Scottish independence. Now the post-mortem

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

Profoundly disappointing.

Moggy

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

Since WWII self-determination has been a constant force, one that isn't going away.
Hopefully, the Scottish national movement can learn lessons from this attempt and try again in a few years.
Certainly, the issues that gave life to the movement won't be addressed or fixed by the UK/EU anytime soon....

The U.S media highlighted the unknown or "TBD" policies of an independent Scotland, if the leaders can come up with solid answers that dispel some people's fears and concerns, perhaps they'll do better.
One example is about the sub base, why dismantle it, just lease it back to the UK, after all the U.S. has had Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for a century, and Hong Kong survived nicely next to Communist China.

Certainly "the powers that be" got the outcome they desired. It's tough for a nation to be free if many large employers and institutions say they'll leave if they make the move.
As the people of eastern Europe learned between 1945-90, freedom won't put bread on the table.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

Profoundly disappointing.

Moggy

Maybe so, but I firmly believe it was never workable, you would also have then possibly faced the likes of the Shetlands and Orkneys wanting their independance again and how could you legitimately stand against their right to self determination after you had demanded the right to vote on it for yourselves?
That would have also wiped out a lot of the supposed "Scottish" oil revenues as a fair amount of the fields would then have stood in their territorial waters.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

J Boyle - Well you say that but the EU rather argues against that proposition, although there is evidence of considerable discontent albeit 60 years on.

I doubt that there will be another refendum for a very long time particularly if increased devolved powers are on offer.

Geographically Scots voted strongly against independence and particularly in Salmond's home territory. Lessons to be learned alround.

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

[ATTACH=CONFIG]231794[/ATTACH]

D'awwwwwww.

I do not think Salmond was the man to bring Scotland to independence. As a Scot, I did find his paucity of solid facts rather troubling, though it is easy to say that he was/is the best orator in Scottish politics by quite some margin. However, this time it was a one man show and I think the Yes/SNP/Indy camp will realise this once the dust settles. With such a strong turnout they can hardly claim malpractice.

I'm interested to hear what English forum users here think of the idea of English devolution. To my mind it seems like a logical conclusion as it rids you of problems such as the West Lothian question. I personally see no reason why us Scots should be able to freely meddle in English-only matters.

Attachments

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

I suppose my overriding view of the whole question of independence / self-determination / devolution comes down to the simple, or rather, not so simple, economics of it all because at the root of many of the aspirations for 'independence' was a need for more money to be spent on the Scottish people. Nothing wrong with that; it is a common aspiration all over the world and in the rest of the United Kingdom in particular but, to my mind, there is a problem with 'independence' if a country is dependent on a 'subsidy' from another country.

English devolution must now come, but it should really have come at the same time as Scottish devolution. The problem is that 'England' will never feel the same benefits that Scotland enjoys through devolution; there is just too much disparity in the size of the two public sectors and, despite the oil revenue, the money is only really flowing one way.

I think the thing that struck me this morning was the size of the 'yes' vote...

...only about one and a half million people.....compared to how many English who had no say?

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

Oil revenue is all good and well, but I was wondering how an Indy Scotland was going to defend that corner of the realm. Also, it sat rather unpleasantly with the greener Scotland we were being promised. Banking on a dwindling dirty fuel source, when Scotland repeatedly trips up over renewables (the £17 million research wind turbine on Orkney that lead to naught, the mothballing of the turbine factory on the Mull of Kintyre and the demise of the Proven brand of farm-scale wind turbines springs to mind) made me somewhat nervous.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Posts: 9,739

Well, the truth was probably that an independent Scotland could never have seriously 'defended' the territory that it governed; how much that would have mattered these days, who knows? I think that an independent Scotland would inevitably have been forced to cut military spending drastically to fulfil the promises made about independence; a 'fairer society' generally means a lot of people being made to feel a lot better-off with only a (relatively) modest amount of money available through greater taxation of a few very wealthy (who have the option of nipping over the, very near, nearest border)!

