[Colonol Dekker]

So who's been tracking this? I am happy either way so long as Aldo and his clans get what they want.

[The E]

I have been following this thing with great interest. No matter what the outcome of it will be, I wholeheartedly support the notion of creating new states through public referendums instead of civil wars; an approach that should be applied more often, I believe.

[karajorma]

So who's been tracking this? I am happy either way so long as Aldo and his clans get what they want.

Problem is that the vote is so split that 50% of people aren't going to get what they want at all.

And that's before we get onto the topic that most of the arguments people have made on both sides are ****ing stupid.

[Flipside]

I can't say too much, obviously, since Sharon is from Glasgow.

All I will say is this; from my point of view, I don't think there will a 'winner' in this, I think everyone will lose for quite a long time.

Both sides are promising pie in the sky.

On the plus side, most amicable Independence battle ever.

[Mr. Vega]

I'm a big supporter of Scottish independence but this will be a disaster unless the Scots create their own currency.

[MP-Ryan]

I have been following this thing with great interest. No matter what the outcome of it will be, I wholeheartedly support the notion of creating new states through public referendums instead of civil wars; an approach that should be applied more often, I believe.

So long as those new states accept that they, too, are divisible.

The really amusing thing in Scotland (and in our own province of Quebec, if they ever manage a yes vote, which is doubtful) will be their reaction to demands of their own population to self-determine their national status.  Who else wants to see the look on Alex Salmond's face if the Shetlands decide they want to leave an independent Scotland?

At any rate, having lived in a country that's now gone through this kind of referendum bull**** twice, with similar (although in Scotland's case, not quite as bad) bull**** claims about how things will be if a yes vote goes through from both sides, I can confidently say that nobody wins in this kind of political process.  It's going to sound a little odd when I say this, but, honestly, while the idea of non-violent rational debate and collective votes for determining national destiny sounds appealing, if your grievances aren't serious enough to amount a war over, then they definitely aren't serious enough to initiate the chaos that will inevitably be involved in separating one nation into two.

Frankly, I think people who think Scotland will be better off out of the United Kingdom are misguided.

[Phantom Hoover]

The Shetlands, much like Catalonia, are often brought up in these discussions, but the comparison to me seems very overstretched. The Shetlands have never been an independent political entity; Catalonia is currently just considered an administrative region of Spain with no mandate to declare independence. Scotland has always been a distinct country even while in the union, and the government of the UK have agreed to the referendum. The equivalence is pretty tenuous.

[MP-Ryan]

The Shetlands, much like Catalonia, are often brought up in these discussions, but the comparison to me seems very overstretched. The Shetlands have never been an independent political entity; Catalonia is currently just considered an administrative region of Spain with no mandate to declare independence. Scotland has always been a distinct country even while in the union, and the government of the UK have agreed to the referendum. The equivalence is pretty tenuous.

The point is not to draw equivalence - the point is how a separating nation would in turn handle a request from a region inside it to separate.  Many proponents of separatist politics have a habit of believing they can separate their desired nation from the larger one, but won't have to acknowledge such requests from groups within it.  While the Shetlands is an unlikely one, there are other examples in other countries - the First Nations within Quebec being an excellent one - that have much better claims.

Its one of the reasons I view separatist movements with suspicion.  Another is the notion of allowing a 50%+1 vote to be binding in a decision to split a country in two, particularly if eligible voters are confined only to part of that country.

[Phantom Hoover]

50%+1 does seem like the only 'fair' condition, though-- if you use 66% or whatever, then if 66%-1 of the population supports independence it's fairly untenable to deny it to them.

[Aardwolf]

So, a few thoughts / things I thought I'd point out...



1. Remember that a 75% majority where only 1% of the population voted is not much better than a 51% majority where 20% of the population voted. If this sort of thing is to be codified, the procedures should take into consideration whether the vote is representative.


2. Similar to something MP-Ryan said: If Scotland can vote to leave the UK, why should a predominantly pro-UK town in Scotland not be able to vote to go back? And then why should a neighborhood within that town not be able to vote to go the other way? Etc., right down to individual landowners, and citizens.

