Taking the "U" out of the UK

I've been trying to follow this whole issue of Scotland voting for independence from the UK, but unfortunately I'm an American and our own news media doesn't believe foreign politics are worth reporting on unless white people are dying in great numbers, and that's certainly not the case here. So I've been trying to follow this story through the British media which has their own bias issues as well. I thought I'd throw this out for discussion since there are quite a few Brits here.

Do you folks really think this will happen? And if so, what would be the repercussions? There's lots of debate on whether this would be a good thing or not, and lots of predictions of doom and gloom if this happens. Independence from the UK has been a pretty good ride so far for those of us on this side of the Atlantic... But that was a very long time ago. Would it be a good thing for Scotland as well? Why or why not?

There are a few points i will try to make which may explain a bit of the background of the current Independence vote.

In 1998 Scotland got its own Parliament with certain powers transferred from the main UK parliament. Despite this many many powers still remain with the central Government.

Scotland is generally more liberal then England hence the fact that the current Conservative Government has Zero seats in Scotland, and i mean none, none at all.

Although there has been some devolution of Power ( to Wales and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland) the majority of powers still resides in Westminster (British Central Government), Scotland feel aggrieved about this, with some justification.

The current Party in power in Scotland is the SNP or the Scottish National Party, which as you might be able to guess from the name is pretty patriotic and nationalistic.

The SNP Party Leader Alex Salmon is the architect of the Independence Vote, He believes that Scotland would get 2 main benefits from leaving the UK.

1, the ability to be out from under the Westminster yoke (control) and set there own destiny.
2, Scotland will be infinitely richer and better off per person as a separate nation.

Point 1 is almost certainly true, point 2 is hotly debated. The main reason Alex Salmon believes that Scotland will be better off is that pretty much all of North Sea Oil ( the UK's only major Oil reserves or whats left of them) are in Scottish Waters.

There are a number of other factors to tie in though,

Scotland as part of the UK if they separated would be liable for a share of the British National Debt (this is quite a lot of billions after the 2008 crash).

The SNP and Alex Salmond have repeated stated that after Independence Scotland will continue to use the British Pound in something called a Currency union.

The British Government have ruled this out saying they will not Formally share the Pound with an Independent Scotland, as in this case the Bank of England (like the FED) would be the lender of last resort to Scotland (and Scottish banks). This means the Bank of England would have to bail out Scotland and Scottish bans if they went bust.

The SNP and Alex Salmond have said that if the UK doesn't agree to a Currency Union then Scotland will not honour its Debt obligations (mentioned above). However if they did this then similar to Argentina they would struggle to borrow on the International Markets.

Also the SNP have said they will use the UK Pound regardless similar to how Puerto Rico uses the Dollar. This would give them no protection in the case of major problems at any of there banks though.

The UK doesn't really want Scotland to leave as it will reduce the size of the union (in effect we would have to have a new union of just England Wales and Northern Ireland) which will reduce the overall wealth of the UK and its power and influence. On top of this it could be very messy and costly break up.

Scotland appears to be divided, you have to remember Scotland is one of only 2 countries England shares a land border with England (the other being Wales) and there has been a lot of migration from both sides. There are a lot of families which have members in both countries.

Many in Scotland intensely dislike the current Conservative Government though, and many would jump at no longer being under there control.

Until last Weekend the Polls have always shown the No Vote camp ahead. This weekend 1 Poll showed the Yes vote ahead for the first time which has set Panic into some in UK government.

There are some other issues such as European membership (the SNP believes that Scotland will automatically be a Member of the EU, statements form certain political figures inside the EU suggest otherwise)

There is lots and lots more but that gives a general gist of some of the main Issues.

On the face of it from my own point of view (being English), i can understand why Scotland may want independence, i do not believe that they would be richer or better off all the figures that the SNP use to claim they will be better off are suspect, but you cannot deny they would most definitely be in Charge and able to set there own policies.

If i was Scottish the thing that would really worry me though is that the most Likely person to lead an Independent Scotland is Alex Salmond, who while he can be a very good politician is about as trust worthy as.. well as a Banker. This guy just makes stuff up and on a grader scale then your average Politician.

Will Scotland go for Independence? Personally while i think the Vote will be close, i think they will stay, but with the promise of further devolution and more powers to the Scottish Parliament. (This offer of further devolution is going to be further set out by the UK government in the coming days)

I could be wrong though !

