Scotland to leave the UK?

[DarthTom]

I read this lead story on MSNBC this morning and this is a 'political tsunami.' Is Scotland becoming its own country a real possibility as the article suggests? If so - wow

MSNBC

LONDON — It is the nation that once ran the largest empire the world has ever known, a country so powerful that it claimed to "rule the waves" in a patriotic anthem.
But last month a "political tsunami" struck the United Kingdom and this once-mighty state faces being broken up.
An astonishing victory for nationalists in the Scottish parliamentary elections means it is almost certain that a referendum will be held within five years on whether Scotland should leave the U.K. and become an independent country.

 

[Deckerd]

No.

 

[DarthTom]

No.

Alex Salmond sees it differently than you do.

Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister and leader of the SNP, is the man plotting the demise of the 304-year-old union of the two countries. He hopes his fellow citizens will heed the message of another tune, "Flower of Scotland," the unofficial national anthem which urges Scots to "rise now and be a nation again."

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I don't really think it matters either way. Whatever eventually happens, it's not really a big deal.

 

[DarthTom]

I don't really think it matters either way. Whatever eventually happens, it's not really a big deal.

If California or Texas broke off as part of the United States and became their own country it would be a big deal.

The question is always, is the whole greater than the sum and many in Scotland think the whole is not apparently.

And it is a 'big deal,' when it comes to some substantial issues;

The SNP would rid Scotland of nuclear weapons on moral grounds; it would also take Scotland — which lies in a strategically important position in the North Atlantic — out of NATO. And despite being a significant oil producer, the SNP has already introduced what it describes as "world-beating" climate change legislation with a target to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

 

[Myasishchev]

Why not? Culloden Moor has room for a few thousand more dead bodies.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I don't really think it matters either way. Whatever eventually happens, it's not really a big deal.

If California or Texas broke off as part of the United States and became their own country it would be a big deal.

Why? Texas has already been its own country, after first pulling out of another country. If the people there want to leave a second country and do the whole independence thing again, why not?

As for the various points you made about the SNP agenda, that's just politics. Any shift in the political status quo is going to have knock on effects, changes in policy, etc. The fact of the independence itself doesn't have much to do with it, as far as I see. So Scotland leaves NATO? Everyone will cross that bridge if and when it happens - just another change to accomodate. Different political powers will always be changing our world and forcing re-evaluation of pretty much every important issue.

 

[Admiral Shran]

If that's what the Scots want for themselves, what's the problem?

For the matter, if that's what Californians or Texans want for themselves, what's the problem?

 

[JayOwl]

I don't want to seem to patriotically biased, but frankly- they need us. If they split, it won't be too long until they come back .
But I agree with DN, I couldn't really care less. They even have their own football team etc. (even if it's crap) so they can do what they want.

 

[MacLeod]

Don't think it's going to happen, yes the SNP might have won the 2011 Scottish PArliament election. But lets examine the figures

SNP (pro-independance) 44%
Other parties (anti-independance) 56%

So assuming an independance vote was held, and everyone voted along party lines it wouldn't pass. Of course it's not that simple because just because you vote for a party doesn't mean you support all of it's policies.

Being a Scot myself, I would have to say that it is likely to be a bad move. I think the Scottish people mind find they lose things like free university tuttion and prescriptions if they left the union either that or face higher taxes. The UK is stronger as a whole.

 

[Deckerd]

No.

Alex Salmond sees it differently than you do.

Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister and leader of the SNP, is the man plotting the demise of the 304-year-old union of the two countries. He hopes his fellow citizens will heed the message of another tune, "Flower of Scotland," the unofficial national anthem which urges Scots to "rise now and be a nation again."

Alex Salmond has admitted the referendum will turn down independence. So no.

 

[Count Zero]

It's also by no means a certainty. First, there has to be a referendum, and then a substantial majority has to say yes to independence. I don't think there is one at the moment.

Personally, I think it's more trouble than it's worth. Going independent will be a lengthy and costly process. Scotland will also remain on close terms with the rest of the UK and basically be somewhat dependent on it, so I don't think it's such a great idea to give up any say in UK politics.
It's a bit like the UK's realtion to the Euro. It's quite dependent on its value but as it's not a member of the Eurozone, it has absolutely no say on it.

It would be a shame about the Union flag if it did happen. But as of now, I don't think it really will.

ETA: Typed too slowly. What the poster above said, basically.

 

[DimesDan]

Even if Scotland does leave the United Kingdom, in all honesty will it last long (socially, economically, politically) before what ever would be the head of The Republic of Scotland's parliament asks to rejoin the Union?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Yes, personally I think the UK is what's best for Scotland. I claim no in-depth understanding of the issues or the local politics, so this might not mean much, but I've always gotten the impression that independence would be more trouble than its worth for them, particularly if it's achieved only by a small majority that might shift easily into a "pro-union" majority before long, and seek re-entry. I mean, if the SNP was sure that Scotland as a whole was ready to take the risk and break off, I'd wish them nothing but luck, but it doesn't look (as others have mentioned above) like they even have half the populace.

