Scottish Independence Referendum is agreed: vote in 2014

[Bobz]

You can agree or disagree but what matters are facts.

Most economists hold to the notion that lenders lend to borrowers and banks are mere intermediaries. The reality is that it is banks who create new money and lend to borrowers. After decades of credit expansion Britain faces a profound decades long contraction/decline. Credit cannot be extended because Britain has reached the point of debt saturation and the capital to borrow against is spent and actually diminishing thanks to low interest rates. The UK's staggering debt to GDP ratio is almost 1000%, most of which is financial debt. Therefore, the austerity vs stimulus argument does not even apply here. Not even the US or Europe have this problem, their problem is not debt, but fiscal/monetary structure.

So you see, that is the less romantic tendrils of reality.

I disagreed that the UK is suffering from stagflation, not that the debt is rising. That's indisputable, although your insinuation that the UK is going to struggle to borrow more is not. And again, you've sidestepped the point. How is Scotland going to be any better off? What are the SNP's plans when everyone doesn't just play along like they so naively think?

[Winston Smith]

Speaking as a British Unionist, I am opposed to Scottish Independence. I don't want to be English. I am British: I was born British, I hope to die British.

[Jackie Chan's Brother Wang...]

I really hope Scotland stays a part of the United Kingdom, I know some Scottish nationalists would rage at me for saying it, but I've always considered England and Scotland as one country, before the SNP started to enter mainstream politics, I never thought of the two as seperate entities, I know they were, but that was 300 + years ago, the two, in my mind, have become one, which is why it's so bizarre that the idea of Scotland becoming a seperate country from the rest of Britain is actually being debated.

What I personally find strange though, is that the SNP call themselves Scottish nationalists, but they aim to join the European Union? As far as I'm concerned one of nationalism's main goals is sovereignty, which just makes the whole purpose of 'independence', when it's really secession, even more weird when you consider that they are simply trying to gain sovereignty in order to immediately give it away.

Finally, for an apparent 'Scottish nationalist' party, they don't seem to have any care in the world as to who actually qualifies as Scottish, which seems to go against the very basis of a nationalist party, which is that a national identity is one of the key beliefs any nationalist in any country has. It's made even stranger by the fact that Scotland is a small country in the north of the globe, with a small population, so there aren't exactly any questions in people's minds as to who the Scottish people are, that being the mainly Celtic people of nothern Britain, yet the SNP reject this, despite the fact that I'm sure almost all of their support comes from that demographic group, and instead attempts to basically present themselves as 'multicultural nationalists', which seems like a complete contradiction in terms, but there we are, I'm not saying it's wrong, it just seems odd.

[Lord-Fisher]

Speaking as a British Unionist, I am opposed to Scottish Independence. I don't want to be English. I am British: I was born British, I hope to die British.

Forgive my abhorrent naivety, but i thought Britain only really referred to England and Whales, whereas Great Britain refers to England, Whales and Scotland? If that's the case, wouldn't that mean that Scottish independence wouldn't actually affect Britain as title, and therefore it's people's claim to being British?

[Winston Smith]

Forgive my abhorrent naivety, but i thought Britain only really referred to England and Whales, whereas Great Britain refers to England, Whales and Scotland? If that's the case, wouldn't that mean that Scottish independence wouldn't actually affect Britain as title, and therefore it's people's claim to being British?

Great Britain and Britain are slightly different, but saying I'm a British Unionist and a Great British Unionist a) mean the same thing and b) the second sounds weird. My identity relies on England and Scotland remaining one.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Forgive my abhorrent naivety, but i thought Britain only really referred to England and Whales, whereas Great Britain refers to England, Whales and Scotland? If that's the case, wouldn't that mean that Scottish independence wouldn't actually affect Britain as title, and therefore it's people's claim to being British?

[selder]

And again, you've sidestepped the point.

