Scots Vote

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

ORIGINAL: JDM

In the mean time, in an increasingly dangerous world, Scotland will be left exposed

If Scotland had been independent in 2003 it would not have been complicit in one of the major reasons this world is increasingly dangerous, namely the invasion of Iraq. A majority of Scottish MPs voted against the war.

warspite1

I thought the majority of MP's in Scotland were Labour? - and it was Tony Blair and Labour that took the UK to war.

I don't think bringing Iraq into this is helpful. There was a large % of the population in all four home countries that were anti-war, but the government in power had a huge majority - and were supported anyway by the opposition. How many MP's did they have in Scotland?

That is democracy...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: kvob

Scotland isn't dependent on England. and just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you have to?
Why break the Union?
Are we subjugated? No.
Are we excluded from democratic processes? No
Are we classed as second-class citizens? No
Is our Scottish identity under threat by being part of the Union? No
Are we slowly being subsumed by the English? No

We are a smaller nation - that much is fact - but I believe we are valued as much as every other nation of the Union. In truth, it is a partnership of equals.

warspite1

Absolutely. Look at the number of Scots holding positions of high office in finance, the armed forces, government, business. We are all treated equally, all with the same rights.

We are four separate countries, each with its own distinct identity. But you know what? We really are better together.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: kvob

As a Scot, I will be voting No. I'm often infuritated by the fact that, more times than not, I don't get the government I vote for - but that's Democracy for you. It's not perfect but it's the best we've got. The answer is to persuade others to your way of thinking, not walking away.

So, after much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that Scotland leaving the United Kingdom would probably be one of the greatest acts of self-harm in human history.

warspite1

Well I'm English. I've been voting for just over 30 years. I have had the government I want for less than half that time.

But as you rightly say, that's democracy.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: kvob

As a Scot, I will be voting No. I'm often infuritated by the fact that, more times than not, I don't get the government I vote for - but that's Democracy for you. It's not perfect but it's the best we've got. The answer is to persuade others to your way of thinking, not walking away.

So, after much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that Scotland leaving the United Kingdom would probably be one of the greatest acts of self-harm in human history.

warspite1

Well I'm English. I've been voting for just over 30 years. I have had the government I want for less than half that time.

But as you rightly say, that's democracy.

Just one last response and then I'll shut up (promise).

The problem with this argument is if it was just about the Conservatives I'd have some sympathy. The distaste of many who live here for the post-Thatcher Tory party is deep, but that is not to say there is not a significant right of centre constituency here. So agree, the SNP slogan of 'no more Tory Govts' is silly. Nice, but silly. Even post independence, I'd be worried at the prospect of PM Boris in the same way as I was deeply worried at Berlusconi and his poisoning of the Italian state (the reason why is below).

The problem, as I've stated above, is the nature of the post Blair New Labour. This too fails utterly to represent the views and aspirations of the many Scots who want to vote left of centre. Blair, and Irn Brown, had the fantasy that they could tack as far to the right as they wanted because those on the left had no where to go. Well in Scotland they got that wrong and you can track the loss of the Labour vote over the 2007-2011 Scottish electoral cycle as the proof.

So from a left of centre Scottish perspective, we are no longer represented at Westminster. This is not the case in the Scottish Parliament.

Now the SNP is a coalition, that mirrors the wider Scottish polity, from those in tune with what you could call European Christian Democracy (both the current Conservative leader in Holyrood and her predecessor amply reflect this world view ... and have reaped modest electoral reward as a result), those who want a right wing social democracy (say the Labour Party of 1992 or so) and those who want a left wing social democracy. I suspect it will splinter after independence as the glue that holds these strands (& others, including the remnants of the old blood and soil nationalists) will fracture. This electoral landscape is utterly different to Westminster, so to many, we see Holyrood (site of the Scottish Parliament) as a place where we can at least recognise a political debate we can welcome.

So, as things stand, from the point of view of the Scottish left (& I accept that on a forum like this, this is very much a minority position), if Scotland votes No we will not get a government we elect, regardless. In a Scottish context we might, or we may get a coalition that partially reflects our aspirations.