Would the United Kingdom lose its permanent seat on the UN if Scotland votes for independence?

There are very few things that a centralized government can do well, but the benefits offered by a free and independent state far outweigh any benefits.

Both Scotland and England have represented themselves independently, more so in the past few years. There are more and more displays of patriotism, which both Scottish and English flags flying.

You can only become rich by controlling your own destiny. If governments could make The People rich, they would have done it by now.

Quote:

---

unless white people are dying in great numbers, and that's certainly not the case here

---

Ha! You've never visited Glasgow on a Saturday night then.

NSA summed it up pretty well. I personally predict that it'll be close but that they'll leave. I think both the UK and Scotland will be diminished by that decision but it won't be the end of the world. There'll continue to be some political wrangling but we'll all continue to muddle along and I don't think the Jacobites will be marching on York any time soon.

I think the Scots will, on the whole, make their decisions with their heart rather than based on the financial arguments. That might sound patronising but it isn't. They can't make the decision based on the financial arguments because, in truth, nobody really has the first clue how the finances would play out. They haven't even decided on what the basis for a split would be including deciding what resources will belong to whom or what the currency will be. The heart will be the only basis left for the Scots to make their decision and I suspect their sense of patriotism will win out - particularly given how much they hate the Tories (and they really do hate the Tories).

One point where I differ from NSA, I don't believe the North Sea Oil reserves are in Scottish waters because I don't believe there is a definition for "Scottish waters", only UK waters. They're definitely in waters that are closer to Scotland so anyone applying simple common sense would probably call them Scottish waters after the split but common sense will have little or nothing to do with the political wranglings that will follow a split - particularly where oil reserves are involved. I suspect we'll end up with some half arsed compromise where we'll somehow share them.

In a similar vein I imagine the Scots will continue to use the pound and we'll reach some compromise around the Bank of England acting as a lender of last resort - though God knows what that'll look like.

And one point where I definitely agree with NSA, Salmond is not to be trusted. He's an extremely good orator and fantastic at connecting with the public but he does so mainly by just telling them what they want to hear - regardless of whether it's true or not.

Quote:

---

Would the United Kingdom lose its permanent seat on the UN if Scotland votes for independence?

---

I would say that's extremely unlikely.

Quote:

---

Independence from the UK has been a pretty good ride so far for those of us on this side of the Atlantic

---

If only you knew the joys of a national health service you wouldn't think that:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Ha! You've never visited Glasgow on a Saturday night then.

---

Well, I live in Cleveland and I'm just a spit 'n a holler from Detroit, but it's mostly non-whites doing the killing & dying over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

If only you knew the joys of a national health service you wouldn't think that:D

---

Uh, yeah... that's a discussion best left for another thread. ;)

Interesting info... Just about everything I know about Scotland comes from Groundskeeper Willy on The Simpsons.

Attachment 118473

Quote:

---

I think the Scots will, on the whole, make their decisions with their heart rather than based on the financial arguments. That might sound patronising but it isn't.

---

I disagree, wealth is very important if Scotland did not have any claim to North Sea Oil i dont believe we would even be having this independence vote. Scotland and its inhabitants would be demonstrably richer as part of the UK.

While there are those who vote with there heart, there are still a lot of people to whom the money matters.

Quote:

---

One point where I differ from NSA, I don't believe the North Sea Oil reserves are in Scottish waters because I don't believe there is a definition for "Scottish waters", only UK waters.

---

Not yet there isn't but as soon a Scotland become an independent country there would be. This is a grey area but i am just going off what the politicians are saying, and none of the UK MP's are refuting the fact that Scotland would get most of the Oil.

Quote:

---

In a similar vein I imagine the Scots will continue to use the pound

---

I think this is unlikely, a Currency union is only really good for an independent Scotland, there is virtually no benefit to the rest of us at all, it would essentially make the UK liable for any Scottish market Crash, and any run on a Scottish bank. It would probably be cheaper to take on Scotland part of the UK National Debt than go into a Currency Union. its just a really bad option for the rest of the UK.

It would be a bit like in a Divorce settlement saying "Honey you take the dog and the Kids and if you ever get in real financial trouble don't worry i will bail you out with my overdraft!"

