FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: CaseAgainstFaith on January 12, 2012, 02:09:51 pm
-
Who knew the first secession story of 2012 was going to be Scotland, not Greece? Last year was filled with stories of the European Union on the rocks -- critics proposed everything from troubled states leaving the euro to Germany forming its own newer, better union. This year, though, has opened with split-up talk within an individual member-state: the United Kingdom.
The question, of course, is "why now?" It's here that the movements towards disunity really start to look similar. Sure, there are plenty of arguments in favor of Scottish independence -- aside from the whole national identity thing, Scotland still produces a decent quality of coal, and there's a lot of optimism about the country's potential in green energy, particularly marine energy. Alex Salmond mentioned this in his pro-independence piece in the Economist back in November, also noting that "the UK is saddled with a large deficit, so size clearly offers no protection or immunity from the vagaries of the global economy. Instead," he wrote, "the countries which appear best equipped to deal with such conditions are those that are nimble and fleet-footed enough to adapt quickly to change."
There are also plenty of arguments both on the English as well as the Scottish side for a continued association: Scotland's a mess in other ways, it would have more international clout as a member of the UK, it's not actually clear how the energy resources would be divided up or that Scotland would be all that financially successful on its own, and nothing seems to be going horribly wrong with the union, so if it ain't broke, why fix it? Below, to get a sense of what secession looks like, demographically, Scotland's piece of the UK population. As you can see, it's not much:
Whether on the Continent or in the United Kingdom, "smaller is better" appears to be the new slogan. It wouldn't hurt, if you're interested in either of the Scottish independence or the European unity debates, to keep an eye on the other. The background may be different in each case, but histories have a way of converging. And with the present political and cultural integration, who's to say how mood may translate across state lines.
source - http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/why-are-england-and-scotland-weighing-a-break-up/251272/?google_editors_picks=true (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/why-are-england-and-scotland-weighing-a-break-up/251272/?google_editors_picks=true)
So if scotland did get its' independence what would really be affected by this?
-
We (i.e the English) now wouldn't have to overpay the Scots through the Barnett formula of finance distribution. [/snark]*
On a more serious note, honestly I don't mind either way. If the Scots want to be independent then that's up to them. It would mean that there would be 28 members of the EU for one. Don't really know enough about how the Scots economy to say how well it would work. One thing for certain though is that Scotland would be more left-wing than England; they voted consistently for Labour even during the dark days of the Thatcher premiership. :P
*This isn't meant as an insult...just a probably failed attempt at humour...
-
A lot. For a starter, it would mean a lot of the troops currently in the Armed Forces would have to leave (maybe not: It depends on whether that's a condition of severance), meaning that the UK would have to reduce it's military contribution world wide.
I'm personally against Scotland being an independent nation: We have only one heavy industry left (oil) and the North Sea oil stocks aren't indefinite. At best, North Sea Crude has about 50 years (and that's me being very optimistic) to go. The SNP has claimed that there are stocks in Scottish territorial waters, but whereabouts exactly is vague and looks more like either being in international waters or Irish waters. Even if these stocks exist, it would mean relocating a lot of the oil industry in Scotland to either the West coast or the North West Highlands at best - not areas that lend themselves to importing crude very well. This, although it would provide jobs in an area where even humanity is scarce, would also mean in lots of people in both Aberdeen and Falkirk losing out on jobs, especially with the knock-on effect.
Sadly, there are no other heavy industries left: there is one shipyard that employs less than 100 people and it seems to be the only one left, the coal mines are closed and so are the steel plants. While this many not seem to be immediately a problem, it is: These were places that employed people in their thousands, if there's no-one like that then jobs and the economy of an independent Scotland will soon start to dry up. There are also less foreign investors than there were 30 years ago and the only people who want to invest seem to be coming from China. Would you want companies that owned by a totalitarian regime to own part of your country?
