You can't take our Freedom! Will Scotland Stay or go?

This is a well-informed post on the topic. Krugman's is a bit less nitty-gritty but interesting nonetheless. And Stiglitz for good measure. I find Stiglitz unconvincing here on an economic front.

The intuitive appeal of separating is strong, since everyone wants autonomy and the English don't really like the Scots and vice versa, historically. But when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, it kind of falls apart. Issues include:
(1) Scotland wants to just go ahead and use the pound still, with the Bank of England's backing; England has no interest in this.
(2) How do you divide up current government assets? And government debt?
(3) Ultimately, what's in Scotland? It's not at all clear to me that the Scots have the economic muscle to be a prosperous nation. It's not very big: the total population is less than London alone. Overall it currently takes a little more than it gives, in the UK as a whole. Does it have the revenue to support things like the NHS? Is the scale large enough to effectively govern?
(4) How would immigration work? It seems to me that the Scots have more interest in being able to easily go to England than vice versa.
(5) Would Scotland be in the EU? Probably eventually. But it will be a pain in the ass to get in.
(6) What if companies like Bank of Scotland bail? They all seem unenthused.
(7) What do you do with the Trident missiles? The UK probably wants those back. The negotiation/moving would be a nuisance.

On the balance, most major issues seem to suggest that the Scots will be materially worse off, albeit maybe not drastically. Is that worth being able to say you're a real country? Perhaps; I won't argue with anyone who is voting on a moral basis. But it is a risky move.

 

What a depressing nation that would be... nukes, oil, alcoholism, and nothing in between it all. Just driving through ND sucks.

Sounds like they're hedging their economic bets on North Sea oil, which seems risky to me... putting your eggs in a very disputed basket like that.

 

Yeah, it's not exactly clear how much of the offshore oil they really own, and that makes statements about their wealth really difficult to gauge. If it's theirs, they're relatively well off financial in the near to medium term. If not, they're much broker.

 

It's basically a lot of political and social factors that having been building momentum for a long time. I'm not British (are there any Brits on the board?), but I studied British Politics at University, so I have a reasonable understanding. Also my father's side of the family live in Scotland, so I have some exposure to Scottish opinions.

The Political:

Scotland is a left-wing liberal country. Consistent studies have shown that Scottish people believe in the importance of universal health care, free education, a large government and a generous welfare state for the poor. For the first half of the 20th Century, Scotland and England saw eye to eye on these issues. Then Margaret Thatcher started Britain on an economically right-wing and Neo-Liberal trajectory that all of her successors have largely adopted. This has caused significant resentment in Scotland as the Scottish people are forced to adopt Neo-Liberal policies that they disagree with. The Scottish people vote almost unanimously for left-wing parties. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats (the two left wing parties) hold 51 of 59 seats in Scotland. The Conservative Party holds 1. However, the Scottish feel they consistently have Conservative governments forced on them by the English.

On top of this, As Nett said, the Conservative party under Thatcher introduced a number of experimental Neo-Liberal policies only in Scotland. The most famous of which was the Poll Tax. The Scottish saw the Poll Tax as favouring the rich, because it changed council rates from being dependent on house price (the more expensive your property the more you pay) to being determined by how many people lived in the house. They perceived it to be the Conservative Party of wealthy Englishman forcing a law that blatantly costs working and middle class Scottish. It was also a bad law for largely boring administrative reasons (essentially it was easy to avoid and it cost more to implement than it made). Importantly, the Scottish, by and large, perceived an element of malice and disdain in its experimental introduction in Scotland. The feeling goes: Thatcher knew the Scottish disagreed with her ideology, so she hit them hardest intentionally out of spite. It caused huge rioting and social unrest and it cemented the idea in the Scottish psyche that English politicians don't give a shit about Scotland.

There's also a strong perception of political neglect. Scotland is not a swing state, it always votes left-wing, so neither the Labour Party or the Conservative Party do much campaigning there. The Scottish feel that the Labour Party take them for granted and the Conservatives don't even try to court the Scottish vote. Issues that are important to the Scottish do not get much attention in political campaigns and Scottish MPs are usually only given tokenistic representation in the Cabinet (and not at all under Conservative Governments).

Scotland also has historically large oil reserves which have already been discussed in this thread, so I won't go into detail on that. There's also the Nuclear issue, Scotland is traditionally anti-nuclear weapons, but they are required to store and maintain Britain's Trident nuclear defense system.

The current British Government is a Conservative Party government led by David Cameron. Cameron introduced a series of budget cutting austerity measures for the GFC that consistently aimed to cut the welfare state. This has heightened recent political unrest in Scotland as it is seen as yet another case of English Conservatism being forced on Scotland. The GFC is also perceived in Scotland as being the fault of Neo-Liberal economic policies.