No I think I am actually getting straight to the point. The point being that Scotland continuing to use Sterling will be in everyones interest, so I don't see why a currency union could not be worked out. As for what will we do if they don't "just play along", well we have other options don't we. The Scottish government, like most modern governments, will make contingency plans. The need for contingency planning emerges from a thorough analysis of the risks, which then enable the development effective planning strategies. Contingency planning requires an investment of time and resources, hence, the reason the Scottish government has not rushed to release one plan. Instead they established a panel of experts to assess the risks and manage the risks. It is called The Fiscal Commission Working Group, and it includes two winners of the Nobel economics prize, Joseph Stiglitz and Sir Jim Mirrlees, as well as Scottish economist Andrew Hughes-Hallett and Frances Ruane.

Speaking as a British Unionist, I am opposed to Scottish Independence. I don't want to be English. I am British: I was born British, I hope to die British.

No one said you can not continue to be British after independence. This is a political independence, we will all still live in Britain, we will just have our own autonomous governments. That should not change the way you identify yourself.

I know some Scottish nationalists would rage at me for saying it, but I've always considered England and Scotland as one country

I doubt anyone would rage and I am not surprised you would think that as Scottish history has not been taught in school until very recently. Neither was Scottish literature for that matter, everything was simply British this and British that, which was a thinly veiled English this and English that.

What I personally find strange though, is that the SNP call themselves Scottish nationalists, but they aim to join the European Union? As far as I'm concerned one of nationalism's main goals is sovereignty

First of all, you can be a nationalist and still be part of a union. Look at the United States for instance, people can be from one state or another and yet feel very nationalistic towards the whole of the country. Secondly, the UK and EU are not synonymous. Being a member of the EU does not mean a country loses its sovereignty. It is a bit like sharing sovereignty, but nothing essential to the well-being and sense of identity of the people of the member states has been lost.

Finally, for an apparent 'Scottish nationalist' party, they don't seem to have any care in the world as to who actually qualifies as Scottish, which seems to go against the very basis of a nationalist party, which is that a national identity is one of the key beliefs any nationalist in any country has.

You are confusing ethnic nationalism with civic nationalism. The Scottish government promotes civic nationalism, much like the United States or France.

[The Great Montrose]

I doubt anyone would rage and I am not surprised you would think that as Scottish history has not been taught in school until very recently. Neither was Scottish literature for that matter, everything was simply British this and British that, which was a thinly veiled English this and English that.

Indeed, I can't believe that the SNP's moves to bring in a "Scottish studies" subject was branded by unionists as trying to brainwash kids into supporting independence. The fact is that in schools we are not taught our own history not in the slightest. I'm quite sure that in most countries they are taught about their history but no we are taught about the Russian Revoloution and the Slave Trade which dont get me wrong are important but we must learn about our own history.

Selder I'm not sure you will agree with me here but I've been reading up about this group Siol nan Gaidheal. And I find myself liking some of what they support. http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/hstoom.htm Like Gaelic being taught in schools. I realise these guys are a ultra nationalist group but they do make some good points.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I'd like a source on the claim Scottish history has only been taught recently. Seems like a pile of crap to me. It also assumes that British history is exclusive from Scottish history, which it ****ing isn't.

[Bobz]

No I think I am actually getting straight to the point. The point being that Scotland continuing to use Sterling will be in everyones interest, so I don't see why a currency union could not be worked out. As for what will we do if they don't "just play along", well we have other options don't we. The Scottish government, like most modern governments, will make contingency plans. The need for contingency planning emerges from a thorough analysis of the risks, which then enable the development effective planning strategies. Contingency planning requires an investment of time and resources, hence, the reason the Scottish government has not rushed to release one plan. Instead they established a panel of experts to assess the risks and manage the risks. It is called The Fiscal Commission Working Group, and it includes two winners of the Nobel economics prize, Joseph Stiglitz and Sir Jim Mirrlees, as well as Scottish economist Andrew Hughes-Hallett and Frances Ruane.

