Talk Elections

With the SNP majority...

All of the Americans will vote 'yes' because they mistakenly believe that Scotland is a land of Romance. Most of the British posters will vote 'no' because they mistakenly believe that Scotland is a land of bleakness and Irn Bru.

For political reasons, an English Tory supporter or politician should be in favour of Scottish independence, whereas a member of the Labour party might fear such a scenario as this could secure the Tories a long lasting and solid majority in this newly formed "not-so United Kingdom".

I personally don't care too much, for that matter.

If Scots want it, yes. If they don't, no. This is my principle for any independence.

Could someone do a mock-up of a Union Jack that just has St. George and St. Patrick?  It'd be a hideous, hideous flag.

I share this philosophy.

If I myself was a Scotsman I'd probably vote no though.

I look forward to the argument, debate and vote. I want to see the raw figures behind any seperation deal; if it looks good I'll vote for it.

Same with any severance package :D

Where is the "don't know" option?  But would lean no to the question asked.

()

(only one I found on Google)

Yes.

How well is Scotland able to support itself economically?

Does it have to be some variant of the Cross?  Surely England and Wales can come up with a better flag than that, perhaps one inspired from the Welsh flag, only that it would also include a White Dragon (standing for Anglo-Saxon England) or the Royal Lion in addition to the Celtic Red Dragon on a blue background.  

Depends on who you ask ;)

"Scotland has an estimated potential of 36.5 GW of wind and 7.5 GW of tidal power, 25% of the estimated total capacity for the European Union and up to 14 GW of wave power potential, 10% of EU capacity"

If that potential is harnessed...guess who gets the money ;)

...Your proposal initially left me thinking you wanted St. George slaying the Welsh Dragon as the flag.

Oh, honestly. Is it really that hard to edit a Wikipedia flag? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_Kingdom_Flag_Specifications.svg)

()


Still a foreigner, but I have different reasons for supporting independence than most:

Symbolically, it's karmic retribution for an English nation that has pillaged other nations for centuries.

Practically, independence will allow Scotland to govern without any of Westminster's jingoistic rallying. The big selling point is that independent Scotland could join the Euro and contribute more to the EU than it would ever have under the UK. The EU gains a net fuel producer and Scotland's infrastructure fund grows. But it also forces the UK's hand, having to trade with the EU in order to fuel the country. Britannia finally will be forced out of her shell.

I guess more liberal-minded supporters could argue that Scotland will be free to develop a services-based/high-tech economy when independent. Not having to subsidize other English regions is a plus, but, as a Canadian, I don't find that argument compelling. (http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp)


I support NI republicans and Welsh independence for the same reasons, but Scotland is the only viable nation at this time.

Totally and completely, if the Scots want it. Sean Connery for President!

Sure, if you want to make it much harder for Labour to even win another general election.

I have long held that, seeing as there's no other way Scottish Labour can get the independence it needs, Scottish Independence is a necessity.

My views are colored somewhat by my emotional attachment to Welsh Independence, of course. Maybe I'm just settling on a substitute, seeing as Welsh independence is not going to happen.

And the NO campaign just found their first winning argument.

This...

Is this the point that someone tells you about the critical role that Scotland - and a very large number of individual Scots - played in the imperial project?

The second, I think. This will be the first:

()

(note I'm not commenting on whether that would be fair or not. Just that it'll get used...)

I really don't care, but a UK of England, Wales and N. Ireland would be very weird.

Amen! The euro is precisely why Scotland should not declare independence.

They should declare independence from the UK AND the Germans. Why trade bondage for bondage when you can have true freedom.

If that's going to be the 'UK' flag then I'd like a dragon on it.

Maybe Saint Kilda? :P

For a more or less realistic (as far as I could tell :P ) near-future vision of an independent Scotland, I recommend Charles Stross' novel Halting State.

Set in a few years from now, it features an economically prospering "Republic of Scotland" which had joined the EU and the Euro.

(The author is English himself, but lives in Edinburgh if you want to know).

"Joined" the EU? They're in already.

Does the territory of a EU member automatically become a EU member state itself when seceding from its original home country??

Anyway, the exact procedure wasn't discussed in full length in the novel. :P It was the year 2017 or something and the independent Scotland had the Euro as a currency for a couple years now.