The Social:

The Scottish see themselves as an egalitarian society molded around working class values. Their politics focuses on social equality and everyone's right to a "fair go". They perceive the British as a deeply classist society that is obsessed with wealth, nobility and whether you were born into a privileged "upper class" family. Scottish people dislike these values as outdated and constraining. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of English politicians are from the "Upper class" and so tend to behave in ways that support classism. English politicians rarely understand the Scottish people's dislike of the class society and tend to treat the Scottish in a condescending way as if the entire country were a working class rabble. This might be hard to understand from an American point of view, you guys defeated the English in the War of Independence and then you came to their aid in WWII. As a result, the English tend to have a strong sense of humility towards Americans. But if you're from a Commonwealth country other than England, the English can be unbearable wankers. They often behave with a completely unjustified sense of superiority and make endless condescending comments about you based on your country. Obviously I'm massively generalising here and not all English people are like this, but I'm trying to convey how the Scottish feel about the English.

Just look at the way David Cameron answers this question from a Scottish MP in Parliament:



If you were Scottish and had to turn on the news each night to watch that bullshit, wouldn't you want to leave the UK? I mean seriously, the pro-independence campaign should just play that clip on tv constantly. This also plays into the fact that David Cameron is seen by the Scottish as the ultimate British upper class rich boy. They see him as out of touch and a personal representative of everything they dislike about England.

The Campaigns:

Even with everything I've just said, up until about a month ago the pro-independence campaign was trailing by over 20%. The main reason it is now at a 50-50 dead heat is because the Yes Campaign (pro independence) made an argument that appealed to the Scottish people much more than the No Campaign (pro staying in the UK). The No Campaign has relied on fear mongering to argue that if Scotland leaves the UK, it will collapse once oil reserves run out. The No Campaign has also been mainly lead by English politicians. This has engendered a perception of the No Campaign as being the English saying "you'll be fucked without us". In contrast, the Yes Campaign has had a series of public ads and discussions talking about how Scotland could improve as a society once it is able to govern its own affairs. They've concentrated on painting the picture of a future Scotland that better resembles the values of the Scottish people. The No Campaign has done very little discussion of the future and provided few arguments for a more vibrant and independent Scotland within the UK.

 

Didn't see this posted
http://youtu.be/-YkLPxQp_y0

It's John Oliver's bit on it.

 

I have no opinion in the matter other than saying I would love for American politics to adopt the British style of debate, I mean actual congressman/senators asking anything they want to the sitting president?

Fuck that would amazing.

 

I'm English and away from the island so not as clued up as I should be about independence. I'm not against an independent Scotland but I think the 'Yes' argument is papering over a huge amount of cracks between the different factions of people voting for it - this article sums up my feelings quite well.

I also think a lot of what the Yes voters depend on Westminster and the EU playing extremely nice and giving them exactly what they want in negotiations - highly unlikely.

That said I completely understand the political and social reasons for wanting to secede - as an English person myself I'm disgusted with the dismantling of our social services and feel somewhat powerless to do something about it.

 

Not to mention the price of unicorn meat would skyrocket.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/results

BBC calling it no split after 26 of 32 counts - 55% no, 45% yes

 

I guess they had more than a 77% turnout and they call that "low". We're lazy and pathetic voters in North America. Pathetic.

 

Just before the new parliamentary vote in Iraq in 2005, there were flyers posted at mosques that people who voted would be killed. When the people voted, their fingers were stained with a purple ink, to prevent voting twice. So, if you voted, you could also be easily identified and targeted. I don't know the final numbers, but there were some killed. And yet, they had like 75% turnout, if I remember correctly. The images of Iraqi people holding up purple-stained fingers is burned into my brain, and reinforces my desire to vote, even in the most basic, non-presidential, primary election. Because I can, and because I don't have to worry about being shot walking out of the polling place for exercising my right.

 

Well come on, Americans aren't allowed to vote on this as important as secession. You know that.

 

Scripture. It is the one and only say you truly get as a citizen. Oh, and undecided voters are fuckheads. We have to stop kissing their asses like they're Einstein in a think-tank.

 

Finally someone is asking the tough questions on this gay sex hookup app.

Grindr users on Scottish Independence

Personal favourite response 'why is it gonna make cocks bigger or summit'

 

The no lean of the responses is actually surprising, given that one of the central claims of the Scots is that their body politic leans left of their neighbors, including on gay rights in particular.

 

It's a bit late coming to this thread now, but I'll try and answer these points despite their redundancy.