However, there are those that claim this is nothing: There is an extremist part of the nationalist cause that is all too vocal who see the idea of an independent Scotland where we all live on bread an water as the price for being 'free' of Westminster rule. The problem here is that they don't see that nobody wants to starve for the sake of their fantasies. Some claim that there will be some lean years but then everything will be rosy again, but where's the money coming from?
But, and this has to be said, there's a lot at fault within the Union. Britain's state of the Union is woeful and all too often (especially under the Conservatives) Scotland suffered badly. For example: When the Options for Change document to cut back the armed forces was brought in in the early '90s, many of the Scottish regiments were cut drastically or merged with other regiments. That may sound par for the course, but consider this: These regiments were so over-recruited at the time, they had to lend out whole companies to English regiments to make up the numbers. In other words, units that could turn recruits away were disbanded or merged, even though they had recruits to spare. Contrast this with the fact that there were English regiments who were left alone. Why? Because the places where the English regiments had recruited had returned Conservative MP's to Westminster, whereas the areas where the Scottish regiments had recruited had returned Labour, Lib-Dem and Nationalist MP's. Consider also the fate of Rosyth Dockyard: It was outfitted to service Nuclear submarines and was the largest employer in the Fife area. But the contract to refit Nuclear submarines went to a Navy yard in England instead, simply because that area had returned a Conservative MP and Rosyth a Labour one.
Also look at the coal and steel industry in Scotland: Under the conservatives these were effectively destroyed. There are no working coal mines in Scotland and our last steel plant was closed years ago - it's now redeveloped and all traces of its existence removed, so that any Independent Scotland would have no chance or restarting it without great expense.
So the problem is this: I believe that Scotland will eventually cede from the Union, but I don't think the time for it is now. In Scotland, we have to build up our industry again to the levels it was at in the 1930's and not live off the fantasies of people who think it will be a land of milk and honey. However, the Union can be saved if (and this is a huge 'if') the MP's at Westminster can get it into their thick skulls that Scotland is not its whipping boy and to get over theirpetty grievances that have cost this country so dearly.
-
The most immediate short-term problem is that, with the way things are heading, the referendum will be in 2014, putting it after the government's approved deadline. If the resulting vote is a "yes", then this means that the democratic will of the Scottish people could wind up in conflict with the UK's constitution. At this point, the Westminster government has two possible responses; a) run with the results, or b) "fuck you". Part of the reason why this is an issue now is that option b) has been Conservative Party policy on Scotland for the last 30-odd years, which is why they have precisely 1 MP in the whole country.
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
-
The English talk funny. The Scots pretend to talk funny just to be mean to the English. How do we factor this in?
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
No. That's part of what is known as Forsyth's Faulty Figures, named after former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth who claimed (falsely) that that majority of money that pays for Scotland comes from England. What he failed to point out that this was money raised by UK wide tax (including Scotland) and how that was being spent in Scotland, without raising the issue that the same is done for the rest of the UK. It's now just a myth believed by Kelvin Mackenzie and Daily Mail readers.
And the public sector is far from the biggest employer - I'd dearly love to know where you get that idea, The Daily Fail perhaps? The biggest in Scotland is the private sector, as it is in the rest of the UK.
-
*This isn't meant as an insult...just a probably failed attempt at humour...
I'll break it to you as gently as I can: Those jokes the English tell about the Scots? We'd find them funny if you laughed at the ones we tell about you.
-
The most immediate short-term problem is that, with the way things are heading, the referendum will be in 2014, putting it after the government's approved deadline. If the resulting vote is a "yes", then this means that the democratic will of the Scottish people could wind up in conflict with the UK's constitution. At this point, the Westminster government has two possible responses; a) run with the results, or b) "fuck you". Part of the reason why this is an issue now is that option b) has been Conservative Party policy on Scotland for the last 30-odd years, which is why they have precisely 1 MP in the whole country.
What says a lot about the Tories is that they can't understand why they have only one Scottish MP.