Now, to the nationality issue. I fear I fail the Scottish by blood/proud Scot argument so often put forward by Unionists. I have to confess I have foreigners in my family. My maternal Grandmother was Italian, her family fled Mussolini and came to Glasgow in the 1930s (to join the already large Italian community here). My maternal Grandfather came from Fife originally but moved to Glasgow in the 1920s. My father was English, his family came from South Dorset. I was born outside the UK. My partner is Dutch. Our kids have dual nationality, oddly the one who would vote yes currently lives in Amsterdam, the other, planning to vote no lives in Edinburgh. So my family is riddled with foreigners, perhaps one reason why the concept has zero meaning to me.

The reason why this matters is that staying in the EU is exceptionally important to me. I am not prepared to risk being chucked out as a result of some wierd Tory-UKIP fixation, neither party exactly with much electoral interest in Scotland (so we end up back where this started). Now some of the anglophonic commentators may not be able to read other languages. Thats a pity as there is a strong strand in the Dutch and Italian as well as the French press that basically they are fed up with the UK. Their argument is that they know the Euro needed political structures but they held off due to English sensitivities. They now, as a matter of acknowledged urgency, need to get on with this and are very fed up with Conservative temper tantrums. If they are pushed too far over this renegotiation strategy, that mood will build ... and as with the current bad feeling being constructed between England and Scotland, it may have real consequences.

[warspite1]

No one wants you to shut up - you have been an excellent contributor to the debate - totally wrong of course, but a sensible debater [;)] [:D]

One thing I really fail to get about the Yes voters (and the importance you attach to the EU really brings this out) is this:

Having been lied to by Heath and numerous traitors since, We have been sleep walking to a federal Europe (as opposed to what we originally were told we were voting for). As such all the matters of real importance will be taken away from individual countries sooner rather than later. You are fully up for that, that is important to you. But I do not understand the reasoning: yes I want to be free from Westminster ...... Just so I can be bossed around from Brussels.

Makes no sense to me.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: loki100

The reason why this matters is that staying in the EU is exceptionally important to me. I am not prepared to risk being chucked out as a result of some wierd Tory-UKIP fixation, neither party exactly with much electoral interest in Scotland (so we end up back where this started).

That's why I would be voting 'yes' were I Scottish. I find it both hypocritical and ironic that most of the arguments for Scotland staying in the UK can easily be rephrased as arguments for the UK staying in the EU, yet somehow the same people can reach totally different conclusions. Fortunately, I have dual Irish citizenship and so will remain an EU citizen regardless of 'little Englander' idiocy in the UK. Come to that, I'll actually be in Dublin when the vote is announced, which should be fun.

I'll float some of the consequences of a 'yes' vote regarding Ireland, though. Heads have already been turned in both Dublin and Belfast about the comments from some retired general about Scottish lives being lost 'preserving the Union' in Northern Ireland, which was certainly not their stated purpose. What 'Union' would Irish Unionists now be in favour of? The UK will still be there, but the strongest Northern ties to the mainland were always with Scotland, not England. Might that sway enough potential votes for NI to join the Republic in the same style referendum the Scots had? It's virtually impossible to see that happening without violence, or the result being accepted by the losing side, but can Northern Irish republicans fairly be denied what was given to Scottish nationalists?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: loki100

The reason why this matters is that staying in the EU is exceptionally important to me. I am not prepared to risk being chucked out as a result of some wierd Tory-UKIP fixation, neither party exactly with much electoral interest in Scotland (so we end up back where this started).

That's why I would be voting 'yes' were I Scottish. I find it both hypocritical and ironic that most of the arguments for Scotland staying in the UK can easily be rephrased as arguments for the UK staying in the EU, yet somehow the same people can reach totally different conclusions. Fortunately, I have dual Irish citizenship and so will remain an EU citizen regardless of 'little Englander' idiocy in the UK. Come to that, I'll actually be in Dublin when the vote is announced, which should be fun.

I'll float some of the consequences of a 'yes' vote regarding Ireland, though. Heads have already been turned in both Dublin and Belfast about the comments from some retired general about Scottish lives being lost 'preserving the Union' in Northern Ireland, which was certainly not their stated purpose. What 'Union' would Irish Unionists now be in favour of? The UK will still be there, but the strongest Northern ties to the mainland were always with Scotland, not England. Might that sway enough potential votes for NI to join the Republic in the same style referendum the Scots had? It's virtually impossible to see that happening without violence, or the result being accepted by the losing side, but can Northern Irish republicans fairly be denied what was given to Scottish nationalists?

