Scottish Independence

[Meerkat]

Regardless, national culture is based on regional culture - support regional/local culture and national culture takes care of itself.

I disagree, it peels people away to think of themselves as regional rather than national.
And the regions will be more susceptible to the EU.

 

[najaB]

I disagree, it peels people away to think of themselves as regional rather than national.
And the regions will be more susceptible to the EU.

So, by logical extension, you obviously must be in favour of eradicating local/regional culture, in order to build national identity.

 

[Meerkat]

So, by logical extension, you obviously must be in favour of eradicating local/regional culture, in order to build national identity.

Think you are pushing this a long way. you said the EU encouraged national culture (ie not federalist).
I suggest they push the culture at a more local level, to distract away from national consciousness and make federalism easier.

 

[najaB]

Think you are pushing this a long way.

I'm not pushing anything. You said that promoting regional culture results in a decline of national identity, which makes the countries susceptible to the EU. Therefore it must follow that suppressing regional culture would increase national identity and make the countries more resistant to the EU. No?

 

[Meerkat]

I'm not pushing anything. You said that promoting regional culture results in a decline of national identity, which makes the countries susceptible to the EU. Therefore it must follow that suppressing regional culture would increase national identity and make the countries more resistant to the EU. No?

Well yes, that’s why the EU are focussing on regional identities

 

[Mogster]

I was not the only English person living there the felt that way then.

A co-worker’s partner works for a technical business closely associated with the oil industry. A lot of his jobs involve rapid rig access mostly via Aberdeen.

It would make a lot of sense if the whole family relocated Aberdeen and would save him a lot of travelling. He wont do that however as he says he doesn’t want his children growing up in what he feels is an increasing atmosphere of anti English racism.

 

[Gooner18]

A co-worker’s partner works for a technical business closely associated with the oil industry. A lot of his jobs involve rapid rig access mostly via Aberdeen.

It would make a lot of sense if the whole family relocated Aberdeen and would save him a lot of travelling. He wont do that however as he says he doesn’t want his children growing up in what he feels is an increasing atmosphere of anti English racism.

You must be mistaken , Nicola and her followers are all welcoming and embracing remember......

 

[Mogster]

You must be mistaken , Nicola and her followers are all welcoming and embracing remember......

Unless you’re English it appears

If they do go Faslane would be a massive pain to relocate.

 

[GusB]

A co-worker’s partner works for a technical business closely associated with the oil industry. A lot of his jobs involve rapid rig access mostly via Aberdeen.

It would make a lot of sense if the whole family relocated Aberdeen and would save him a lot of travelling. He wont do that however as he says he doesn’t want his children growing up in what he feels is an increasing atmosphere of anti English racism.

Could we just knock this anti-English racism nonsense on the head now, please? Yes, you will find some people in Scotland hold anti-English sentiments. Much of it will have echoes of the anti-immigrant sentiment that prevails elsewhere - taking our jobs, homes etc., but the way you paint the picture it's as if all Scots hold a deeply-held resentment towards the English, and that simply is not true.

You have to bear in mind that until fairly recently there were many close-knit communities where any "incomer" was regarded with a certain amount of contempt, and it didn't matter whether you'd moved from 5, 50 or 500 miles away. I certainly experienced this when we moved to this village 40 years ago, but thankfully attitudes change and once people warm to you, you become an accepted part of the community. I have English neighbours, there are English people on the local community association. A vast number of the volunteers picking up shopping, prescriptions etc. and delivering to vulnerable people in this current crisis will be English. English people have arrived in this part of the world because of the RAF base nearby, many of whom have chosen to settle at the end of their military careers. All are welcome.

I won't deny that you will find a minority of people that have a fear, suspicion or hatred of "others", but it's not something that's unique to Scotland. There are people south of the border who exhibit anti-Scots attitudes too, and I've experienced this first hand. Sadly, there's a fair bit of it on this forum too.

 

[Highland37]

I never fully understand Scottish independence and how SNP go on about brexit to me they are exactly the same thing

It's a relatively easy one to address.