Quote:

---

Interesting info... Just about everything I know about Scotland comes from Groundskeeper Willy on The Simpsons.

---

Ha Ha that's a bit like learning about England from Watching Downton Abbey.

Scotland is quite a beautiful country really. Type Cairngorms (one of Scotland National Parks) into Google images and you will see what i mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

...
Ha Ha that's a bit like learning about England from Watching Downton Abbey.

Scotland is quite a beautiful country really. Type Cairngorms (one of Scotland National Parks) into Google images and you will see what i mean.

---

Just like everyone, really, learns about America from, well anything on TV!

Actually, for as much as Scotland gets bad press regarding weather, it can be a bit bleak, but when the weather is reasonable, it certainly is nice. I went sailing on Loch Ness which was much fun (living on a sailing boat).

Quote:

---

This is a grey area but i am just going off what the politicians are saying, and none of the UK MP's are refuting the fact that Scotland would get most of the Oil.

---

I've certainly heard it disputed on Radio 4 just last week. I guess we're just getting different news sources. That was kind of my point about Scots voting with the heart rather than the head. It's not that Scot's wouldn't vote with their heads, it's that they can't. The information available shifts like quick-sand.

That's been the problem with the No Campaign. They tried to build logical arguments but for that you need facts... and there are none. The Yes Campaign just went straight for the emotions.

Quote:

---

a Currency union...

---

I don't think the Bank Of England will be a proper Lender of Last Resort. They may not play the role at all but if they do it'll be in such a watered down capacity as to be almost meaningless. The point was really that the Scots will continue to use pounds to buy things because it's the most convenient token of wealth they have... unless they want to join the Euro and Salmond would rather dig out his own colon. Which also raises some interesting questions about whether they will be able to join the EU of course.

Quote:

---

It would be a bit like in a Divorce settlement saying "Honey you take the dog and the Kids and if you ever get in real financial trouble don't worry i will bail you out with my overdraft!"

---

I thought that was the usual outcome...

Overall I think NSA has nailed it. The biggest problem for the "Better Together" campaign is that they simply haven't bothered campaigning. The polls have always shown a massive majority for a no vote (about 60-40 of decided voters) that they seem to have regarded it as a fait accompli. Meanwhile, the Indy campaigners have been out having rallies, walking the streets and knocking on doors. As a result, now that we're getting close to voting day itself, those people who were previously undecided and have figured that they need to pitch in on one side or the other, are coming down in favour of independence. Suddenly the polls aren't looking so rosy for the Unionists.

It's worth bearing in mind that this is a bit of a lopsided vote, as only people currently resident in Scotland can vote. Expat Scots like me, living in England, will be as heavily affected as someone living in Scotland (will I have to get a new passport, will I be ineligible to vote in UK General Elections, will I have to apply for resident status in England...?) , but I have no say in the matter. It's likely that Scots living in England would favour the union for practical purposes, not to mention that many of us will have English spouses and children.

As far as I can tell from discussions with friends and family north of the border, it's quite a regional thing. Most highlanders (at least on the West coast, where I hail from) are in favour of the union. However, loads of people from the central belt - most notably those from Glasgow with Irish heritage rather than British - want independence.

As mentioned by others above, the practical arguments for independence are hard to validate. Scotland will be a small country with no credit history, no seat on the UN security council, quite possibly no EU membership, no currency safety, and potentially increased unemployment as loads of companies make their way south in order to be able to operate in England's far larger marketplace (indeed, if Scotland does scrape its way into the EU, their banking laws apparently insist that the Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland move their head offices to the country with the majority of their customers - i.e. England). Conversely, they should get the income from the oil.

Personally, I'm in favour of the Union and I'm hoping that the majority of people in Scotland are too. It should be noted that there's been a vicious campaign of spite and intimidation against Unionists (famously, when J K Rowling donated to the Unionist campaign, she was subject to a huge torrent of abuse, including a tweet from an Edinburgh charity that said "What a b****"). As a result, a lot of people are unwilling to admit to being unionists in public, and you'll see very few cars or homes with "Vote No" posters in them, as they have routinely been vandalised. Some of this is apocryphal, as it will obviously be the vast minority of such places or vehicles that have been vandalised, but it's enough to put people off showing support.

That's probably the most garbled post I've made in a while, but hopefully some of it makes sense.