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
No. That's part of what is known as Forsyth's Faulty Figures, named after former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth who claimed (falsely) that that majority of money that pays for Scotland comes from England. What he failed to point out that this was money raised by UK wide tax (including Scotland) and how that was being spent in Scotland, without raising the issue that the same is done for the rest of the UK. It's now just a myth believed by Kelvin Mackenzie and Daily Mail readers.
And the public sector is far from the biggest employer - I'd dearly love to know where you get that idea, The Daily Fail perhaps? The biggest in Scotland is the private sector, as it is in the rest of the UK.
I'm offended you're suggesting I read the Mail.
-
Looks like the SNP may be getting what they wanted.
*tilts his head a little bit* Ah... yup. I hear some of them going nuts already.
As for why now it might have to do with the SNP majority and they finally got more than 9% of the people behind the idea.
I personally think if the SNP realizes what they've got and don't royally fuck it up (heh... royally) like a bunch of the GOP would, then we may very well see an Independent Alba. Especially considering the industry that they do have and the fact that they do, compared to the rest of the UK, better off in terms of employment and the like.
Besides, one of the biggest finance centers in the world is located in Scotland.
I will have to watch the SNP and all those pushing for this.
-
Don't Scots make up most of the British Armed Forces?
-
If secession happens, it would probably encourage Italy and Belgium.
-
Don't Scots make up most of the British Armed Forces?
Sounds improbable. Wikipedia tells me no such thing, and there are ten times as many inhabitants in England as there are in Scotland.
-
Ill re-phrase, a large portion...
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
No. That's part of what is known as Forsyth's Faulty Figures, named after former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth who claimed (falsely) that that majority of money that pays for Scotland comes from England. What he failed to point out that this was money raised by UK wide tax (including Scotland) and how that was being spent in Scotland, without raising the issue that the same is done for the rest of the UK. It's now just a myth believed by Kelvin Mackenzie and Daily Mail readers.
And the public sector is far from the biggest employer - I'd dearly love to know where you get that idea, The Daily Fail perhaps? The biggest in Scotland is the private sector, as it is in the rest of the UK.
I'm offended you're suggesting I read the Mail.
It's cheaper than Andrex. :P
ETA: And I'm offended that you just trotted out an old myth about Scotland, namely that we're all either public sector workers or are drawing the dole courtesy of English taxpayer. However if lots of people in England hadn't voted Tory in the 1980's, there would be less unemployment in Scotland. And as for public sector workers..... Amazing how two countries can be joined at the hip, have gone through so many wars, hardships and the highs and lows of Empire and still one of the two countries has no idea about the other.
-
Don't Scots make up most of the British Armed Forces?
Sounds improbable. Wikipedia tells me no such thing, and there are ten times as many inhabitants in England as there are in Scotland.
And that has nothing to do with, well, anything.
There are more people living in England than Scotland, but that doesn't mean that statistically there are more English people in the Armed Forces than Scots. Traditionally, in the Forces the Scots have dominated the intake, followed by English and the Irish.
-
Thanks
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
No. That's part of what is known as Forsyth's Faulty Figures, named after former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth who claimed (falsely) that that majority of money that pays for Scotland comes from England. What he failed to point out that this was money raised by UK wide tax (including Scotland) and how that was being spent in Scotland, without raising the issue that the same is done for the rest of the UK. It's now just a myth believed by Kelvin Mackenzie and Daily Mail readers.
And the public sector is far from the biggest employer - I'd dearly love to know where you get that idea, The Daily Fail perhaps? The biggest in Scotland is the private sector, as it is in the rest of the UK.
I'm offended you're suggesting I read the Mail.
It's cheaper than Andrex. :P
ETA: And I'm offended that you just trotted out an old myth about Scotland, namely that we're all either public sector workers or are drawing the dole courtesy of English taxpayer. However if lots of people in England hadn't voted Tory in the 1980's, there would be less unemployment in Scotland. And as for public sector workers..... Amazing how two countries can be joined at the hip, have gone through so many wars, hardships and the highs and lows of Empire and still one of the two countries has no idea about the other.