The EU is a political union of sovereign nations who hold equal power (leaving aside economic power), decisions at the Council reflect the votes of members and actions (at this level) don't follow unless there is agreement. The terms of membership and leaving the EU are clear and members can chose who to govern the powers that are devolved to the European Parliament.

In contrast, ironically as Brexit shows, the UK is not a union of equals. Where power lays is not defined, there are no terms of membership, no formal constitution and one member, by weight of population, can over rule all of the others despite being fully aware of opposition. The only way the UK will be a union is if federalism takes place, which is dead in the water.

 

[Meerkat]

It's a relatively easy one to address.

The EU is a political union of sovereign nations who hold equal power (leaving aside economic power), decisions at the Council reflect the votes of members and actions (at this level) don't follow unless there is agreement. The terms of membership and leaving the EU are clear and members can chose who to govern the powers that are devolved to the European Parliament.

In contrast, ironically as Brexit shows, the UK is not a union of equals. Where power lays is not defined, there are no terms of membership, no formal constitution and one member, by weight of population, can over rule all of the others despite being fully aware of opposition. The only way the UK will be a union is if federalism takes place, which is dead in the water.

Except of course that Scotland still has more influence within the UK than within the EU.
And ironically even more so with the UK outside the EU

 

[Highland37]

Except of course that Scotland still has more influence within the UK than within the EU.
And ironically even more so with the UK outside the EU

It has zero influence in either as Brexit clearly shows. There is no point in a union where decisions as big as Brexit are taken against the wishes of one part of the union.

Many people has aspirations above subjective issues such as influence.

 

[Meerkat]

It has zero influence in either as Brexit clearly shows. There is no point in a union where decisions as big as Brexit are taken against the wishes of one part of the union.

Many people has aspirations above subjective issues such as influence.

You can’t influence an in or out decision other than be part of the vote.
They will have influence over the details afterwards though

 

[Highland37]

Recent history doesn't support your statement. The Scottish Goverment has spent years putting forward workable suggestions and solutions for the UK exiting the EU but pretty much all ignored. Because there is no definition of where power is, they have no comeback. However, the reality is that all power lays at Westminster and is devolved to Holyrood etc which is the polar opposite of the EU situation.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It's a relatively easy one to address.

The EU is a political union of sovereign nations who hold equal power (leaving aside economic power), decisions at the Council reflect the votes of members and actions (at this level) don't follow unless there is agreement. The terms of membership and leaving the EU are clear and members can chose who to govern the powers that are devolved to the European Parliament.

In contrast, ironically as Brexit shows, the UK is not a union of equals. Where power lays is not defined, there are no terms of membership, no formal constitution and one member, by weight of population, can over rule all of the others despite being fully aware of opposition. The only way the UK will be a union is if federalism takes place, which is dead in the water.

Maybe it's the English/Welsh eurosceptic in me, but I don't agree at all that all EU nations have equal power. In fact, that very much isn't the case. The eurozone crisis shows just how much power the central core of the EU can have over its member states. All member states have equal power in theory, but at the end of the day, the core of the EU is built around the Franco-German friendship/agenda and the core of that is, essentially, a German driven agenda for Europe. Germany, the most populous part of the EU is akin to England in your perception of the UK. I think Scotland will make a large mistake to destroy the nation its a part of the join the EU, where it'll be a small speck amongst the wider EU.

I completely agree, however, that the UK is not a union of equals. However ask anyone in England and they will agree with you too. English voices have been ignored for a long time, hence Brexit or the collapse of the Labour vote in December. This is a result of an organically growing nation over the course over 300 years. England is not a place of immense power and smugness from being the dominant player in the UK-far from it. It has as much discontent as Scotland. In fact, I'd argue even more discontent, seeing as the Scots with a devolved government at least have a bit more power for themselves. England has nothing like that-and is sick to death of the same politcs it's been getting for decades. This dosen't mean, as the SNP portray, that the UK is intrinsically undesirable, but does suggest the country is overipe for an updated political system.