All I'm interested in is no more Scottish football reporting, so where's my ballot paper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

I've been trying to follow this whole issue of Scotland voting for independence from the UK, but unfortunately I'm an American and our own news media doesn't believe foreign politics are worth reporting on unless white people are dying in great numbers, and that's certainly not the case here.

---

Yeah, I have noticed that a lot by watching ABC World News (ABC America) but sure if CBS News, etc have the same problem? I seem to like CBS news better.

Quote:

---

Most highlanders (at least on the West coast, where I hail from)

---

But i thought there could be only one :)

This made me chuckle - David Cameron Less Popular then Windows 8 in Scotland

will I have to get a new passport
Yes

will I be ineligible to vote in UK General Elections
No - but if you are not resident in Scotland you should not be able to get a vote there

will I have to apply for resident status in England
No

(Unless, of course, Scotland leaves the Shengen agreement which I don't think anyone is suggesting)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

But i thought there could be only one :)

This made me chuckle - David Cameron Less Popular then Windows 8 in Scotland

---

Lol! I like the idea of banknotes made out of liquorice. :bigyello:

It does seem bizarre that they thought sending David Cameron would help. He is the epitome of what so many Scots hate about the Conservatives. Of course, another problem the unionists had was that their campaign was headed by a Labour politician, so of course he wasn't willing to support anything the UK government is currently doing for party political reasons (and possibly genuine disagreements with their policy). As a result, he had to stand there and say "I think the current Westminster government is dreadful, but please stick with them anyway in case Labour get back in at the next election". Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Mind you, I see I was right about the banks heading south if the indies win.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Why not make Scotland a 'State' of Great Britain? Likewise with England? (Sigh. And Wales). Or the United Kingdom, but that opens up a whole slew of wounds. Regardless, this retains a semblance of centralized government - and a Royal Family to lord over the Scots - but gives a distinct autonomy on the affairs which affect the citizens of the Great Nation of Scotland.

Essentially, complete and utter independence, particularly for a small populated country can be pretty hard on the people. And really this is the point: governments simply create problems for The People they represent. Which government will create the fewest problems?

Quote:

---

Why not make Scotland a 'State' of Great Britain?

---

In practical terms that's basically the situation now. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have an assembly to which certain powers of government are devolved wile some powers are still held by the central government at Westminster. In fact the only part of the UK that doesn't have it's own assembly is England.

Quote:

---

a Royal Family to lord over the Scots

---

I haven't actually heard it discussed anywhere but I would imagine the Queen will continue to be monarch of Scotland. In fact the monarchies of both nations were united long before the nations themselves were so she's every bit as much the queen of Scotland as she is of England. There is a republican movement in Scotland (as there is in the whole of the UK) but that's really a separate debate.

Quote:

---

Why not make Scotland a 'State' of Great Britain? Likewise with England? (Sigh. And Wales).

---

If Scotland Votes no then it looks like they will get greater Devolution, and in that case in all likelihood Wales will get it to, and then if we go down that road i would be quite happy if Northern England got the same.

A less centralised government does look like what we are moving towards however it looks.

Quote:

---

governments simply create problems for The People they represent

---

I don't think i agree with that, it is not Government in itself that creates problems it is how they are implemented, to much centralised power is not healthy for any government.

Governments are actually great at some things, its just too often they try to do things that they are not good at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

---

i really am curious how the usa and europe will react if scotland votes itself independant
just hope they dont react in the same way as they did when the crimea voted itself independant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IkkeEnGij

i really am curious how the usa and europe will react if scotland votes itself independant
just hope they dont react in the same way as they did when the crimea voted itself independant

---

Ha ha you are joking aren't you? they are not even close to being comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IkkeEnGij

i really am curious how the usa and europe will react if scotland votes itself independant
just hope they dont react in the same way as they did when the crimea voted itself independant

---

The US is going to go bomb Scotland. What do you think is going to happen, and why is that even relevant? *sheesh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IkkeEnGij

i really am curious how the usa and europe will react if scotland votes itself independant
just hope they dont react in the same way as they did when the crimea voted itself independant

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Ha ha you are joking aren't you? they are not even close to being comparable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

The US is going to go bomb Scotland. What do you think is going to happen, and why is that even relevant? *sheesh*

---

It's completely relevant. It's plain as day that Scotland is being pressured by Iceland much the same way Crimea was pressured by Russia. I mean, isn't that what the ISIS (Icelandic State In Scotland) controversy is all about?