Don't blame me for something that happened before I was born. Unfortunatly I'm in a tory safe seat so my vote's not worth a damn anyway. I suspect a good chunk of the government doesn't remember there's a country outside of London anyway, let alone anything beyond the Watford Gap.
-
He will however blame you for bringing up the myth about what kinds of jobs the Scots have.
Which makes me paranoid about whether I got my politics right on the last page. I used to be on the SNP message board a few years back but lost contact with them.
-
Can't they just go in for couple's counseling?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO7Uyjdypfc
-
I'm offended you're suggesting I read the Mail.
It's cheaper than Andrex. :P
Worse quality too. Probably shred your arse if you tried using it :(
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
No. That's part of what is known as Forsyth's Faulty Figures, named after former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth who claimed (falsely) that that majority of money that pays for Scotland comes from England. What he failed to point out that this was money raised by UK wide tax (including Scotland) and how that was being spent in Scotland, without raising the issue that the same is done for the rest of the UK. It's now just a myth believed by Kelvin Mackenzie and Daily Mail readers.
And the public sector is far from the biggest employer - I'd dearly love to know where you get that idea, The Daily Fail perhaps? The biggest in Scotland is the private sector, as it is in the rest of the UK.
Is it not the case that the average Scot receives more in government services than they pay in taxes, as do (say) the conservative areas of the United States? My understanding is that Scotland has a significantly higher poverty rate, unemployment rate and a much larger rural or remote population than England, all of which cost money.
But, and this has to be said, there's a lot at fault within the Union. Britain's state of the Union is woeful and all too often (especially under the Conservatives) Scotland suffered badly. For example: When the Options for Change document to cut back the armed forces was brought in in the early '90s, many of the Scottish regiments were cut drastically or merged with other regiments. That may sound par for the course, but consider this: These regiments were so over-recruited at the time, they had to lend out whole companies to English regiments to make up the numbers. In other words, units that could turn recruits away were disbanded or merged, even though they had recruits to spare. Contrast this with the fact that there were English regiments who were left alone. Why? Because the places where the English regiments had recruited had returned Conservative MP's to Westminster, whereas the areas where the Scottish regiments had recruited had returned Labour, Lib-Dem and Nationalist MP's. Consider also the fate of Rosyth Dockyard: It was outfitted to service Nuclear submarines and was the largest employer in the Fife area. But the contract to refit Nuclear submarines went to a Navy yard in England instead, simply because that area had returned a Conservative MP and Rosyth a Labour one.
That is disgusting. It ought to be illegal.
-
Interesting article on how Scotland's economy could function after independance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644)
I'd just wonder what would happen after the oil and gas runs out.
-
I'm offended you're suggesting I read the Mail.
It's cheaper than Andrex. :P
Worse quality too. Probably shred your arse if you tried using it :(
Speaking from personal experience, The Guardian is best when you run out.
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
No. That's part of what is known as Forsyth's Faulty Figures, named after former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth who claimed (falsely) that that majority of money that pays for Scotland comes from England. What he failed to point out that this was money raised by UK wide tax (including Scotland) and how that was being spent in Scotland, without raising the issue that the same is done for the rest of the UK. It's now just a myth believed by Kelvin Mackenzie and Daily Mail readers.
And the public sector is far from the biggest employer - I'd dearly love to know where you get that idea, The Daily Fail perhaps? The biggest in Scotland is the private sector, as it is in the rest of the UK.
Is it not the case that the average Scot receives more in government services than they pay in taxes, as do (say) the conservative areas of the United States? My understanding is that Scotland has a significantly higher poverty rate, unemployment rate and a much larger rural or remote population than England, all of which cost money.
I can't speculate on the poverty rate as that varies in accordance with need in different regions: There is a poverty in Scotland on a scale that would make Charles Dickens weep, but that can be seen in various areas of the UK as a whole. What it might be in Scotland is that there is a smaller population so it's more noticeable. The unemployment rate is higher in Scotland and the North of England than the rest of the UK, largely because these were the great industrial centres of the Empire and remained so in post-Imperial Britain. However, Thatcher had a deep loathing of these areas as she saw them as breeding grounds for socialism (without wondering why) and was determined to destroy them.