Under a strict interpretation yes. Even if Scotland has to apply for membership, membership would probably be immediate.

And the rest of Britain's fear is of course...this
()

£££££££££

Going to run out soon though; or at least soon enough for it not to be the sort of automatic bringer of prosperity within the context of independence that it might have been in the 1970s*. Not that I really believe in the doomsday scenarios (a lot of them are based on assumptions even more outdated than 'It's Scotland's Oil!'... and no matter what happens Scotland won't be another Newfoundland), but a lot of the economic arguments for Scottish independence read horribly like boosterism.

*Of course in such a scenario it might have been mismanaged anyway. As it was (though by the British government) in real life; Norway is a wonderfully positive counter-example, of course.

"In Scotland 29% of people support Independence, 58% of people were opposed"
"Compare this with England and Wales. English and Welsh respondents are pretty evenly split on Scottish independence – 41% would support Scotland becoming independent, 40% would oppose it"

LOL

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3570

I live next to a power station and drink gallons of the stuff :D I'm practically Rob Roy

The thing is, from much of the press (except in their Scottish editions of course ;) ) I, as cool headed as I think I am, am starting to feel we are not wanted in the union by some. Even the irony of someone from the North East of England griping about 'subsidising' the Scots has started to become more of an irritation.

There are economic reasons for Scottish independence; it is also increasingly looking like the only way (barring complete fiscal autonomy) conservatism can thrive in Scotland too.

I vote yes because I'm a geographically non-bound separatist. I think all state/provincial/regional governments should be free!

Some recent developments.

Earlier this week, the Scottish Secretary Michael Moore indicated that Scotland would, in what is quite possibly a world first need two referendums. One on independence itself and a second on whether to accept a negotiated seperation settlement. This was rejected by the UK Cabinet who insisted that one referendum would be required. The Scottish Government has given it's clearest indication of what will be asked. Mr Salmond has confirmed that they may not be 'restricted' by a one question referendum offering the Scottish people the option of independence, 'devolution max' or the status quo.

The previously posted flag looked a bit off, so I made my own from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flags_of_the_Union_Jack.png).

I couldn't get the image tags to work, so here's (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/unionjacknoscotland2.png/) a link.

I said no, largely on the premise that England (London) provides a lot of same-state economic access and heft.

The devolution/autonomy was good for Scotland, however.

Absolutely. I've never been a fan of a union of countries. Let all three be totally independent (though I know some or all of the other three probably have little desire for that. Then there's the one that would possibly become part of another republic).

And before certain people (or, really, one person) start saying, "Let Padania be Padania" out of spite, I'll just say that my position isn't held out of spite and splitting up Italy is different than splitting up the United Kingdom.

On a somewhat related note, I was playing a game with some friends last night and the subject of Scotland was brought up. The object of the game was to correctly guess whether a statement was true or false. The statement: "St. Patrick was originally from Britain, kidnapped and brought to Ireland." I, of course, said that it was true. Naturally, a heavy dose of stupidity followed, with people spouting the urban legend that St. Patrick was actually Italian. I chose to ignore that. Then the other participants got angry when I explained the answer. I said that it was true because St. Patrick was actually from Scotland. I was shouted down and told that Scotland is not part of Britain. "Yes, it's part of the island of Britain. It's part of the United Kingdom." One friend tried to back me up by saying, "It's part of the United Kingdom" as if to say that it isn't part of Britain. Trying to then explain that it's on the island of Britain didn't do me any good either. "Nobody in Scotland would say that they're British." At that point, I wasn't even going to try to get into the complexities of the matter, not that anyone would have let me anyway.  :P

Yes, that's true. Italy is newer and much more artificial.

I knew it was coming but three minutes? Record timing, Al! Don't worry. Wales won't be fed to the wolves. You'll still be able to mooch off of London for the rest of your life.

Considering how young Italian is as a national language, how strongly it's been trying to bear down over regional dialects, etc...

Seriously, Phil, can you say that Sardinia is a natural part of Italy?

About as natural to Italy as whatever cave Al is from to Kensington, London.

Mindless abuse aside, how exactly can you argue that Italy is one and indivisible but that the UK is artificial and ought to be split up while retaining a straight face throughout?