Wasn't the vote today? where are the results? I know here in the states, they start reporting results 5 minutes after the polls open... 2 hours in and they start predicting the winners... so how'd it go?

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

If Scotland Votes no then it looks like they will get greater Devolution, and in that case in all likelihood Wales will get it to, and then if we go down that road i would be quite happy if Northern England got the same.

---

Wasn't that offered once, roughly when Holyrood was instituted? Or am I imagining that? :confused:

I know that at the moment there are lots of English people who are aggrieved at the amount of power being promised to Scotland when at the same time the Scottish MPs will still be able to vote on English matters. If we do get a No vote, I think the West Lothian question needs to be addressed as part of the transfer of powers to Holyrood. As a stop-gap, they should restrict England-only votes to English MPs. Further down the line, rather than just Northern England, I think that England as a whole should have its own parliament, and that all four devolved parliaments should have identical powers. There would then also be a UK parliament that concerned itself with UK-wide/international policies.

As for the vote, it's happening today. There are no exit polls, as is traditional in UK elections. We should have the result sometime early tomorrow morning. I'm rather nervous. :(

Quote:

---

Further down the line, rather than just Northern England, I think that England as a whole should have its own parliament, and that all four devolved parliaments should have identical powers.

---

Yeh but No!

Living in the North, if Scotland and Wales gets a proper devolution of Powers we want it too !!! The North is as far removed form the South of England as Scotland or Wales is!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

It's completely relevant. It's plain as day that Scotland is being pressured by Iceland much the same way Crimea was pressured by Russia. I mean, isn't that what the ISIS (Icelandic State In Scotland) controversy is all about?

Wasn't the vote today? where are the results? I know here in the states, they start reporting results 5 minutes after the polls open... 2 hours in and they start predicting the winners... so how'd it go?

-tg

---

The main thing is America won (as of course you backed the winners) and the bad guys lost :)

Also Chuck Norris kicked some butt. Not sure whether it was English or Scots butt yet but it'll be the butt of whichever side turns out to be the bad guys.

Quote:

---

aggrieved at the amount of power being promised to Scotland

---

The Barnett formula is looking like being a can of worms too. It gives something like a third more spending per head to Scotland as it does to England which is grossly unfair. They even had Lord Barnett himself on the radio yesterday. His position boiled down to: "It was only meant to be a stop gap to get us through a stalled negotiation. I thought it'd get abandoned within a year. It's not based on need. It's not remotely fair. I'm really embarrassed that I ever propsed it and I wish successive Prime Ministers would stop endorsing it" - and that's from the author.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan

...

... of power being promised to Scotland ...

As for the vote, it's happening today. There are no exit polls, as is traditional in UK elections. We should have the result sometime early tomorrow morning. I'm rather nervous. :(

---

Really that's the problem: giving government 'power'. What is this power that you speak of? The government is supposed to represent the people, not rule over the people and dictate what they will have. Internationally, we can talk about power, but realistically, Scotland will never have any military might - armies are expensive - and only need enough to secure their foreign obligations (sic).

You have to remember that there will never be enough money to give everyone everything they want, but the politics of buying votes (ha, and people think it's corporations the 'buy' votes) has really upset the reality of what governments should service.

Again, what power is it that we are concerned about? What power is it that the Scots are really concerned about? Why is it they want out of Britain as a single entity?

Quote:

---

I personally predict that it'll be close but that they'll leave.

I think the Scots will, on the whole, make their decisions with their heart rather than based on the financial arguments.

---

Well remind me not to use Funky Dexter polling, next time i want an election predicted :)

Quote:

---

Really that's the problem: giving government 'power'. What is this power that you speak of?

Again, what power is it that we are concerned about? What power is it that the Scots are really concerned about? Why is it they want out of Britain as a single entity?

---

Well clearly after yesterday they don't, but what he was talking about when he said powers, is that certain things like tax,welfare, Education policy and spending be under the Scottish parliament rather than Westminster.

Devo Max basically means a more federal United Kingdom, how that look eventually we will see but i am glad Scotland stayed, and am hopeful we will see at least some political change stem from this.