But, and this has to be said, there's a lot at fault within the Union. Britain's state of the Union is woeful and all too often (especially under the Conservatives) Scotland suffered badly. For example: When the Options for Change document to cut back the armed forces was brought in in the early '90s, many of the Scottish regiments were cut drastically or merged with other regiments. That may sound par for the course, but consider this: These regiments were so over-recruited at the time, they had to lend out whole companies to English regiments to make up the numbers. In other words, units that could turn recruits away were disbanded or merged, even though they had recruits to spare. Contrast this with the fact that there were English regiments who were left alone. Why? Because the places where the English regiments had recruited had returned Conservative MP's to Westminster, whereas the areas where the Scottish regiments had recruited had returned Labour, Lib-Dem and Nationalist MP's. Consider also the fate of Rosyth Dockyard: It was outfitted to service Nuclear submarines and was the largest employer in the Fife area. But the contract to refit Nuclear submarines went to a Navy yard in England instead, simply because that area had returned a Conservative MP and Rosyth a Labour one.
That is disgusting. It ought to be illegal.
It should be: In the case of the Scottish regiments, it used to be that each regiment would only have a 3 month recruiting window each year. Some regiments like the Argyll and Sutherland, the Black Watch (42nd Royal Highland Regiment), the Royal Scots (oldest regiment of the British Army) and the Gordons would only recruit if you had a family member who had served or was serving with them. They were in the enviable position to be able to turn away perfectly good recruits - these days, they're crying out for them. And they were merged or disbanded due to little else than pettiness. Is it any surprise I don't trust David Cameron?
-
Isn't another issue that a lot of the nice things the Scots have are funded by the English taxpayer, and the public sector is the biggest employer?
No. That's part of what is known as Forsyth's Faulty Figures, named after former Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Forsyth who claimed (falsely) that that majority of money that pays for Scotland comes from England. What he failed to point out that this was money raised by UK wide tax (including Scotland) and how that was being spent in Scotland, without raising the issue that the same is done for the rest of the UK. It's now just a myth believed by Kelvin Mackenzie and Daily Mail readers.
And the public sector is far from the biggest employer - I'd dearly love to know where you get that idea, The Daily Fail perhaps? The biggest in Scotland is the private sector, as it is in the rest of the UK.
I'm offended you're suggesting I read the Mail.
It's cheaper than Andrex. :P
ETA: And I'm offended that you just trotted out an old myth about Scotland, namely that we're all either public sector workers or are drawing the dole courtesy of English taxpayer. However if lots of people in England hadn't voted Tory in the 1980's, there would be less unemployment in Scotland. And as for public sector workers..... Amazing how two countries can be joined at the hip, have gone through so many wars, hardships and the highs and lows of Empire and still one of the two countries has no idea about the other.
Don't blame me for something that happened before I was born. Unfortunatly I'm in a tory safe seat so my vote's not worth a damn anyway. I suspect a good chunk of the government doesn't remember there's a country outside of London anyway, let alone anything beyond the Watford Gap.
Hence the old joke: Floods in Scotland? On the news after the shaggy dog story. Meteor storm in Newcastle? Page 12 of The Sun. Two snowflakes in London? NATIONAL EMERGENCY!
-
Interesting article on how Scotland's economy could function after independance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644)
I'd just wonder what would happen after the oil and gas runs out.
The oil and gas will run out: What is hoped is that in an Independent Scotland the money from it is invested in the country as whole, rather than it all going to London. My fear is that Alex Salmond is too close to the oil companies for comfort.
-
Interesting article on how Scotland's economy could function after independance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644)
I'd just wonder what would happen after the oil and gas runs out.
The oil and gas will run out: What is hoped is that in an Independent Scotland the money from it is invested in the country as whole, rather than it all going to London. My fear is that Alex Salmond is too close to the oil companies for comfort.
Alex Salmond's plan seems to be
1: Get Independant Scotland
2: ???
3: Profit
It just doesn't seem to me that he's thought things through in the long term, like the costs of decommissioning the old oil-rigs and stuff like that. And then there's the RBS liability clusterfuck.
-
Interesting article on how Scotland's economy could function after independance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16548644)
I'd just wonder what would happen after the oil and gas runs out.
The oil and gas will run out: What is hoped is that in an Independent Scotland the money from it is invested in the country as whole, rather than it all going to London. My fear is that Alex Salmond is too close to the oil companies for comfort.
Alex Salmond's plan seems to be
1: Get Independant Scotland
2: ???
3: Profit
It just doesn't seem to me that he's thought things through in the long term, like the costs of decommissioning the old oil-rigs and stuff like that. And then there's the RBS liability clusterfuck.
As I said, a lot of it seems to be fantasies, not reality. A lot of the problem is that many nationalists have no real grasp of the economics: Many think that, post-Independence, there will be masses of revenue from oil, tourism and amenities such as water or electricity. What they don't grasp is that things like oil aren't indefinite and that tourism in Scotland isn't something the SNP is good at - if you look at Homecoming 2009, you see a prime example of how they don't understand how to compete in the tourism market and how their approach is too little, too late.
-
As I said, so long as the SNP is actually seriously looking to the future instead of going 'FUCK YEAH! INDEPENDEEEEEEEEEEENCE! INDEPENDENCE ONCE AGAIN FOR SCOTLAND IN CENTURIESSSSS! *independence happens* Well... fuck. What the hell do we do now, mates? HEEEEEEEEEEELP!"
Unfortunately I can see a very big case of the way Ukraine is 'independent' from Russia. Which is to say, not that independent. Just the noun is applied, everything else they are dependent on Mother Russia. What Russia does impacts the Ukraine whether they like it or not. But, that may happen no matter what since Scotland is fused to England and Wales and the like.
If, however, the SNP does what they can to bolster the steel industry, is smart about oil, does good exporting, knows how to do tourism properly, etc., we could see a very strong and independent nation.
Some of the people I spoke to seemed like they knew what they were doing but it's drastically easy to fake it.
-
Shane, the problem is that Scotland doesn't really *have* a steel industry any more: Ravenscraig was the last big steel plant in Scotland. The Tories shut it down. None of them have ever given me a good reason why.
Tourism - Homecoming 2009. Did you hear about? People I've spoken to in the US and Canada (the largest markets for Scottish tourism) hadn't heard about it: many didn't know it was happening until it happened and only got to take part, to one degree or another, because it coincided with their visit to Scotland. The point of it was to get people of Scots descent to come to to Scotland. Now, take a moment to consider how many people that is world wide. Yet none of the organisations that you would expect, such as St Andrew's societies or Scottish societies were left completely out of it and advertising seems to have been by word-of-mouth. I think I should start a seperate thread about this.
Oil - diminishing stocks. Grangemouth refinery used to be 14 miles of fencing. Over the last 20 years, however, the refinery has started to shrink in size - ever get the feeling someone's planning a midnight flit? 'Cos that's how it looks to me.
-
Well, the Tories are the Tories.
I never heard of it, no. None of the 'Scottish American' sites I was going to during that time frame mentioned it either.
-
I never heard of it, no. None of the 'Scottish American' sites I was going to during that time frame mentioned it either.
And that was the problem: SNP supporters like to rave about what a great success it was, but they can't get their heads around the idea that it wasn't aimed at them. The next is planned for 2014 and I've heard nothing from Scottish societies around the world (I'm a member of a couple having lived in expat communities). There is lots that could be done to make it a success, notably offering group bookings to Scottish societies world-wide, putting on more events such as re-enactments, ceilidhs, Burns Suppers et al, but the way it seems to being handled is that there won't be any announcement about it, beyond a quick press release on the Scottish Parliament website last year, until at least 2013.