This is "self determination" taken to its logical extreme. All other things being equal, the "best" way to determine this sort of thing would be to let every citizen decide for themselves what country they want to belong to, and let them take maintain ownership of their land. Although that's a big "All other things being equal" to ask for.


3. There's a lot of problems that people are legitimately upset about, and it's driving separatist movements of all sorts. Unfortunately for them, even if they get their independence without bloodshed, they won't be able to escape from the biggest problems.

E.g.: if you're thinking "I'm sick of my country being a pushover to the US DOD/IC / multinational corporate interests"... Even if you can keep them from interfering with the drafting of the new constitution and the first decent chunk of the legal code, you'll need all the luck you can get to keep our spies out, to keep your citizens from getting disappeared by FBI/CIA spooks when they leave the country (or even when they stay at home!), and to keep from getting slammed with undeserved "retaliatory" trade sanctions.

[Mr. Vega]

Best case scenario: Scotland declares independence, the big English banks leave Scotland for England, then when the English real estate bubble bursts (and it will - English real estate is insanely over-leveraged, more leveraged than we ever were) the English and not the Scottish treasury will be stuck with the bailout.

I'm arguing in favor of independence purely on the grounds that England for this and other reasons is a sinking ship economically and Scotland would be much better off heading for the lifeboats.

1. Remember that a 75% majority where only 1% of the population voted is not much better than a 51% majority where 20% of the population voted. If this sort of thing is to be codified, the procedures should take into consideration whether the vote is representative.

If there are barriers to truly representative voter registration then I agree with you, but if that isn't an issue? If you aren't willing to vote on something this important then you deserve to have your community remade without your consent.

At any rate, having lived in a country that's now gone through this kind of referendum bull**** twice, with similar (although in Scotland's case, not quite as bad) bull**** claims about how things will be if a yes vote goes through from both sides, I can confidently say that nobody wins in this kind of political process.  It's going to sound a little odd when I say this, but, honestly, while the idea of non-violent rational debate and collective votes for determining national destiny sounds appealing, if your grievances aren't serious enough to amount a war over, then they definitely aren't serious enough to initiate the chaos that will inevitably be involved in separating one nation into two.

And I think the fears of "chaos" are wildly overblown. Let's save that word for the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the American and Irish revolutions. What makes this worse than the disintegration of Czechoslovakia? Would you even use that word to describe the independence of the Baltic States from the Soviet Union? Seriously, this is going to be a featherbed transition compared to other separations that had far greater potential for turning ugly but worked out just fine. Of course there will be problems, but if the best arguments that can be advanced against separation are vague fears about uncertainty and that it will lead down a slippery slope to runaway fragmentation, I'm not too worried.

What I am worried about is if Scotland decides to either keep the Pound or adopt the Euro, which denies the government an independent fiscal policy.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm arguing in favor of independence purely on the grounds that England for this and other reasons is a sinking ship economically so Scotland would be much better off heading for the lifeboats.

This makes several assumptions, the least among them that Scotland will implement its own currency and trade deals in a timely fashion.

England is also a sinking ship, economically, because of its broad social programs, low industrial tax base, historic allowances toward widespread immigration without economic skill sets, and closure of industries and manufacturing outside of greater London, with increasing reliance on financial services as a mechanism of keeping the country afloat.

The UK does have a few very favourable circumstances which Scotland is unlikely to get, at least in the short term.  It maintains trade deals with a variety of nations around the globe, which is no small thing, deals which Scotland benefits from in the export of natural resources.  It has a large financial sector which is used to finance resource exploration, essential to Scotland's development.  Finally, Scotland itself has a greater propensity toward unfettered immigration and broad social programs than does England itself - which is fine so long as the oil and gas royalties are pouring in, if it can round out its economy.