So in other words, the SNP don't have any proper plans and you're happy to support people who are going to make it up as they go along? I suspect many people in Scotland aren't as willing as you are to take the word of a few economists that a currency union will be worked out and everything will be all rosy. I also find it rather amusing you think the SNP shouldn't spend time and money coming out with contingency plans for the many things that they thought would be easy but actually aren't (EU membership, currency, military, etc) and yet they are continuing to spend a lot of time and money on the referendum. You would of thought the actual plans for an independent Scotland would take precedence over the vote, but hey maybe the SNP are actually advocating the no vote with the lack of information they are providing.

Selder I'm not sure you will agree with me here but I've been reading up about this group Siol nan Gaidheal. And I find myself liking some of what they support. http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/hstoom.htm Like Gaelic being taught in schools. I realise these guys are a ultra nationalist group but they do make some good points.

I think you should check that site a bit more thoroughly first Andy. I particularly enjoyed their views that Kosovo should not of been allowed to democratically vote for independence because it is part of Serbia...

I'd like a source on the claim Scottish history has only been taught recently. Seems like a pile of crap to me. It also assumes that British history is exclusive from Scottish history, which it ****ing isn't.

When I did history (only in the last decade) we spent a fair bit of time learning about our local history. Indeed, part of the coursework was about how WW2 affected your local area. I can't imagine history lessons in Scotland are any different.

[The Great Montrose]

I think you should check that site a bit more thoroughly first Andy. I particularly enjoyed their views that Kosovo should not of been allowed to democratically vote for independence because it is part of Serbia...

When I did history (only in the last decade) we spent a fair bit of time learning about our local history. Indeed, part of the coursework was about how WW2 affected your local area. I can't imagine history lessons in Scotland are any different.

I said I agreed with some of their points like Gaelic being taught in schools. They are an ultra nationalist group and I would not like to be associated with them but I do like a few bits of what they say.

I'm currently doing History just now and ovbiously im actually from Scotland and I dont learn about Scottish/local history. I learn about the Slave Trade and the Russian revoloution.If I choose to do advanced Higher next year then the topics I would learn about would be South Africa and Nazism. I think Scottish kids should be taught about Bannockburn and Stirling bridge, the wars of independence, the picts and Mary Queen of Scots and other things like that yet they're not. The SNP have wanted to introduce a Scottish Studies subject but it was met with hostility from the unionist parties because they think if kids learn about their history they'll all of a sudden vote for independence. In first year I think I learned a bit about the road to WW2 but I dont think thats enough.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Note how yet another request for a source over a nationalist claim is ignored.

[Bobz]

I said I agreed with some of their points like Gaelic being taught in schools. They are an ultra nationalist group and I would not like to be associated with them but I do like a few bits of what they say.

I'm currently doing History just now and ovbiously im actually from Scotland and I dont learn about Scottish/local history. I learn about the Slave Trade and the Russian revoloution.If I choose to do advanced Higher next year then the topics I would learn about would be South Africa and Nazism. I think Scottish kids should be taught about Bannockburn and Stirling bridge, the wars of independence, the picts and Mary Queen of Scots and other things like that yet they're not. The SNP have wanted to introduce a Scottish Studies subject but it was met with hostility from the unionist parties because they think if kids learn about their history they'll all of a sudden vote for independence. In first year I think I learned a bit about the road to WW2 but I dont think thats enough.

Do you mean Gaelic being an optional lesson for those who want it (which I can support actually, being Cornish with a language of our own) or making it compulsory, which is just a waste of overstretched school time and money.

What you're really describing, though you might not realise it, is the fact there simply isn't enough time dedicated to history in school. Many historians have spoke of the fact history lessons are dangerously close to becoming little more than bullet points with the amount of World and British history that needs to be taught because of the lack of time. As I'm sure you know, there's more to history than just learning a timeline of events, and the amount of pre-union history you're talking about is already far more than already gets taught in schools anywhere in Britain of this period. Most people would of opposed this because of the very obvious problem of finding the time to teach it without removing far more important topics from the curriculum - learning about Nazism is a lot more important than Mary Queen of Scots. Perhaps if history was given more time on the curriculum there would be more time for local affairs, but that's a different topic without a good solution.