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

Well, the truth was probably that an independent Scotland could never have seriously 'defended' the territory that it governed; how much that would have mattered these days, who knows?

I was thinking of oil fields that span both Scottish and Norwegian waters, and also the capacity for other countries to put down drilling rigs in 'our' water. From personal experience I can say that maritime geography can get slightly nebulous when it comes to categorically defining the location of something in open water, as you run into projection and datum issues fairly quickly.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 2,163

...only about one and a half million people.....compared to how many English who had no say?

That is why it is called "self" determination.

Anyhoo - in general I think its a pity - I now expect the political classes to relax back into their opulent ways and treat the majority of the populace like sh_t. They could have done with the kick up the backside (well, to be honest, they are long past the kick up the backside stage, probably needing a good dig on the jaw at this stage).

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

I do not think Salmond was the man to bring Scotland to independence. As a Scot, I did find his paucity of solid facts rather troubling, though it is easy to say that he was/is the best orator in Scottish politics by quite some margin. However, this time it was a one man show and I think the Yes/SNP/Indy camp will realise this once the dust settles. With such a strong turnout they can hardly claim malpractice.

I'm interested to hear what English forum users here think of the idea of English devolution. To my mind it seems like a logical conclusion as it rids you of problems such as the West Lothian question. I personally see no reason why us Scots should be able to freely meddle in English-only matters.

I may be reading him wrong, but in the press he came over to me as an arrogant bully who was blinkered in his approach and had no answers to a lot of the serious economic questions asked of him, so resorted to bullying the person asking the question.

As for English Devolution, I find this all hard to comprehend, they say Westminster is remote from the peoples of Scotland etc, BUT when you look at the voting map in Scotland you could argue the same for Glasgow from the rest of Scotland, as there was only to small enclaves that voted yes, the poor peoples of the rest of the country Salmond kept bringing up, if you go by acreage voted no.. and they were the people Salmond was saying were not being helped.
I also feel that with such a thing as breaking up the UK, the vote should have also been put to all of those peoples, after all it would have far reaching consequences for all of us. you have ended up with a population of England 53.01 Million... Wales 3.064 million..... Northern Ireland 1.811 million being effectively held to ransom by 5.295 million Scots, where is the democracy in that?

As for English Mp's voting for English matters only, define English matters, any one matter voted through on an English parliament will have a cost involved and that will effect the whole of the Countrie(s) not just one.

Its a tightrope that is being walked, and one that is rather loosely strung. Personally the original plan of devolution in my eyes was flawed, all it achieved is a wasted of resources by now having four sets of "Parliaments" running along with the civil service baggage that entails, and no doubt quadruple the costs, monies that could be used to improve the lives of people, not simply keep more SNP'S MP'S and what ever they call themselves rolling in a fatted calf livestyle.

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

As for English Mp's voting for English matters only, define English matters, any one matter voted through on an English parliament will have a cost involved and that will effect the whole of the Countrie(s) not just one.

Simply put, an English matter would be one that Scotland already has devolved powers over; health and social issues, agriculture, environment. A Scottish MP, in Westminster, could vociferously vote for a rise in English prescription fees knowing full well that he wouldn't have to pay them back home.

Anyhoo - in general I think its a pity - I now expect the political classes to relax back into their opulent ways and treat the majority of the populace like sh_t. They could have done with the kick up the backside (well, to be honest, they are long past the kick up the backside stage, probably needing a good dig on the jaw at this stage).

Were they ever too worried? The tinfoil hatters are already suggesting R. Murdoch got that YouGov poll into the papers to make them scrabble a bit. Other than that I can't see it. Ed Miliband came to one of the nastiest shopping centres in Edinburgh (wrecking ball to move in in the next few years apparently) and had some nasty stuff shouted at him. Cameron did his shirtsleeves act and mentioned 'effing Tories'. It would appear it all settled down again after that.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

Simply put, an English matter would be one that Scotland already has devolved powers over; health and social issues, agriculture, environment. A Scottish MP, in Westminster, could vociferously vote for a rise in English prescription fees knowing full well that he wouldn't have to pay them back home.