Not so much "power" as "powers". I.e. the balance of which decisions are made in Westminster and which are made in Holyrood. It's not an issue of how much power government as a whole has over the people but rather which bits of government will hold which powers. I might be miss-interpretting you but you seem to be coming at this with a "small government" agenda. It's fine for you to hold those values but they're nothing to do with what the current debate is about. In fact, the Scots tend to sit further to the left than the rest of the UK so the independence movement can actyually be seen as a campaign for big government, not small.

Quote:

---

Why is it they want out of Britain as a single entity?

---

There are a number of reason but I'd say the most important is that they feel they got a government they didn't vote for. You have to remember that, while the United Kingdom may be a single state it's also four separate nations with separate national identities. As a nation the Scots tend to be alot more liberal and left wing then the English but the English, due to size of population, tend to dictate who wins the UK elections. At the last election the Scots overwhelmingly voted for Labour and the SNP, both of which are fairly left wing. As I remember the Tories didn't get a single Scottish seat. And yet the Tories (in conjunction with the Liib Dems) ended up forming a government for the UK so the Scots ended up being governed by them.

For me that's what the independence movement was always about. It wasn't about trying to cut all ties with England, beheading the queen and painting yourself blue. It was just about trying to get a government that was more representative of the values of Scotland as a nation within the UK. Independence would have achieved that, as would giving more powers to the Scottish regional assembly.

What's interesting now is to watch how this plays out in the rest of the UK and Europe. The Westminster parties have had to make some pretty far reaching promises to get the vote to swicg back to no and these were made in a rush and probably not thought through. UKIP are already starting to crow about it and there's talk of back bench revolts so this could lead to some major shifts in the politics in the whole of the UK. And there are lots of Independence movements in Europe. The Spanish Catelans are making loud noises so you can expect to see some movement there soon.

Quote:

---

Well remind me not to use Funky Dexter polling, next time i want an election predicted

---

Yeah, I got that wrong:rolleyes: Twas the Barnett formula wot swung it and that's cold blooded economics all the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

The Westminster parties have had to make some pretty far reaching promises to get the vote to swicg back to no and these were made in a rush and probably not thought through.

---

For the most part, they didn't actually promise anything new towards the end of the campaign - what they did was reiterate the promises they'd already made but which had been largely ignored because no-one thought it would end up being this close. There's been a bit more thought put into them than you might imagine, but the fact they had to be so vocal about them at the end means that they'll have a much tougher time wriggling out of them.

I was glad to hear Cameron stating that he would address the West Lothian question at the same time as devo max; hopefully the Barnett formula will follow. It's always been a little embarrassing. One of the main reasons it's lasted, though, is that as you've said, Scots tend to be more left-wing, and therefore expect more things to be paid for by Government rather than individuals. This obviously requires more taxation, and the Barnett formula is a sop to that.

As for not getting the government they voted for, roughly half of the country can claim that at any time. That's democracy for you.

TBH, their heavy left-wingedness is one of the reasons I didn't want independence. The SNP suffer from magic money tree syndrome, where their spending doesn't bear much relation to their income (unless it's subsidised by Barnett, that is). They were relying heavily on future taxation from oil reserves, which aren't necessarily reliable. Indeed, there had been some talk of the Shetland and Orkney Islands, both of whom voted heavily in favour of the union, rejecting becoming part of an independent Scotland and instead getting themselves set up as a Crown Protectorate, much like the Isle of Man. That would have left Scotland without the Shetland oilfields.

Still, ifs, ands and maybes. In the end, only 4 of 32 regions voted in favour of independence.

Quote:

---

hopefully the Barnett formula will follow

---

I don't think it can. One of the late promises that was made was that the Barnet Formula will be left in place. That's a crazy promise, IMO.

Quote:

---

The SNP suffer from magic money tree syndrome

---

Perfectly put:)

Quote:

---

there had been some talk of the Shetland and Orkney Islands

---

I hadn't heard that. That would really have complicated things.

I think the whole thing's getting too complicated. We need to simplify. Who's up for a United Kingdom of Great Europe?

Well, now there can be only one.

I'm in Walrus Idaho (Wallis, actually) ram feeding on a day off. I have another week of biking, but got online to see how this vote came out. Fortunately, it came out well. The alternative would have spawned years of chaos. Now that I think about it, that's kind of fitting. Salmond spawning chaos. Take away the d, and that's been my job for the last seven years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InvisibleDuncan

The SNP suffer from magic money tree syndrome

---

Pretty much all western governments & political parties suffer from this problem these days.