Besides as Ferrets said, much of Scottish history is British history, and I really can't believe you've never learnt any local history at any time in school.

[Winston Smith]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the continued Union of England and Scotland is essential to my national identity.

[Jack0]

Hi everyone I'm completely new to this thread, in fact, this is my first post


I could not resist commenting on this thread because, as a Scottish resident, I feel strongly about the issue of Scottish sovereignty.


Firstly I would like to clear the air a little and hopefully make this thread more constructive by pointing out:


The debate thus far has been sidetracked with a lot of points that are largely irrelevent to whether Scotland would be better off independent, or part of the union.


I would like to point out the following:


.A nation's currency has no significant effect on it's sovereignty and ability to thrive, neither does the status of it's central bank. We need to move on from discussions about currency and central bank status to more substantive points.


.Ramblings about Gaelic nationalism are not arguments that add to the debate.


.Why all the arguments about the results of various polls? What does this add to the debate? Greater or lesser support for either side does not invalidate any points in the independence debate.


.Whatever the SNP say is not wholly representative of the Yes side. The SNP are not the Yes side, but rather one of many parties that represent the Yes side; others include the green party, the Scottish Scocialist Party, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, Scottish Democratic Alliance, etc. Not everyone that is pro-independence is pro SNP, so if a pro-independence person makes a good point I don't want to see a rebuttel along the lines of: well that's not what the SNP say. Address the point instead of going off on a tangent about what the SNP or Alex Salmond Say.


This thread would enrich the independence debate if people stuck to the arguments about the merits of Scotland becoming independent/ remaining in the Union and did not get sidelined by irrelevant discussions about poll results etc.


-------------------

So I'm going to start off by making the case for Scottish indpendence, and hopefully explain what the appeals of independence are to Scots.(This will be a multiple post job, and I will elaborate further in later posts)


First, and strongest argument: an independent Scotland will be better for the people living in Scotland because it will be more representitve and accountable; thus being more legitimate and democratic than the status quo.

In an independent Scotland all political decisions affecting Scotland will be made in Scotland, by politicians who have been elected by an electorate who all live in Scotland. This setup would obviously be more representative and accountable than the current status quo where many important decisions about Scotland are still made by the Westminister government, rather than the Scottish Parliament.


It simply follows that a more accountable and representative form of government is more democratic.

---------------------

Pre-empting criticism:

A) Oh but there is already a devolved Scottish Parliament, so the current political status quo is representative and accountable to people living in Scotland. Furthermore Scottish residents elect representatives to Westminster, which is representative and democratic. Yes this is true but the Scottish Parliament is limited in its power. The Scottish parliament does not have the ability to set and raise its own taxes, no control over its foreign policy etc. As for the Westminster MPs who represent Scotland in the HoC, they are a minority of Westminster MPs, and therefore it is predominantly MPs from outside Scotland that make important decisions affecting Scottish residents in the HoC.


B) Oh but what about devo max? If it is implemented then the Scottish Parliament will have more powers and therefore be more accountable and representative. It Seems like you are advocating federalism in the UK.


Well Yes, a federal system of governance in the Uk, similar to Germany and the USA, would be wonderful, BUT I'm sceptical of true federalism occuring in the UK for the forseeable future. Here's why I think that:

The no campaign has not defined devo-max and uses the term in a very vague sense with no concrete meaning. In fact the no campaign lacks any kind of vision for a post-referendum Scotland. It is up to the no campaign to clearly define what devo-max is, not the yes side, who are not pro-devo max, but pro-independence.


The no campaign would quash the Yes side, and win me over, if the leaders of the no camp came out and said:
if we win the referendum we will legislate for Scotland to gain full fiscal autonomy.