Most of the reasons Scotland's Yes movement are promoting are social, or limited economic.  They do not speak to the inevitable change in standard of living that will at least temporarily develop from separation from the UK, particularly if they foolishly continue with the line that they'll maintain the Pound Sterling for an indeterminate period of time.

And I think the fears of "chaos" are wildly overblown. Let's save that word for the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the American and Irish revolutions. What makes this worse than the disintegration of Czechoslovakia? Would you even use that word to describe the independence of the Baltic States from the Soviet Union? Seriously, this is going to be a featherbed transition compared to other separations that had far greater potential for being ugly but turned out just fine.

I don't think you realize the degree of economic integration and benefit Scotland currently receives as part of the United Kingdom.  The other examples you named were cases where nations detached themselves from politically and economically unstable unions during the collapse of the larger nation.  No such upheaval is occurring in the modern United Kingdom.  The Scottish independence movement is far more about heartstrings and sentiment than a true cost-benefit analysis.

In terms of a pampered first-world population, the effects of a true separation of Scotland from the UK will indeed be chaos.  Particularly on the economic front; the driver of the Scottish economic engine is basically the petroleum industry, and speaking as someone who live sin a place where the government is also virtually entirely dependent on petroleum revenue to run itself as a province, that does not make a good basis for stable governance, particularly if crafted in the midst of separation from a larger country.

[EvidenceOfFault]

I don't see why people are so set against Scottish independence. Czechoslovakia split amicably and everything was fine, both of them are in the EU now.

[MP-Ryan]

I don't see why people are so set against Scottish independence. Czechoslovakia split amicably and everything was fine, both of them are in the EU now.

Things were very different in 1993 in Eastern Europe than they are in 2014 in the United Kingdom.  They are not comparable.

[Aardwolf]

1. Remember that a 75% majority where only 1% of the population voted is not much better than a 51% majority where 20% of the population voted. If this sort of thing is to be codified, the procedures should take into consideration whether the vote is representative.

[...] If you aren't willing to vote on something this important then you deserve to have your community remade without your consent.

Well sure we can say "if you didn't vote it's because you didn't care enough", and technically it's true, but it would still be bull**** to claim that a referendum that passes with only 0.75% of the population (that's 75% of 1%, i.e. 0.0075 of the total) has a popular mandate.

(Don't waste your time pointing out that my numbers have nothing to do with the reality on the ground in Scotland; I'm talking theory here)

[Phantom Hoover]

I've heard, though I haven't been bothered to source for myself, that the SNP originally wanted a much more restrained referendum generally geared towards offering more devolution, but Cameron essentially demanded that it be a full yes/no, 50%+1 referendum, presumably hoping that they'd just lose and put the independence movement to rest for a while (the polls have shifted a lot in the last two years). If that's the case this could end up being one hell of a SNAFU for him.

[MP-Ryan]

Here's a good editorial piece on what the Scotland referendum looks like to Canadians - who have some experience with country-shearing referendums - looking in:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/an-open-letter-to-scotland/article20579017/

[Phantom Hoover]

Federalism would be great if it was being offered. It's not, though. In fact, most Scots preferred further devolution and fiscal autonomy to either independence or the status quo in polls taken 3 or 4 years ago, and the SNP wanted it as an option in the referendum. Westminster presumably thought that by blocking it as an option all those voters would default to No, a strategy that has spectacularly backfired.

[Phantom Hoover]

Actually I also have a question from Scotland, to the rest of the world:

Why do you all make such a big deal about haggis and the bagpipes? They're neither of them that bad if you actually try them!

[Mr. Vega]

It has a large financial sector which is used to finance resource exploration, essential to Scotland's development.

Oh god, do I have to explain to you that a government can create its own currency at will? If Scotland adopts its own currency it will be able to create all the financial resources it needs for internal investment. It might seek external financial support to stabilize the exchange rate for a couple of years, but they can get that without asking England for help.

And yes, this is all assuming Scotland adopts a new currency and gets trade deals done. But Scotland has valuable exports, ESPECIALLY if the Ukraine crisis leaves the EU starved for energy. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to get it done.