I've learned quite a bit about the UK over the last few weeks. Had to google the word "Holyrood" but I get it now.

And I never knew the "Union Jack" flag is actually a combination of the England, Scotland and Northern Ireland flags. When watching F1 races I always wondered why certain UK drivers display the Union Jack while others (like Jenson Button) display the English "St. George's Cross" flag. I one asked a Brit why this was and she had no idea...

So if Scotland had become independent would they have removed the blue part from the Union Jack?

Quote:

---

the whales are invited(did I say that right?),

---

Welsh. Whales are found in Atlantic City. Or Vegas.

-tg

Quote:

---

So if Scotland had become independent would they have removed the blue part from the Union Jack?

---

Probably yes. It was certainly discussed and some of the papers published alternatives. One suggestion was to replace the blue with the green from the Welsh flag - that looked truly grotesque. Another was to just remove the blue but that looked like a puckered... well... fill in the rest for yourself.

Quote:

---

the whales are invited(did I say that right?)

---

possibly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

the same way Crimea was pressured by Russia.
-tg

---

with all due respect,but i can only assume you are in a position to judge the 'truthness' of that statement
i am not, so i can not judge about that
but i am in a position to know what the government of the cremea did prior to the organization of the vote
they did sent an invitation to every political party of my country, to send observers to overlook the elections

and i hear from several polititians they did so for every country in europe
gues what happened...almost all of them did sent their cat...with the exception of a few (i think you can guess who)
(but as i said, that is 'hear say' so i cannot know if it is true or not)

but:
According to Ukraine's Constitution, sovereignty over Crimea belongs to the Ukrainian government, giving Crimea no role in its foreign affairs. Thus, according to Ukrainian law, the Crimean head of state is simultaneously the President of Ukraine
but:
who is the President of Ukraine ?
the one that was elected by democratic means,and fled Kiev after the problems in Kiev (i dont know why, maybe he was afraid to be murdered)
or the one that seems at the moment to be the President and who came to power by means you only can label as "a coup d'etat"

if anyone knows the english term for the french "coup d'etat", please tell me
i believe it can be defined by: 'a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force'

about the 'unlawfullness' of the cremea separating from Ukraine
according to the united nations, it is unlawfull since it is a violation of the principle of 'territorial integrity'
but:
there are 2 exceptions
1)if the nation in question allows a people to separate from that nation,then it is allowed
that is why if scotland had separated from the UK, it could not have been considered unlawfull

2)if a people suffers under severe discrimination in the nation they 'belong' to
then it is also not considered unlawful if they separate form said nation
if the people of the cremea indeed suffered under 'severe discrimination by ukraine'
i have no idea (but it seems they themselves did think so)

but:
the principle of 'territorial integrity' is in stark contrast to the principle of 'the right of self determination of the peoples'
as defined by the league of nations after world war1

it seems to me that 'the right of self determination of the peoples'
bears in it the hope of freedom (whatever that may mean)

it seems to me that 'territorial integrity'
bears in it the grain of war (but that is just what i think,and who am i,to even try to impose my way of thinking )

wich principle has moral priority,i do not want to discus
but we all know by experience that the only 'right' that really counts is 'the right off the strongest'
and i suppose we all know who is the 'strongest of the world'

Do people realize that Scotland was actually independent 308 years ago? Do they teach that in Scottish history?

Quote:

---

if anyone knows the english term for the french "coup d'etat", please tell me

---

We don't really have an English term for it. We just say Coup D'Etat.

The self-determination vs territorial integrity argument is an interesting one. Either principle is flawed if taken to it's logical extreme (full self determination = anarchy, unquestioned territorial integrity = tyranny) so I believe international politics is really about striking a balance.

In the case of Crimea and the Ukraine it a total mess because there are so many interfering factors. You could argue that the coup was "legal" (whatever that means in international politics) under the principle of self determination as it's quite clear that the majority of Ukranians wanted a change of leadership. But then it certainly follows that the people of Crimea should be allowed the right to separate for the same reasons. Then you chuck into the mix that Russia undoubtedly interfered in Crimea and put troops on the ground prior to a referendum - but then it's quite hard to argue that the Coup D'Etat wouldn't have happened without Nato offering to allow Ukraine to join which itself goes against several prior treaties.