I don't think it needs a formal constitution or terms of membership, because it's not a group, but a Union of crowns-which is a concept that admittedly is quite abstract these days. Scotland has far more latent weight in the UK, because if Scotland leaves the UK-the UK ends. If the UK leaves the EU-the EU continues with virtually no change on the outside. Having the ability to essentially destroy the country if discontent is strong enough is an incredibly strong position. Similarly, London, the economic centre (for better or for worse) of the UK has much potential weight. Yet our trains still don't get the investment it needs and our housing makes it impossible for a normal family to start a life here. Seperation is not the answer, but perhaps different kinds of decentralisation is.

 

[Highland37]

Maybe it's the English/Welsh eurosceptic in me, but I don't agree at all that all EU nations have equal power. In fact, that very much isn't the case. The eurozone crisis shows just how much power the central core of the EU can have over its member states. All member states have equal power in theory, but at the end of the day, the core of the EU is built around the Franco-German friendship/agenda and the core of that is, essentially, a German driven agenda for Europe. Germany, the most populous part of the EU is akin to England in your perception of the UK. I think Scotland will make a large mistake to destroy the nation its a part of the join the EU, where it'll be a small speck amongst the wider EU.

I completely agree, however, that the UK is not a union of equals. However ask anyone in England and they will agree with you too. English voices have been ignored for a long time, hence Brexit or the collapse of the Labour vote in December. This is a result of an organically growing nation over the course over 300 years. England is not a place of immense power and smugness from being the dominant player in the UK-far from it. It has as much discontent as Scotland. In fact, I'd argue even more discontent, seeing as the Scots with a devolved government at least have a bit more power for themselves. England has nothing like that-and is sick to death of the same politcs it's been getting for decades. This dosen't mean, as the SNP portray, that the UK is intrinsically undesirable, but does suggest the country is overipe for an updated political system.

I don't think it needs a formal constitution or terms of membership, because it's not a group, but a Union of crowns-which is a concept that admittedly is quite abstract these days. Scotland has far more latent weight in the UK, because if Scotland leaves the UK-the UK ends. If the UK leaves the EU-the EU continues with virtually no change on the outside. Having the ability to essentially destroy the country if discontent is strong enough is an incredibly strong position. Similarly, London, the economic centre (for better or for worse) of the UK has much potential weight. Yet our trains still don't get the investment it needs and our housing makes it impossible for a normal family to start a life here. Seperation is not the answer, but perhaps different kinds of decentralisation is.

As you would probably expect, I don't agree with you. There are multiple similar sized populations to Scotland with much more influence in world events; Denmark, Austria, Switzerland etc.

BTW, you are confused by your unions. The Union of Crowns and Act of Union are two separate things.

No one is "separating" or going anywhere. No one is "destroying" anything. Independence is normal.

 

[edwin_m]

England tends to be run in the interests of a small minority, mainly in the south-east. The rest of England has kicked up against it this time, ironically by supporting the party that has historically been most in favour of that situation - and has used Brexit and Corbyn to perpetuate its dominance along with some commitments to the English regions which may or may not be kept. Because England is by far the largest of the UK nations, that minority is also able to dominate the others.

Scotland hasn't fallen for Boris's schtick but they are powerless to insulate themselves from the effects, short of independence which looks more and more attractive in that situation but will actually be very difficult for them.

 

[Butts]

England tends to be run in the interests of a small minority, mainly in the south-east. The rest of England has kicked up against it this time, ironically by supporting the party that has historically been most in favour of that situation - and has used Brexit and Corbyn to perpetuate its dominance along with some commitments to the English regions which may or may not be kept. Because England is by far the largest of the UK nations, that minority is also able to dominate the others.

Scotland hasn't fallen for Boris's schtick but they are powerless to insulate themselves from the effects, short of independence which looks more and more attractive in that situation but will actually be very difficult for them.

Parts of Scotland have - look at the Political Map !!!

The whole of the Borders Area (both England and Scotland) is pure Tory Blue .....can we have Carlisle and Berwick upon Tweed back please as part of our settlement. Cumbria should be incorporated if there is Independence as part of a newly enlarged Scotland

 

[gazthomas]

I'll sponsor a brick or ten for a new wall, no worries

 

[arbeia]

What a few people seem to forget is that the North East of England was given the opportunity several years ago to have a referendum on devolving certain powers from central government. It was soundly defeated, in my opinion, by the fact that it would have only created a burden of more "snouts in the trough." Make what you wish of that.