Warspite1

Arguments for the UK remaining in the EU can be applied to Scotland remaining in the UK? No not really, the relationship is about as different as it's possible to be. Or are you referring to "little Englander" applying to "little Scot idiocy"? [8|]

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Arguments for the UK remaining in the EU can be applied to Scotland remaining in the UK? No not really, the relationship is about as different as it's possible to be.

There we will have to agree to disagree.

Or are you referring to "little Englander" applying to "little Scot idiocy"?

Nope. The Scots have reasons for leaving the UK other than a load of cobblers about 'lost sovereignty' and disliking the English (or, in EU terms disliking the French and/or Germans [;)] ). Although, in economic terms alone, I think Scottish independence would be a mistake and possibly a very big mistake. No Scottish government can deliver the sort of pink-and-fluffy semi-socialist Utopia Salmond has been promising any more than any other government anywhere else.

Politically, I think that a few years after independence, the landscape will level in both Scotland and England with the growth of viable right wing and left wing alternatives, respectively. People want a real choice, especially when the incumbants have really screwed up, which is bound to happen sooner or later. That's what happened in Ireland, and in some pretty surprising ways.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Arguments for the UK remaining in the EU can be applied to Scotland remaining in the UK? No not really, the relationship is about as different as it's possible to be.

There we will have to agree to disagree.

Or are you referring to "little Englander" applying to "little Scot idiocy"?

Nope. The Scots have reasons for leaving the UK other than a load of cobblers about 'lost sovereignty' and disliking the English (or, in EU terms disliking the French and/or Germans [;)] ). Although, in economic terms alone, I think Scottish independence would be a mistake and possibly a very big mistake. No Scottish government can deliver the sort of pink-and-fluffy semi-socialist Utopia Salmond has been promising any more than any other government anywhere else.

Politically, I think that a few years after independence, the landscape will level in both Scotland and England with the growth of viable right wing and left wing alternatives, respectively. People want a real choice, especially when the incumbants have really screwed up, which is bound to happen sooner or later. That's what happened in Ireland, and in some pretty surprising ways.

warspite1

In the same way that I agreed with Loki about Yes voting Scots not necessarily voting with their hearts, while No voting Scots must all be voting with their heads, you may wish to give some of the English who don't want a Federal Europe the benefit of the doubt. Not sure why Idiocy and Cobblers need to be brought into the equation, but there are quite a lot of people of all nationalities in the UK who are not "dislikers" of the French or the Germans - or anyone else frankly* but do not want a load of unelected eurocrats making our laws for us.

Yes, I am fully in favour of the EU as originally sold - a trading block run for the benefit of all, but not what it has morphed into (and was no doubt designed to be by some from the start).

*except the Dutch of course [:D]

[Orm]

but do not want a load of unelected eurocrats making our laws for us.

How are they unelected? As I understand it they are very much elected. Not, perhaps, in the way that many would want them to but that is not the same as unelected. It is a indirect election to be sure but that is still an election and it is democratic. Very hard to influence perhaps but still not the same as unelected.

We all vote for the EU parliament and our own governments. And it is our collective elected governments and the elected EU parliament who decide on those eurocrats.

I am happy to listen to any arguments why I am wrong, not that I think I am, as long as they are civil. [:)] I might even change my opinion if the arguments are good enough.

[warspite1]

I could never be uncivil to you Ormster. To keep this thread on track we can take off line or on a new thread. I hope to keep this thread open for debate on the vote for/against Scottish independence.

[Jonathan Pollard]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I don't think bringing Iraq into this is helpful.

Pete Wishart MP disagrees with you. At the 10th anniversary of the House of Commons debate on the Iraq war in 2003, he said:

"On Monday it will be 10 years since Scottish Labour ignored the will of the people and pressed on with a disastrous war policy, resulting in the death of tens of thousands of people.

"This was Labour’s war – fully supported by the Tories. Tony Blair was the driving force behind the UK drive to war. He did everything he could to commit our troops, including the infamous 'dodgy dossier'. There were of course no weapons of mass destruction - there was no collusion with Al Qaeda and there was no evidence of any uranium project. In short, the basis of going to war was based on a massive lie and fallacy.