The cultural and historical reasons for both examples aside, I don't understand why Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland have the distinction of being countries yet don't actually act like countries except in weird, random areas (like sports...sometimes). I just don't get the point of having a union of nations under another national umbrella.

Then there's the issue of actually wanting to be independent. Scotland, at the very least, has a sizable amount of citizens that want independence. "Padania" - which is totally made up - isn't home to serious secessionist sentiments and even when the feelings were the most serious, secessionists were still overwhelmingly outnumbered.

A couple of random questions:  What are the proposed military arrangements in an independent Scottish state?   Do you think there will be a slight uptick in British patriotism as a result of the 2012 Olympics- however fleeting or illusory....?

Scottish independence seems pretty silly.

Yeah I just don't see the point.


They probably have as much in common as Philadelphia does with Fulton County, PA. Or what does NYC have in common with Wyoming County, NY? And those are even the same states, try comparing San Francisco to Loup County, Nebraska.

Even though you disagree with it, that's my point. That doesn't mean I'm advocating for all of these areas to be independent of each other; it's just highlighting the question: why have the distinction of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland as countries if they can't act as countries?

It seems to me that the nations comprising the UK are more or less the same deal as the states comprising the US.  Obvious exceptions include their more anachronistic evolution of government and relationship with each other, and that they call themselves 'nations' and 'countries', and we call ours 'states'.  Otherwise, it all seems pretty similar to me.

Yeah, seems that way to me too. I don't know if Phil supports Quebec independence, but Quebec is far more different from the rest of Canada than the UK nations are from each other.

Fine by me. It would give me a France, Jr. to dislike on my own continent!

What is you're Australian and vote no because you like the idea of the English having to put up with the Scots determining their government?

That means you're a masochist ;D

1.  The Kingdom of Sardinia was the first kingdom in the process of unification of Italy.  The first king of unified Italy was from the Kingdom of Sardinia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_II

2.  My girlfriend is from Sardinia and I've visited.  Culturally, it is virtually indistinguishable from Rome, with a slower pace and some regional pride and cultural heritage (typical of Italian regions).  The shared history goes back thousands of years to pre-Roman times.  There are some strong non-Italian influences (Catalan, north African) but the same is true for northern Italy to an even greater degree.

I'd actually argue it is a more natural fit in Italy than Scotland is in the UK, but that's just me.

Sardinia was a pointless, random, artificial outlying possession of that country too - more so than within united Italy, actually (certainly a much better fit than Corse with France!) Which is why (though that was its official name, as the title of King was attached to Sardinia) no one in their right mind ever calls that country anything but Piemont or Piemont-Savoy.

But the Kingdom of Sicily/Naples has older borders than Scotland and probably, with hindsight, ought never to have been united with Italy in the first place (the ancient Kingdom of Italy including, of course, only northern and central Italy.)

As to Wales, all of England is just Welsh Irredenta.

Sardinia was not a bolt-on possession -- the Kingdom's capital was in Cagliari before it moved to Turin.  I'll grant the greater continental cultural connectivity by way of the Savoy relationships but I'm not sure that's the entire analysis, particularly given more dramatic examples in northern Italy (German-speaking areas and the like).

Sardinia's status as an autonomous region within Italy is entirely appropriate.  For it to be considered more naturally separate would imply that most modern nations should be broken up.

The Kingdom of Sardinia's capital was in Cagliari when it was an outlying autonomous possession of Aragon and in Turin when Sardinia was still an outlying autonomous possession of a state that, confusingly, was officially styled the Kingdom of Sardinia and whose capital was Turin just as it had been when it was not yet styled the Kingdom of Sardinia. Though noone ever called it that except in a formal context. The wiki articles "Kingdom of Sardinia" and "Piedmont-Sardinia" (which is a legitimate replacement for Piedmont or Piedmont-Savoy, though uncommon) are just titlecruft-infected. You won't find any Italian history book pretending that Italy was united by Cavour and Sardinia, it's always Piedmont.

As was being advocated by certain posters.

I like the devolution / confederation model.  States within states within states.  Sardinia is autonomous yet within the greater Italian sphere, which is within the greater European sphere.  Nifty.

I just lol when people say Sardinia isn't naturally part of Italy -- whether it was originally is debatable (though it still was within the Italian sphere regardless) but that's not really a salient point in 2011.  Sardinia is basically mainland Italy + more sheep + nuraghi.