 

[Highland37]

I don't think the two are connected unless people don't understand the Union. Those in favour of the Union sometimes mention Yorkshire etc, asking the question why shouldn't such a region have independence etc. Yorkshire is a region, Scotland, as is England, is a nation which entered into a union. The two are not equatable. Many of those in favour of the Union don't actually understand it.

The North East of England assembly might have led to a sort of federalism but that ship has long sailed.

 

[edwin_m]

What a few people seem to forget is that the North East of England was given the opportunity several years ago to have a referendum on devolving certain powers from central government. It was soundly defeated, in my opinion, by the fact that it would have only created a burden of more "snouts in the trough." Make what you wish of that.

A certain Dominic Cummings had a major role in the anti campaign.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think the two are connected unless people don't understand the Union. Those in favour of the Union sometimes mention Yorkshire etc, asking the question why shouldn't such a region have independence etc. Yorkshire is a region, Scotland, as is England, is a nation which entered into a union. The two are not equatable. Many of those in favour of the Union don't actually understand it.

The North East of England assembly might have led to a sort of federalism but that ship has long sailed.

If you go back far enough the regions of England were independent kingdoms too (up the Mercian Independence Front!).

I think the similarity is that the London-centric setup in the UK deprives the English regions just as much as Scotland - probably more so since Scotland now has some powers of its own. The difference is no significant pressure for independence in the regions, probably because they have no clear boundaries and their independence is so far back. But leaving that aside, the public's majority view of what should be done to resolve these inequalities is totally opposite between the English regions and Scotland.

 

[Highland37]

Yes you are right. At least the Scottish Parliament slightly shields Scotland from Westminster nonsense and mismanagement. A railway related point might be the difference in railways in Norway and Scotland - night and day!

 

[Meerkat]

Yes you are right. At least the Scottish Parliament slightly shields Scotland from Westminster nonsense and mismanagement. A railway related point might be the difference in railways in Norway and Scotland - night and day!

Government finances are night and day too. Norway is a large country with a small population and massive amounts of natural resources.

 

[Highland37]

Norway isn't really large. In fact re resources and population, it's almost the same as Scotland. The telling thing is they have the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world, amazing infrastructure, very low poverty, much stronger economy and higher standard of living. If you look at the National Grid app you can see that by far, Scotland is the most energy sustainable part of the UK.

 

[Meerkat]

Norway is nearly five times bigger than Scotland with the significant advantage in timber, hydroelectric power, fishing, and minerals that that brings.
They also have fewer people to support with that wealth - still fewer than Scotland but as recently as 1950 it was 3.3m vs 5m
IEA numbers in 1995 when the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund was established
Net oil exports - UK 40,000ktoe
Norway 123,000ktoe
Net gas exports - UK near zero and about to go into increasing net imports
Norway 1m TJ and doubling in the next five years

Norway really isn’t a very good comparison to the UK/Scotland

 

[Highland37]

The population is about as close as you can get. They have a much more remote population as the country is bigger as you say which means they are carry higher costs, but somehow manage to provide amazing infrastructure, better services and so on.

It might not be a good comparison for you, but I can guarantee that there are thousands making that comparison. And that's before anyone thinks about distribution of wealth, social capital, poverty etc. I used to be a social worker in Glasgow and have lived in Denmark and Norway. I can tell you very clearly that the UK, inc Scotland, is so far behind both countries that it is hardly worth mentioning in the same sentence.

 

[JamesT]

There's also the point that if you're investing in a Sovereign Wealth Fund, that money isn't being used for government spending. I suspect there would have been very few governments willing to not spend or to raise taxes in order to tuck money away for some future rainy day. And if you did find one, they'd fairly quickly get voted out in favour of a party that was willing to spend on the things people wanted here and now.

 

[Highland37]

Yes in the UK certainly. Our mentality is very short term and we excel in exceptionalism and presume that there is no other way.

The oil money paid for low taxes in the 80s and we are certainly reaping the rewards now.