But neither Labour or the tories, the only real players in Westminister, have done that. In fact:


1) The tories, arguably the most powerful party in the two party UK system atm, are strongly against further decentralisation of power in the UK. The tories have always been, and still are, anti-devolution. These news articels are more telling:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...max-referendum


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ish-referendum



2) Labour say they are in favour of devo-max but they have yet to offer a clear definition, and have not explicitly stated that they will champion for Scotland to have full fiscal autonomy in the next election.


3) The Lib Dems are in favour of federalism in the UK, but they are a third party with a minute chance of gaining any say in govt. (They aren't really getting much of a say in the current coalition). Even so Lib Dem Andrew Page makes a good point by stating:

even if the premise that the party (LD's) is by nature a federalist one is accepted, it is naive to believe that the best channel by which to achieve the benefits of federalism is affiliation to the negative Better Together campaign, which lacks any kind of vision for a post-referendum Scotland.Federalism is many things but it is not devolutionism.
(Andrew Page, extract from the Better Nation blog).


seeing the way things are now panning out, it’s very clear what is on offer, from the no camp is: 'leave Westmisnter in control, and we’ll tell you what you can and can’t have, when we get around to it, and if we remember Scotland exists after 2014.'


Furthermore the no camp's slogan on devo max seems to be: "What do we want?" "Constitutional tinkering!" "When do we want it?" "When Westminster decides to give it to us!" Not really convincing as a slogan for the No camp, is it?


Given all this reasonable criticism, why put hopes for increased Scottish sovereignty in the no camp? Why not just guarantee more powers for the Scottish parliament by voting yes in 2014?



I eagerly await constructive criticism.

[Copperknickers II]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-21539995

So much for the youth vote. Or at least the intelligent youth vote.

Glasgow Uni? Half the people there are English, and most of the rest are privately educated posh kids. If the SNP wanted to benefit from the youth vote it definitely wouldn't have been looking there. Fortunately the top 5 Unis only make up a small proportion Scotland's youth. But yes, totally unsurprising.

[Niall101x]

I can personally vouch for Scottish history being taught in Schools; well specifically the so called "Scottish War(s) of Independence". The period from Edward I's invasion to the Battle of Bannockburn was gone over many times starting in Primary School through to Standard Grade History, sadly to the detriment of many other perhaps more significant aspects of Scottish History. This was at least 13 years ago so it's not really a recent change and I believe it was being taught for some time at that point.

I have wondered however if I was subjected to the William Wallace treatment specifically because this was Bannockburn High School or if the fixation with this isolated period of history was indeed nationwide.

[The Great Montrose]

I can personally vouch for Scottish history being taught in Schools; well specifically the so called "Scottish War(s) of Independence". The period from Edward I's invasion to the Battle of Bannockburn was gone over many times starting in Primary School through to Standard Grade History, sadly to the detriment of many other perhaps more significant aspects of Scottish History. This was at least 13 years ago so it's not really a recent change and I believe it was being taught for some time at that point.

I have wondered however if I was subjected to the William Wallace treatment specifically because this was Bannockburn High School or if the fixation with this isolated period of history was indeed nationwide.

Well I've never been taught any specific Scottish history. I think you got a lot of Wallace and stuff because your from stirling haha


Bobz I havent really decided whether or not I'd like Gaelic as optional or compulsory yet.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Still waiting on source.

[Colossus]

It's not like any pre 20th century history is widespread in the mainstream curriculum anyway, except from the Norman conquest when you are twelve, if you consider that to be of any value. So yes, it is a lot of world wars, Hitler, Russia and the Cold War.

Saying that, I looked at the past papers for SQA Higher history (where people might have at least a passing interest in it), and there is a considerable Scottish slant on all the domestic stuff, such as looking at David I alongside Henry I, or looking at the Scottish context of the Civil Wars. That is worthwhile content. You just seem to want everyone to have a couple of battles that Wallace and Robert the Bruce won rammed down their throats, which is just a nationalist perversion of history to be honest. Do you want to tell everyone about Flodden at the same time? Unlikely.

The SNP used to be big on this sort of nationalism. Now they aren't. Work it out.