In the end the Ukraine is on a fault line between East and West and has a population that geographically split. It's going to get pulled two ways.

@FunkyDexter
if only the world's leaders would think like you, what a wonderfull world we would have
please run for the function of world president, you can count on my vote
i am not joking, i really mean what i say

President Funky. :afrog:

Sheesh, I'll procrastinate for two days before closing a thread on this forum because I'm never sure I'm doing the right thing. I'd be pretty inneffective as the president of my local book club, let alone the world.

Mind you, I can think of plenty of presidents who "got the girl". Kennedy, Clinton, Sarcosi, Beeblebrox. Hmmm, it might be worth a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

You could argue that the coup was "legal" (whatever that means in international politics) under the principle of self determination as it's quite clear that the majority of Ukranians wanted a change of leadership.

---

I'm actually not convinced that this is true. I would agree that a majority of Kievians wanted a change of leadership, but it doesn't follow that the whole of the country did. It was a case of the Metropolitan elite, heavily pushed and supported by the EU, overthrowing a government which had been voted into power and that was still popular in a lot of the rest of the country. No-one voted the current Kiev government into power, and yet the people who object to the coup that put them there - i.e. the ones who support the democratically-elected government - are the bad guys according to Western politicians and media.

Either way, in a democracy you shouldn't have a coup simply because the current government is no longer universally popular. What you do is campaign for change and put up your own candidates to oppose the incumbents when the next election comes around. Could you imagine the reaction if the Countryside Alliance had overthrown our last Labour government, or if Common Purpose overthrew the current Tory-led one?

I think I'd agree with pretty much all of that. The point I was trying to make was simply that you couldn't look at Ukraine as a black and White issue. The way it's being reported over here (UK) you'd forget there was a Coup at all and think it was an entirely one sided issue, I just wanted to highlight that it isn't.

I do get the impression that the majority wanted a change (at least that's the way it's being reported but it's always hard to tell when the media is being strictly honest or not) but you're right, the correct thing to do in that case is to campaign for change. However, I do also think that a populace has a moral (though by definition not legal) right to protest and/or revolt, even in a democracy. That's simply because it's the final safety net for the people. Whether Ukraine had got to the point where the people really needed to use that safety net... I have to say, that's a highly dubious proposition.

Quote:

---

but you're right, the correct thing to do in that case is to campaign for change

---

Hmm this is a difficult one.

Yes there was a coup d'tat or change of government without elections BUT

The Russians have been interfering with Ukraine for some time and one of the main reasons Viktor Yanukovych was in charge was because when Ukraine elected one of its own Russia turned off the Gas!!

The Coup was pretty much Ukraine sticking two fingers up to constant Russian interference.

In the current situation should Crimea be able to hold a Vote on Independence, well there are good Arguments for it ...

BUT its should have been done with out force and with out Troops on the ground, and not in the space of a week. If the citizens of Crimea had been able to have a campaign like the Scottish referendum that would have been fair.

And again, I think I'd agree with pretty much all of that. Everything that both you and ID are saying is correct. The problem is that folks tend to emphasise just one side.

Russia was definitely interfering and had been for years, no doubt about that But then again that interference was largely precipitated by Nato making overtures to formerly Eastern Block countries, something they've repeatedly assured Moscow they wouldn't do. They've even signed treaties to that effect.

And the coup was illegal (thay all are - that's why they're coups) and perhaps they could have campaigned democratically but Yanukovich was fairly obviously a Russian puppet and it's pretty doubtful that a democratic aproach would have worked even with majority popular support.

And the Crimea would alomst certainly have voted itself independence if given a chance but there can't really be any doubt that there were Russian Soldiers on the ground (despite their continued denials) speeding up the process at the potential cost of peoples lives.

Overall I think the obvious pattern is that most of the problems Ukraine is facing aren't of its own making, they're caused by interference from Russia and Nato. These two power blocks are still competing for dominance in Eastern Europe, they never really stopped. It's just particularly obvious in teh Ukraine because of it's naturally divided populace. But that popoulace would probably get along just fine if it wasb't for Russia and Nato's interference.

I'm fairly certain if they had gone with a sedan rather than a coups we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-tg