(1) It doesn't matter if the Bank of England want Scotland to use it or not. See Montenegro for further details.
(2) You sit down over a table and work it out. Again, this has been done before without major difficulties. Scotland is highly devolved as it is and in areas where it isn't, for example the railways, these institutions already have a "Scotland section" or similar. There are one or two areas of debate but it wasn't something politicians on either side flagged up as a serious worry.
(3) Denmark has roughly the same population as Scotland and a smaller area, what does it have beside lego and bacon? Scotland has a very strong tourism sector (thanks to wealthy Americans who are 1/16th Scottish and want to play golf in St. Andrews, cheers guys), food sector, IT sector (the first Grand Theft Auto was made in Dundee, skyscanner.net is valued at $1bn). You know that shitty weather we're famous for? When the oil runs out there's a lot of renewable potential and Scotland is one of the leaders in the technology due to Aberdeen being the focus of the European oil industry.
(4) By far the most likely scenario is Scots having dual citizenship, similar to what happens in NI/ROI. In terms of immigration it would be the Scots who would need their side of the border stronger as contraband cigarettes, alcohol, food and thousands of people enter the UK through SE England.
(5) It's impossible to say with any certainty because nobody at the EU made anything clear, but the thinking is that Scotland would have become an EU member without too much difficulty. It's already seen as a separate region from a funding/statistical viewpoint by the EU so again the nuts and bolts of the matter are fairly straightforward. The potential fly in the ointment is of course the Spanish, who still don't recognise Kosovo as they don't want to encourage the Catalans. The real threat to Scotland's place in the EU before the referendum is alive and well as the No vote means there is the very real chance that the UK will pull out of the EU altogether in the next couple of years under David Cameron's leadership.
(6) We could have done with RBoS and BoS bailing back in 2008! Seriously though it's not an area I speak with great expertise, but it seems that most companies were simply considering a change of registered head office to ensure a seamless transition and this would have little effect on the day to day running and tax revenues.
One thing to remember when reading articles like that is how massively against a Yes vote most media was, newspaper editors were even paid bonuses in the event of a No vote. Many large employers had to make statements refuting media stories such as ASDA (owned by WalMart) who had to counter claims that they said the price of food would rise in an independent Scotland. One thing this campaign really opened my eyes to was the duplicity and power of the media. I shouldn't have been surprised but I was. (For a great example, see here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/and-then-my-heart-went-boom/.)
(7) The UK can have them back. It's been a contentious issue in Scotland for decades and not once have I spoken to someone who wanted them in Scotland. The SNP campaigned in part of getting rid of Trident.

Is it a bit risky to say you're a real country? Personally, it would be worth it. Not for the sake of saying you're independent but to have a government that works in your interest, that is representative of the people of Scotland and accountable to the people of Scotland. A government which is much more likely to hear the voice of the crofter on Lewis or the gamekeeper in the Cairngorms than Westminster. It's the chance to build the type of society that the people of Scotland want.

When the Yes campaign led the polls for the first time, the three main party leaders in London came out with a raft of promises for extra powers in the event of a No vote (an option the SNP wanted on the ballot but weren't allowed). Their first promise was already broken within one day of the result. At the moment I'm pretty sick with the politics in the UK and generally disillusioned that only 45% of my countrymen think the same. This is a huge chance missed.

 

So, here's the question: are powers of governing highly devolved to Scotland or not? Because from what I understand - and grant that I may have this wrong - Scotland isn't all that highly devolved. It has only recently been given a regional parliament, and even that parliament's powers are quite limited as it doesn't have all the powers it might like to levy taxes or fund social programs. Provinces in Canada and states in the U.S. have considerably more ability to govern themselves, and have had that power for quite a long time. And separating Quebec from Canada would take some doing - how do you divide up the debt? What do you do with federal civil servants who are suddenly out of jobs? What about whole economies that depend on the presence of federal spending (contracts for manufacturing, military bases, public sector offices, etc.)? And while the government of Quebec likes to pretend otherwise, if there ever is a vote for independence, the current provincial boundaries of Quebec aren't going to become the country of Quebec due to aboriginal land claims and portions of the province that don't vote for sovereignty (phrased as "if Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec"). If these issues have been sorted out before as smoothly as sitting down at a table, then provide examples. Aside from the Velvet Divorce of the Czech Republic and Slovakia - two regions which really were operating independently of each other prior to the Soviets leaving - there's not much precedent for it.

If I'm wrong and powers are highly devolved and Scotland is running pretty much autonomously anyways, then what exactly is stopping the government from building the society the people of Scotland want right now?

Lastly, it's worth considering that in fact only 38% of people actually voted for independence.

 

It absolutely does matter what the Bank of England say. The misrepresentation from the Yes campaign over an independent Scotland's currency was shameful stuff, as Paul Krugman pointed out a number of times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opini ... .html?_r=0

"I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled."

The reality is that the "sterlingisation" plan would have meant huge austerity to Scottish public services like the NHS and Education.

I voted No. I did so because of the social solidarity of the UK. I don't think it makes Scotland any less of a country because it chooses to share risk and reward in an economic and political partnership with the other 4 constituent parts of the UK.