"Worse, there was no legal case. There was no UN mandate for military action and the Government’s own legal advice was not convincing.


"The Scottish people didn’t want it. 100,000 marched through the streets of Glasgow in opposition and 1 million took to the streets of London. World wide it is reckoned that the protests to the war in Iraq were the largest ever witnessed. And yet invasion and war went ahead.

"And for what? Well, ten years after the invasion of Iraq, there are over 100,000 dead, a region destabilised, a country divided along sectarian lines, and international diplomacy discredited as never before. And that’s before counting the millions of displaced people, and the hundreds of millions of pounds that this war cost us. The world has been made a more dangerous place.

"The illegal Iraq war has been one of the most damaging foreign policy misadventures ever undertaken by the UK.

"I never want another night like the 18th of March 2003. I never want my nation involved in such reckless action ever again. That’s why one of the most compelling reasons for Scottish independence is that we will never again have a UK Government take us into an illegal war that we want nothing whatever to do with."

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/sc ... se-say-snp

[warspite1]

Well I'm not going to get into a debate over Iraq. What he is basically saying is that if Scotland had been independent before the war HE KNOWS FOR A FACT that whatever MPs were in place in a separate Scotland, from whatever parties that had sprung up in the country (existing and maybe some new), they would not have voted for Scottish troops to take part. Hey, brilliant, and so easy to say because its popular and he can't be proved wrong.

It's all so irritating - he admits that 1m marched on London - what were they all Scottish?? Tells you something doesn't it about who supported the war?

So as he's being so wonderfully wise after the event, how about I do the same?

If it wasn't for Scotland, the English wouldn't have got involved either. Why? Because without Scotland propping up Labour, there may well have been a Tory Government in power and you know what? Yes, the Tories backed Blair, but he needed things like a sexed up dossier which, as we are all being all-knowing and wise after event, I can confirm the Tory Government would never have lied about, thus the case to Parliament would never have been made..... Thus no English involvement [8|]

Edit: Spelling, Grammar and reading

[Orm]

Well I'm not going to get into a debate over Iraq.

Well said. Lets keep the focus on the current vote and what it might bring to the future.

----

I just had a discussion with a colleague (friend) that regardless on how this vote goes so would Scotland be a part of the European Union. I claimed that treaties made by UK, when Scotland was part of UK, would be upheld if Scotland were to leave UK. There would, of course, be a need to confirm them and so on but the treaties and agreements made by UK was for all of UK at that time (and that includes Scotland).

One could as easily claim that if Scotland leaves UK then the remaining part of UK would not be part of EU since the original signing part do no longer exist. In my opinion both would automatically be part of the EU after a split and the original treaty would have to be modified for all parties.

I think that Europe would be worse if UK or Scotland would leave the European Union. But it is of course in your right to do so if you so decide.

Note that I also think that Scotland would be part of NATO after a split. And FN and so on.

My thinking could all be bollocks for what do I know. [:)]

[warspite1]

Orm Scotland will have to apply to join the EU. Spain for one will not be overly keen to allow them in - after all, how will the Basques react to that?

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Orm Scotland will have to apply to join the EU. Spain for one will not be overly keen to allow them in - after all, how will the Basques react to that?

And what about France and Corsica? Italy and Sicily?
I see a lot of these independence movements all around Europe, getting strength.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Orm Scotland will have to apply to join the EU. Spain for one will not be overly keen to allow them in - after all, how will the Basques react to that?

And what about France and Corsica? Italy and Sicily?
I see a lot of these independence movements all around Europe, getting strength.

Warspite1

Indeed

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Orm Scotland will have to apply to join the EU. Spain for one will not be overly keen to allow them in - after all, how will the Basques react to that?

Even the experts do not seem as sure as this.


Cut from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_i ... pean_Union

Roland Vaubel, a member of the Advisory Council to the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, published a paper in May 2013 titled The Political Economy of Secession in the European Union, which stated that Scotland would remain a member of the European Union upon independence. The paper suggested that there would need to be a negotiation between the Scottish Government and the British Government on "how they wished to share the rights and obligations of the predecessor state".

[warspite1]

Everything else I've read has suggested otherwise. But then it's the EU, they are probably making up as they go along.

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But then it's the EU, they are probably making up as they go along.

Exactly. That's what they have been doing nowadays.