I understand that, ok extreme example, England decides to ban food imports from Scotland, as it is effecting local produce sellers, Scotland would not be able to so have a say, nor do anything about that.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 16,832

.. you would also have then possibly faced the likes of the Shetlands and Orkneys wanting their independance again and how could you legitimately stand against their right to self determination after you had demanded the right to vote on it for yourselves?

I would have been delighted for the Shetlands and the Orkneys to go their own route after Scottish independence, taking their oil revenues with them. They certainly would be more viable than Scotland as a whole.

Moggy

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

There is and never has been significant support for an English Parliament nor English devolution. Devolution to the regions was tried by John Prescott and was a dismal failure.

Devolution and separation go hand in hand with cash. That and the fact that the noes kept their powder dry was why yes lost. The sums never added up and no one in the yes camp had any answers to the key criticisms. They deserved to lose.

Where now? The Lothian question must be resolved and there are strong indications that it will be. Westminster should take the advice of its instigator and scrap the Barnett formula granting additional tax raising powers in Scotland. 45% of Scots will sulk for a while but wounds will heal except among a small minority.

Alex Salmond will wonder about the strength of the no vote in his own back yard. Except that his arrogance and egoism will convince him that he is still right and that the winners are wrong.

And the Kingdom remains United as it was probably bound to do.

Picking up on Moggy's point - talking to my Orcadian friends this morning there would have been strong representations from them and the Shetland Islanders for just that. After all they only just voted for devolution the second time round.

Member for

17 years 8 months

Posts: 2,766

I was born in England, my father was a Scot and my mother English. I still have a huge number of relatives in Scotland mainly in Ayrshire and Dumfrieshire in the former mining areas. I try to holiday at some point in Scotland every year as I'm proud of my Scots/English family and history, had I had a vote, I would have been a 'No'. However I thought that the UK government put forward a very late and lacklustre case to what was the possible start of the balkanisation of the UK.

One has only got to look at the world in general to note that at the cause of most conflicts (if it isn't religion) are Nationalism, territorial disputes and tribalism and at the heart of these are often egotistical individuals with narrow horizons. Many of histories 'problem leaders' have been great orators. One major difference, is that this dichotomy has been resolved (in the short term) by democratic means and good manners by the overwhelming body of participants.

John

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

Well, the truth was probably that an independent Scotland could never have seriously 'defended' the territory that it governed; how much that would have mattered these days, who knows?

Quite...how much does defense matter if you're not large country? Most small countries don't worry about it....if push comes to shove let the Americans (or in a pinch NATO) sort it out.
The UK is a major country and pro-defense people have been decrying the state of its military for decades. Its solution, don't go to war unless its against a lesser for (the Falklands) or part of a broad coalition where others can contribute what you lack.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 9,821

I would have been delighted for the Shetlands and the Orkneys to go their own route after Scottish independence, taking their oil revenues with them. They certainly would be more viable than Scotland as a whole.

Moggy

But can a country survive just on oil and ponies? :)

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 894

if push comes to shove let the Americans sort it out.
Its solution, don't go to war unless its against a lesser for (the Falklands) or part of a broad coalition where others can contribute what you lack.

So, remind us when you took the lead against Germany; 4 years late, the first time, and 2 years late the second, wasn't it?

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 1,613

One has only got to look at the world in general to note that at the cause of most conflicts (if it isn't religion) are Nationalism, territorial disputes and tribalism and at the heart of these are often egotistical individuals with narrow horizons.

Nationalism, territorial disputes and tribalism are at the heart of the vintage warbird movement. :highly_amused: