Scottish Independence

[Spurf]

I you are interested in where I and many are coming from, here is an article that explains it pretty well.

Well, hello, United Kingdom. How nice it is finally to have your attention.” If the Scottish referendum could talk, that’s what it would be saying right now. It can’t talk, but it will say one word – on 19 September, after the votes are counted. Suddenly Westminster has realised that until that day, there’s no way of knowing what word the people of Scotland are going to say. Suddenly Westminster has cottoned on to the fact that it ought to have been listening all along, just a bit.

The assumption has always been that Scotland will say no to independence. Now, that assumption looks complacent. Now, Westminster is in a panic. One poll, by YouGov, has shocked unionists. It suggests that 47% of decided voters in Scotland intend to vote yes. And the underlying trend is not only for previously undecided voters to plump for independence, but for people who had at first thought they’d vote no to change their minds. The threat to the settled shape of the union is real. So there’s a lot for the whole of the UK to discuss in the run-up to the vote. And so little time.

In Scotland the discussion has been happening for ages. But the rest of the UK wasn’t paying much attention, because it thought it knew what the outcome would be. But many people in Scotland have come to a simple realisation during months of debate – maybe even the majority. That realisation is this: You’ll only be heard, only be taken notice of, if you say: “Yes”.

So the choice is not necessarily about independence, per se. It’s between being an active citizen and a passive one. It’s between having an opinion that will be heeded and having one that’s been taken for granted all along. It’s between casting a vote that matters and a vote that may as well never have been cast. The “silent majority” that politicians love so much, could turn out, in Scotland, to have dwindled away.

Now, MPs are warning of “constitutional meltdown”, something they didn’t think about when the referendum was agreed. A choice was to be offered. But there was no choice really, because it was inconceivable that Scotland would not make the choice that Westminster wanted. It’s been a while, after all, since democracy was any threat to Westminster’s settled duopoly. The referendum was a bone to be thrown to the nationalists, something to shut the buggers up for a while. But the referendum stopped being about nationalism some while back, and started being about democratic engagement.

The debate has intoxicated Scotland. Feeling involved in something BIG has intoxicated Scotland. People have seen the opportunity to seize power. It has become worthwhile to take an interest in political issues, achieve an understanding of them, discuss your own understanding with others, start formulating your own ideas.

The possibility of informed consensus, real democracy, rising up from the people, has become real. Why would Scotland turn its back on this, now that the tang of it hangs in the air? Many undecided voters, when they find themselves in the voting booth, will be asking if they want this feeling of involvement, of agency, of purpose, to end? Many will vote yes, simply because they don’t want it to end. Why would they?

The saddest thing is that what most Scots want – what I want – isn’t even on the ballot paper. I don’t want the UK to break up. It’s a unique institution in which four individual countries operate in concert, as a single state, in comradeship. It’s a beautiful thing. Or it should be.

But the democratic deficit across the UK is highly problematic, and likely to become more so. Supposedly apathetic voters often say during general election campaigns that “however you vote, you always get the government”. It didn’t occur to Westminster that this referendum could be the exception – that this vote might shatter the status quo.

Yet something strange, even sinister, has come to light during the referendum debate. It’s that pro-unionist politicians are the ones who seem least willing to change the union in order to preserve it. They scoff at the idea of a shared currency, of a single market, of a shared membership of the EU. They say that they won’t co-operate with any of that. They want only the union they’ve got, not the union they have the opportunity to create, one held together by what they have in common, yet one in which members are able to go their own way, if and when they wish to.

These people cling to this clapped-out, 300-year-old union, even though it’s clear that reform is long overdue. Weird anomalies abound. Embarrassing anomalies. Only in the UK and Iran do religious prelates automatically take a seat in the legislature, with the established church, the Church of England, by default in effect the church of the UK.

As for the downright perverse situation, in which Scottish MPs have the right to take part in votes that shape the future of England but are irrelevant to their own constituents, under devolution, what’s the plan on this glaring example of democratic deficit – to let it drift for ever? Scotland has become impatient. It wants the UK to start taking democracy seriously. If it won’t, then Scotland is perfectly capable of doing that for itself, alone.

England’s electorate is starting to see that a referendum it doesn’t have a vote in could change England for ever. This, it is generally considered, is not very fair. But the unfairness doesn’t emanate from Scotland. It emanates from a Westminster that assumes the political passivity of the UK and everyone in it.

David Cameron wasn’t too bothered about giving Scotland a vote on the future of the UK. It was easy to ignore the fact that the rest of the UK was being excluded, simply because he didn’t think it was going to come to anything. Even if Scotland doesn’t vote yes, and merely comes close, it will still have called Westminster’s bluff.

Many politicians ask sneeringly what Scotland would gain from the “independence lite” that Alex Salmond is suggesting – an independence that does not break up the UK. They miss the point for a simple, awful reason. They are unused to thinking too much about the electorate, other than at election time, so they cannot see that the revolutionary change would be in how people felt about government, how much greater a stake in government the individual would perceive herself as having. Members of the establishment see voters as giving them a mandate. They are not interested in sharing the mandate with the people who have granted it.

The Better Together campaign says: “Leave it to the big boys. It’s all too complicated for you lot to understand. Get on with your work. Look after your kids. We know best.” The Yes Scotland campaign says: “Think about how government impacts on your own life. Understand it. Reflect it back. Don’t be intimidated. Get involved. Get your workmates involved. Get your kids involved. We can work out what’s best together.” One campaign says: “Be quiet.” The other campaign says: “Speak.” Is it any wonder that yes has gained converts, while no has not?

Scotland got its referendum because it asked for it. Westminster’s been “asking for it” for a long time. It underestimated the Scots, and it underestimates the rest of the people of Britain too. Everyone in the UK can seize the initiative, as Scotland has. Start thinking about possibilities, instead of accepting stasis. Start seeking conversation, instead of putting up with pontification. Start talking. Start hoping.

Developed and sophisticated democracy can thrive in our four countries, replacing a tired old adversarial system, built for days gone by and resting on its withered laurels. Join Scotland, people of the UK, and liberate yourselves. For that, paradoxically, is the only thing that can keep us together.

Deborah Orr.

 

[Spurf]

A sentiment and vivid description that, I suggest, many of us here on this board share but are just too polite to say so. The mere fact that smurf has tainted us all with the Tory smear is symptomatic of his imbecility.

Some people on here just don't like someone who challenges their prejudices and produces evidence as well. I have spent some trying to explain a position and some of your posters are open and engaging others it has to be said are bigotted, ill informed, and almost rascist.

Democracy is the word here, that is what this is about and all civilised people should support that.

 

[RAVENBLACK]

Some people on here just don't like someone who challenges their prejudices and produces evidence as well. I have spent some trying to explain a position and some of your posters are open and engaging others it has to be said are bigotted, ill informed, and almost rascist.

Democracy is the word here, that is what this is about and all civilised people should support that.

So you'll be fine with a No vote then.

 

[vic-rijrode]

I you are interested in where I and many are coming from, here is an article that explains it pretty well. Deborah Orr.

I actually agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the article. I just don't think Scotland seceding from the Union will achieve anything other than to impoverish Scotland over time and to reinforce the Tory and SE England hold over the government of rUK.

Maybe the best result would be a very narrow defeat for independence, but one which galvanises Westminster into action - abolition of the Lords, reform of the Monarchy, increased decentralisation of government, increased local involvement in how cities and towns are run, more investment in infrastructure away from the overheated SE of England, more postive and active involvement in the EU, less military posturing around the world, etc. etc.

I can but hope.

 

[Spurf]

So you'll be fine with a No vote then.

Ah! my friend Erin.

I will be voting YES or didn't you notice!

 

[yorkshirehornet]

You are very badly informed

Using nationlism as an insult is the usual trick of Tories everywhere

As I said some people just hate there little bubble to be burst.
Is Watford the most right wing football club in Britain?

I have never seen so many Tories on a football site.
If you are not a Tory is just shows how far to the right England has moved in the last 35 years, because you sound just like a Tory to me
Some people on here just don't like someone who challenges their prejudices and produces evidence as well. I have spent some trying to explain a position and some of your posters are open and engaging others it has to be said are bigotted, ill informed, and almost rascist

Some people on here just don't like someone who challenges their prejudices and produces evidence as well. I have spent some trying to explain a position and some of your posters are open and engaging others it has to be said are bigotted, ill informed, and almost rascist.

.

Well I have been participating today only.... and this is a little snippet of the comments by smurf above.

Probably sums up why this discussion is getting nowhere !

Biggest insult to call me ,a green voter, a Tory....but as it is not true... it flies over the proverbial head...

 

[Spurf]

I actually agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the article. I just don't think Scotland seceding from the Union will achieve anything other than to impoverish Scotland over time and to reinforce the Tory and SE England hold over the government of rUK.

Maybe the best result would be a very narrow defeat for independence, but one which galvanises Westminster into action - abolition of the Lords, reform of the Monarchy, increased decentralisation of government, increased local involvement in how cities and towns are run, more investment in infrastructure away from the overheated SE of England, more postive and active involvement in the EU, less military posturing around the world, etc. etc.

I can but hope.

I am glad to hear that positive comment from you, if all of those things happened Scotland would not be seeking Independence. They are not likely to without the major shake up that this referrendum may provide.

All along I have tried to explain why this referrendum is my hope for England as well as Scotland.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

I actually agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the article. I just don't think Scotland seceding from the Union will achieve anything other than to impoverish Scotland over time and to reinforce the Tory and SE England hold over the government of rUK.

Maybe the best result would be a very narrow defeat for independence, but one which galvanises Westminster into action - abolition of the Lords, reform of the Monarchy, increased decentralisation of government, increased local involvement in how cities and towns are run, more investment in infrastructure away from the overheated SE of England, more postive and active involvement in the EU, less military posturing around the world, etc. etc.

I can but hope.

Interestingly ...talking about just this on the news at the mo. and.... .what will Cameron offer?

 

[Spurf]

Well I have been participating today only.... and this is a little snippet of the comments by smurf above.

Probably sums up why this discussion is getting nowhere !

Biggest insult to call me ,a green voter, a Tory....but as it is not true... it flies over the proverbial head...

You maybe getting nowhere, the debate is doing just fine.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

You maybe getting nowhere, the debate is doing just fine.

Yet another "insult"

 

[RAVENBLACK]

If the vote is No then you can expect the skirt wearing Neanderthal Yes voters to run amok and cause carnage and chaos throughout Scothchland.

Scotland will be another Beirut as the violent nationalist racists take their revenge or losing out.

 

[RAVENBLACK]

Yet another "insult"

You should see what it's like up here.

The Yes voters are causing mayhem and dishing out beatings to No voters. ****in scumbags of the highest order.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

I don't vote in England btw because although I am English I live in Scotland.

Still cant get my head behind your motivations here.....

Seems a bit disproportionate...

You should see what it's like up here.

The Yes voters are causing mayhem and dishing out beatings to No voters. ****in scumbags of the highest order.

 

[geitungur akureyrar]

Thanks for the info geitungur, some of my family have been to Iceland and said it was very expensive. Are you Icelandic and if so how do you end up supporting Watford?

Yes.

Jóhan Berg Guðmundsson, Heiðar Helguson and Brynjar Björn Gunnarsson all played at Watford between 1998-2010 and I followed them from the three footballers and I stayed. I have visited a few times to see the club. I saw Heiðar when he returned and scored two goals against Leicester City for my first match, the first cup match with Manchester City and many games with Hull City as my friend supports them, I think is a fisherman thing, and some other games.

 

[geitungur akureyrar]

One thing I do not want is for Scotland to be independent and enter the ESB quickly as this will giveo ur idiots hope to join as well.

 

[Spurf]

Still cant get my head behind your motivations here.....

Seems a bit disproportionate...

What is difficult about that? Disproportinate?

My motivations, what for living in SCotland?

 

[wear_yellow]

Well I have been participating today only.... and this is a little snippet of the comments by smurf above.

Probably sums up why this discussion is getting nowhere !

Biggest insult to call me ,a green voter, a Tory....but as it is not true... it flies over the proverbial head...

Biggest irony of all is the so called evidence the troll says he has produced - all he does is send links to Yes vote based web-sites or copy and pastes from said web sites.
Whenever he is directly challenged, he throws his toys out of his Yes pram and starts with the personal insults - we are all racists now!

 

[johnnywarksmoustache]

I agree Aberdeen - surely most people would want to see Scotland admitted to the EU if that is what they want. Also I am sure that a currency union with rUK is negotiable - even though it actually means giving control of interest rates and money supply to a foreign government who has no "duty of care" towards them and will inevitably be bound to do what is right for rUK whether or not Scotland wants it.

What has irritated me in this debate though is the way the Yes campaign do not have the balls to accept that there are negatives and difficult hurdles to overcome in the future. They blithely claim that everything is bound to turn out all right and sneer at anyone who raises perfectly valid questions - as if questioning a major change is not the right thing to do.

Part of my career was investing in companies. People would come along and claim all sorts of wonderful things they had invented, got a license for or developed and wanted your money to go further. My job was to test those claims, assess the risks and to decide how much optimism / pessimism was built into their forecasts. You did this by questioning them to make sure they had fully assessed the risks and had contingency plans and alternatives if their hoped for solutions did not work. Scottish independence is a similar case - it needs to be undertaken by people with their eyes wide open and telling the truth to people they want to "invest" in this new future - their fellow Scots

Interesting debate and forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but if there is a YES vote, and an independent Scotland applies to keep the pound, surely it is only right that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish all get a vote on whether they want Scotland to keep the pound! If Scotland chooses to divorce itself from the UK it can not then expect to keep with the existing monetry arrangements and expect the Bank Of England to be lender of last resort.

 

[yorkshirehornet]

Biggest irony of all is the so called evidence the troll says he has produced - all he does is send links to Yes vote based web-sites or copy and pastes from said web sites.
Whenever he is directly challenged, he throws his toys out of his Yes pram and starts with the personal insults - we are all racists now!

aha...


... and of course an Englishman living in Scotland being so vehemently in support of an argument that is marginal. Unwilling to consider the middle ground without resorting to abuse ..... I actually know very few English folk who are that bothered.....


Thanks for the clarity again W_Y

 

[vic-rijrode]

Interesting debate and forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but if there is a YES vote, and an independent Scotland applies to keep the pound, surely it is only right that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish all get a vote on whether they want Scotland to keep the pound! If Scotland chooses to divorce itself from the UK it can not then expect to keep with the existing monetary arrangements and expect the Bank Of England to be lender of last resort.

As I understand it, an independent Scotland can use whatever currency it likes, its own, Dongs, Barts, roubles, rupees, Euros etc. or a combination of any number of currencies. If it does use the pound though, it would have no control over interest rates, foreign exchange rates etc. and cannot expect the Bank of England to act as a "lender of last resort". The pound in Scotland would be a currency of convenience and sentiment only - they might as well use the Euro.