Scotland must do what it thinks is best - personally, I think that's stay, but should they eventually choose otherwise, it doesn't really matter. The SNP is likely being premature, though, and I'd be surprised if it happens - and more so if it sticks.

And I'm certainly not trying to dismiss the issues being raised by DarthTom as unimportant; I hope it didn't come across like that. It's just that these are the issues that we face every time the political fabric of the planet is rewoven in any way. We adapt, and we re-examine, and they have to be kept in perspective as part of the ongoing process of keeping so many different peoples interacting. So yes, it's noteworthy and it is important, but I don't think it matters, if that makes sense.

 

[MacLeod]

If a vote was to be held what criteria do you use

1.>People living in Scotland (regardless of where they come from)
2.>People living in Scotland that where born there
3.>Do you include Scots living in other parts of the UK/EU/World (as it could potentially affect them)

 

[Pingfah]

If so - wow

Whatever, England has plenty of hills and sheep already.

 

[Myasishchev]

If that's what the Scots want for themselves, what's the problem?

Because Scottish secessionists are ridiculous. They already belong to the third greatest country in the world, are very close to being culturally and ethnically indistinct from them, and would not be very likely to set up an independent government that was virtually indistinguishable from its present position within the United Kingdom.

I've never heard a Scottish secessionist explain why independence would be good, except Scotland would be run by "Scottish people," whoever they're supposed to be.

They're infuriating.

Like, seriously, what is this supposed to mean?

In all parts of life people aspire to Independence. Our young people want the freedom to make their own decisions, just as many pensioners relish keeping their independence as they get older. We value independent investigations, we want our courts and police to be independent, many people aspire to leave jobs in big companies to go independent as their own boss.

There's, like, one piece of actual program in that paragraph, which doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm actually quite sure that Scottish courts are independent, constrained only in the very limited sense that the appellate process goes to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. (I may be wrong, but Schedule 6 of the Scotland Act also appears to limit such appeals to devolution issues--I'm not entirely clear on this, but I think it may limit, for example, criminal appeals from the High Court of the Justiciary to those which concern laws which Scotland cannot contravene, e.g. the Human Rights Act.)

The point is, Scotland is part of a free country*, and have massive autonomy already. But anyway, leave secession to people who actually have a grievance, like the Kurds.

*Or close to it. Non-unanimous jury verdicts? Barbarous and retrograde.

For the matter, if that's what Californians or Texans want for themselves, what's the problem?

A likely outcome of a secession of many states, perhaps including Texas, would be a rollback of rights the United States government is obligated to protect, up to and including by burning cities.

The Bear Republic might be a nice place to live. But even then there is no legal justification for secession.

 

[TheGodBen]

Why is MSNBC reporting on this now? It happened a month ago. Hell, the SNP have been running Scotland as a minority government for 4 years now. Someone send MSNBC a tip that Sinn Féin won a landslide in Ireland and have threatened secession too... in 1919.

Even if Scotland does leave the United Kingdom, in all honesty will it last long (socially, economically, politically) before what ever would be the head of The Republic of Scotland's parliament asks to rejoin the Union?

Um, yes.

Also, the SNP have already said that they wouldn't push for a republic and are happy to have the British monach as head of state.

 

[iguana_tonante]

But think about the potential for a Ireland-Scotland alliance: if you manage to bring in Wales, you can conquer England and make it your vassal state!

 

[DarthTom]

It's also by no means a certainty. First, there has to be a referendum, and then a substantial majority has to say yes to independence. I don't think there is one at the moment.

Personally, I think it's more trouble than it's worth. Going independent will be a lengthy and costly process. Scotland will also remain on close terms with the rest of the UK and basically be somewhat dependent on it, so I don't think it's such a great idea to give up any say in UK politics.
It's a bit like the UK's realtion to the Euro. It's quite dependent on its value but as it's not a member of the Eurozone, it has absolutely no say on it.

It would be a shame about the Union flag if it did happen. But as of now, I don't think it really will.

ETA: Typed too slowly. What the poster above said, basically.

Being "smaller," is sexy to many until it actually happens. Here in Atlanta we've gone through the same thing on a much smaller scale. Smaller communities within the city limits of Atlanta have broken off and become their own cities. This movement was fueled by many of the same fires - the promise of lower taxes - addressing local crime issues - feeling cheated by the larger community in basic services.

It's a great concept until it happens. Then the new 'smaller community,' has to face the harsh realities of self governance. Here locally it was hiring police and fire protection that proved more expensive than originally projected. Also the city of ATL made the new smaller cities buy public parks from the city since they were public property.

I'd imagine the Scotland on a larger scale would face many of the same issues. It's sexy to be separate until the Scottish people would have to fund their own defense and essentially recreate many of the services they enjoy as being part of the larger today.