the basket is what put Scotland in the position of needing the Union to begin with, and without oil, Scotland would need some kind of union, whether with Britain or the EU, I should think, or it will run into difficulties economically.

@Natural19--Queen Elizabeth is also Queen of Canada, and a number of other former British colonies. She and her heirs could quite easily continue in that capacity, unless Scotland voted to become a republic, without being a real impediment to Scottish sovereignty.

As for Northern Ireland, I doubt the English would bat an eye at letting it go--it's more trouble than help to them. However, the Ulster Unionists are a different story. There the reason why there's a Northern Ireland in the first place, and some of them are quite, erm, wacko.

Yeah, I admit to not knowing too much about the politics of the UK. I see it likely that Scotland goes for a republic or democracy. Technically speaking, that is what the UK is now. The 3 reasons that Queen Elizabeth has as much power as she does are simple. She is extremely wealthy, very charismatic, and is very wise, so people feel as if they have to, at least, listen to her opinion. Even people here in the U.S. respect her, like me. We just don't have kings/queens ourselves and generally don't trust them. Queen Elizabeth is another story. Some of her potential heirs aren't as well liked over here, though, but they might not ever become king/queen so we don't worry about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Clamantis View Post
Every Scotsman I've talked to has been in favor of independence. It's so ubiquitous that I find it hard to believe the polls. I suppose we'll see once the voting starts.
The Scots like to hate the English. In fact, so do the Welsh and Irish, and most people in all the places around the world they conquered...

An independence vote is "anti-English" and therefore popular, but I've heard plenty of Scots disagreeing with it. To be honest, the whole thing seems like a bit of a shambles to me.

In terms of this vote being a shambles and the power that the monarchy has over colonies, when John Howard was in power in 1999 in Australia, a national referendum was held on the issue of Australia becoming a republic. Pre-vote it seemed that Australia would become a republic; fully independent of the Crown and the risk of a repeat of the Gough Whitlam fiasco would forever be gone (the governor-general dismissed our Prime Minister on the steps of Parliament).

Once the referendum was tallied however, it failed. Putting aside my political beliefs, I don't believe the immediate impact on Australia would have been significant. Sure, we would no longer have a Governor-General, but other than that and a few minor international issues I don't believe Aus would have suffered to badly.

In the case of Scotland, as in Aus, only a vote will tell how the public truly feels. I don't believe its a "shambles" as TheFred believes but I do think that the media will spin anything to make a profit. As far as historical precedent goes, leaving the Crown behind shouldn't cripple a nations economy nor should it result in a complete failure of international relations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tufa View Post
As far as historical precedent goes, leaving the Crown behind shouldn't cripple a nations economy nor should it result in a complete failure of international relations.
The thing is, the Scottish National Party (the SNP) do want a republic. But the majority of Scots do not. In order to win votes for Independence, the SNP is stressing that they will keep the Crown and keep the pound. Think of it as Independence-lite. They want freedom, but the security of British instiututions and the support of the Bank of England (central bank) in case of financial disaster. I think the SNP would want a republic and they would want their own currency - until the Euro fell into trouble, they were all for that - but they can't pull 51% (or 50.1%) of voters with them on this. They have always consistently campaigned for nuclear disarmament.

The thing is, English/Welsh/NI voters believe that if the Scots do go their own way, then they'll have to go their own way: i.e. they can bugger off. (There is an evidence-based through controversil belief that more is spent per head in Scotland than in the rest of the UK). Why should the rest of the United Kingdom support the economy of an independent Scotland? The UK government will make decisions based on the interests fo the UK, not an independent Scotland. When this is pointed out, the SNP claim that London is trying to builly them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natural19 View Post
@CaffeineKing: If Trident Base is the UK's only nuclear deterrent facility, I find it more likely that they will find a way to rent the land and facility from Scotland. If Scotland does vote for independence, then they have much bigger worries for the short term, at least, than having a nuclear base. In fact, if the UK and Scotland decided it was a UK base but rented from and was also for the security of Scotland, being neighbors makes this acceptable to the UK probably, it'd be highly likely they both get a nuclear deterrent. I would not be shocked if something like that was worked out if Scotland does vote for independence.
As for nuclear deterrents, the SNP want to threaten loan default and the shutdown of the Falsane naval base - the only one in the UK capable of handling trident submarines - in order to make the UK continue a currency union with Scotland (i.e. the pound). If Falsane shuts down that means: (a) Britain can no longer maintain an independent nuclear deterrent (for the years it will take to build/adapt a base) or (b) British subs will have to use US bases (east coast) and it's even less independent than it was/is now. Further, if Scotland defaults on its share (roughly 8%) of the UK debt, its first act as a sovereign state is to look a little unreliable in the financial department. In which case, good luck Scotland in borrowing money without hideous interest rates... Secondly, I cannot imagine the pressure the US will bring to bear on Scotland if the UK looked like it could no longer maintain a nuclear deterrent.