In other words, you like the Welsh or current Scottish situation. :) (And yes, the right thing for Sardinia too. Though a bit more autonomy wouldn't hurt, I think.)

You people will do anything to try to undermine The Beautiful Place. Disgusting.

Well that's a pretty big factor in discussions on subjects like this. Massive, actually.


The correct word probably isn't country, so much as nation. An important distinction that explains quite a bit on its own, no? I dislike generalising about this subject, but its unavoidable if giving a summary. Scotland, Wales and Ireland were all outside the English state at the time in which it was formed and so when they were all (in their own different ways) incorporated into the British state, they were not incorporated as part of England because (of course) there were not part of England; in all cases there was a lengthy period (centuries in the case of Wales and Ireland) between their conquest by the English state and their formal incorporation. It's also worth noting that the two parts of England that were essentially only semi-incorporated until comparatively recently (Durham and Cornwall) have unusually strong regional identities.

That's the first part dealt with. Then there's the issue of identity; how is it possible to have what you call a 'union of nations under another national umbrella'. The key point here is that all four nations were unified (albeit in a rather ramshackle way) as early as 1603; a long time before the development of modern varieties of nationalism.
Where things get a little more complicated is that when Scotland was formally incorporated in 1707 things were different, something even more true when the colony of Ireland was incorporated in 1801. So in both of these nations there were attempts (locally led, it must be remembered) to impose a new British identity after unification (spectacularly successful in the case of the Ulster Protestants and fairly successful - though not lasting - in Scotland). There was never any attempt to do that in Wales (a remote backwater until the Industrial Revolution, without a large city until the middle of the nineteenth century, and with its own language and distinct religious traditions) or in the case of the Catholic majority in Ireland (who weren't even eighth class citizens until Catholic Emancipation), while in England 'British' identity was effectively just English identity given a new word (and even that didn't really catch on until the twentieth century).

No, I want to save the beautiful place by getting the Mezzogiorno and Padania to secede from it! :D (The beautiful place is Toscany and Umbria, of course - the Emilia and Marche are not nearly as beautiful, but they can stay in. Rome has different politics, but is very much a beautiful place too and can stay as well.)

I understand that but the fact of the matter is that one subject contains areas distinguished as "countries" and the other doesn't. Also, one subject contains a sizable group of people that seriously want independence and the other doesn't. When Italy is made up of areas that are "countries" and when a sizable group of people seriously want independence, we'll discuss it.

The fact of the matter is that as much as Italians may whine about the other geographical and cultural ends of the country, the movement to secede isn't serious. Even at its height in the area most receptive to secessionist sentiments (the north), secession has been a minority opinion. So even if you could appropriately relate the differences in parts of Italy to the differences between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, the desire serious desire to break away has to be present. That's a pretty big - massive, actually - reason why I can get away with calling for secession in one area but not another.  ;)

Nomenclature is not a substitute for argument.


What is the definition of 'seriously' wanting independence? How many people must have such views in order for it to count, more generally?


Here's the point. Italy was created in the mid 19th century and so by modern forms of nationalism (things that did not exist when the various nations of Britain were unified or incorporated). So an aggressive form of Italian nationalism (initially the creed of a tiny minority) was imposed on the whole peninsula (and attached islands) in order to create the nation of Italy desired by Italian nationalists. Had Britain been unified at the same point, then you'd have seen a very similar process. What this means, though, is that it is absurd to think of the UK as being an artificial entity, while also viewing Italy is 'natural'. That argument is simply wrong and can be shown to be so.

Which, of course, does not mean that you can't support keeping Italy united while breaking up Britain, it just means that you can't use that specific argument.


Separatism remains a minority opinion in Scotland as well, fwiw.

Yes, and yes.  Most Sardinians would favor a bit more autonomy, but the Sardinian parties don't do particularly well or particularly stand out from the context of the PD/PdL choice.

Oh, you know, more than 25-30%.





Maybe they were just as artificial at the time but the sentiments in Scotland and Northern Ireland seem to point to the United Kingdom being more artificial. When a sizable amount of people within an area of the Italian peninsula persistently call for independence, we can make the comparison to the United Kingdom.


Fair enough but the most recent poll I found showed it at 37%. That's still an impressive showing.

If that's what they want, yes.