Alas, Westminster (the Government) has always taken Scotland for granted. As an aside, they also take the North of England (where I live) for granted too. The party leaders are too London-centric and THAT is the problem. While the Union is falling apart and dislike of politicans and the political system is at an all-time high, MPs (members of parliament) are shoving their faces in the trough and voting themselves a 9% pay rise. The idiots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tufa View Post
I don't believe its a "shambles" as TheFred believes but I do think that the media will spin anything to make a profit.
One could argue that most people don't know what they're voting on. There is a big long list of unanswered questions, a list that cynics might suggest the "No"s have deliberately worked to keep long so that there's too much uncertainty. But, when you don't know if you'll be in the EU or NATO, what currency you'll have, what assets you'll get to keep (Yes: Independence will mean we can spend all this oil money on cool stuff! No: Uh, who said it was your oil?), etc etc. It's basically just a bunch of claims.

And, regardless of where it is, independence is always going to be messy. Two people can share a bathroom, but try and split the house in two and now you need one each. Maybe a kitchen is a better analogy. With a country, now you need two sets of emergency services, health services, parliaments, military, intelligence agencies, ports, etc etc. Way worse than fitting a second kitchen.

Doesn't mean it can't work, but it's waaay bigger a deal than "Hey, sure, we hate the English, let's leave!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaffeineKing View Post
The thing is, the Scottish National Party (the SNP) do want a republic.
Heh, the cynics might say they want their cake and to eat it; I wouldn't be surprised if they just wanted more powers and all this talk of independence was (until it suddenly became a real possibility) just a rhetorical bargaining tactic.

Any country is free to use any currency is wishes. Scotland can use the pound, the euro, the US$, the Canadian$, whatever. Currency is a tradeable good, and once the good has been sold, the producing country doesn't get to say who can buy/use it.

If Scotland decides not to use the pound, it has to sell its reserve on the market, which would cause a devaluation of the currency, depending on how much they have for sale. If they have a large amount, the UK would beg them to keep using it rather than selling it.

As for their part of the national debt, technically, the UK contracted that debt, not Scotland. Therefore, legally, they are not required to take it. That said, if they do take the debt, there's assets that come with it.

Based on what I've seen on this side of the pond, I expect those against independence to spin lies and FUD to scare people away from independence. One is that all trade will stop between Scotland and the UK. It won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPhoenix View Post
Any country is free to use any currency is wishes. Scotland can use the pound, the euro, the US$, the Canadian$, whatever. Currency is a tradeable good, and once the good has been sold, the producing country doesn't get to say who can buy/use it.
Of course. But without currency union, they get no say in decisions that affect it. Say, UK interest rates, for instance. Plus, their decisions do not get to affect Pound Sterling. They merely get to use the currency of another nation. It will be uncomfortable for them, but thems the breaks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPhoenix View Post
If Scotland decides not to use the pound, it has to sell its reserve on the market, which would cause a devaluation of the currency, depending on how much they have for sale. If they have a large amount, the UK would beg them to keep using it rather than selling it.
What reserve is this? Reserves are held by the Bank of England (in London).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPhoenix View Post
As for their part of the national debt, technically, the UK contracted that debt, not Scotland. Therefore, legally, they are not required to take it. That said, if they do take the debt, there's assets that come with it.
So if we lived together and owed £500 in rent, then you left and moved elsewhere, why should I pay the full £500, and not you and I having to pay £250 each?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPhoenix View Post
Based on what I've seen on this side of the pond, I expect those against independence to spin lies and FUD to scare people away from independence. One is that all trade will stop between Scotland and the UK. It won't.
It is a hot, controversial issue. Even if Scotland stays within the Union, it will sour people for many years to come, will this. I agree that the 'Better Together' campaign (run by Scots) has been very negative: "Horror! Fear! Scare Stories!" And also that the 'Yes' campaign has been far more positive "We can do it!" etc. That's the nature of the beast. Trade will never stop between Scotland and the United Kingdom, but a number of Scottish banks will find it harder to operate across borders (with customers in differnt countries with different porducts). Some have already stated they'll be moving south. After all, the UK is a bigger market. It's all confusion, and it will settle one day. It's just going to be a few rough years for an independent Scotland.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 05:19:56pm local time
Myth-Weavers Status