Scottish independence referendum 2014 -Yes or No?

Post Reply New Topic

I am just an ignorant Yank so forgive the question:

What benefit would accrue to Scotland if it were an independent nation?

ruveyn

You're prepared to split Ducie, Henderson and Oeno, which are uninhabited, from Pitcairn, but not Sark from Guernsey? Tsk tsk.

Also, your own national interests might prompt a rethink on BIOT--after all, if Diego Garcia is returned to the Chagos, then the US Navy is going to have to find a new Indian Ocean station. Good luck with that.

Bermudians have unequivocally declared their rejection of sovereignty. Gibraltarians have overwhelmingly voted to retain British sovereignty, and the Falkland Islanders will very likely do the same next year. So I suspect that your support for independence is quaint but impractical.

Now that's not to say that integration of these various territories within the United Kingdom might not be a bad thing--but I suspect many Bermudians, Manx and Channel Islanders would far rather retain their present fiscal arrangements than to be integrated within the UK.

And let's not forget an independent Hawaii, then. The United States' acquisition of Hawaii was an exercise in skullduggery no less reprehensible than any colonial atrocity committed by any European nation.

The Integration with Britain Party was actually in power in Gibraltar from 1969-1972 and Robert Peliza was the Chief Minister (after Francoist Spain closed the border with Gibraltar and the Gibraltarians voted overwhelmingly to remain British). It fizzled out when the British Government rejected integration.

Remember that integration was seriously considered with the Maltese in the 1950s and they eventually decided on independence.

It is not an easy question to answer.

Power wise devolution has provided some autonomy, but in certain areas it is still down to Westminster. However financially it could be worse off. There are so many unknowns. SNP has some support, but many of the votes by their own admission, come from protest vote, who wouldn't vote for full independence. But then there is the question of what you do with all those Scottish members of parliament who have English constituencies.

Also it is important to note that Scotland has been independent before, and it wasn't exactly forced at gun point to join the union. It is more a case, that Scotland had a failed colonial expedition, and was bankrupted. I know not the best campaign story but there you go.

Personally I think "independence" is the only solution for Northern Ireland which should independent of both UK and Republic of Ireland but friends with both. This is because it just the right size and location to be a special case economically. It is a hard sell I'd admit. However the situation NI is not well understood by outsiders, who tend to over simplify, and don't know the history, or have had a rather one sided version of the history.

Interestingly it is the Ulster Scots, who are opposed to leaving the union, and some of the pro-Independence Scots come from recent Irish ancestry.

Well, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are military base areas on the island of Cyprus. It is expressly NOT an ordinary British overseas territory. If it were to be disbanded, the territory of the Cypriot Sovereign Base Areas would be integrated, probably into a united Cyprus if the British gave them up. Some of this territory was due to be handed over as part of the Annan Plan but that fell through.

Anguilla didn't want independence as part of a federation and actually took action to remain a British overseas territory.

Ascension Island is a British military base and is part of Saint Helena. Officially, there are very few people living on the island. They couldn't look after themselves without aid of some sort.

Guernsey and Jersey are Crown Dependencies. That means they're under British sovereignty but they have a different relationship with Britain than the Overseas Territories. They, like the Isle of Man, are far closer to the UK than any Overseas Territory (nearest Overseas Territory to the UK is Gibraltar) probably could be independent if they wished, either together or separately. They're big enough to be small nations, especially if they combined and had a lot to offer.

Bermuda has a considerable minority in favour of independence and is probably the British territory most likely to go independent. It's also the richest of all BOTs and the one that is least under UK influence. They've already rejected an independent Bermuda in a poll though. Most people seem to be apathetic about it, although it's a perennial issue in Bermuda.

The British Antarctic Territory can't be independent of anything - it's the UK's claim to part of the Antarctic. There's nothing there apart from a few research and satellite stations.

The "British Indian Ocean Territory" has a dark history which is very long and complicated and which I won't go into here. Basically, it was split off from Mauritius at the time of independence and all the islanders were ethnically cleansed from the island in the mid-1960s to make way for the big U.S. military base in a very, very shady deal cooked up between the U.S. and UK governments of the time. Many of the islanders are now living in squalor. They have tried to sue the British government several times to get their right to return, and it's always been rejected (sometimes even using Royal Prerogative to actually suppress their legal rights if they actually looked like winning in the courts). It really is a stain on Britain. There's at least one documentary on the subject (Stealing a Nation by John Pilger, which is easily available on the Internet) and there are several websites that cover the long and protracted legal battle of the Chagossians. There is some support for the Chagossians being allowed to return to their homeland (people who have tried to go back are never seen again) but its status as a U.S. military base means that independence (which would probably mean handing over the islands to Mauritius, where many Chagossians remain in poverty) is simply a non-starter unless the U.S. abandons the islands for whatever reason.

The British Virgin Islands aren't really interested in independence as far as I know, but aren't particularly fond of Britishness either. They're just another Caribbean island.

There's been a considerable (and often quite heated) debate in the Turks and Caicos Islands about whether they should stay under British rule or whether a link-up with Canada is more beneficial. The Turks and Caicos Islands government has actually been sacked in recent memory for being extremely corrupt and a British governor assumed direct rule of the islands whilst the problems were sorted out.

The Cayman Islands show no real desire for independence, but for practical purposes they seem far more aligned with rhe U.S. than with Britain.

The Pitcairn Islands couldn't claim independence even if they wanted to. There are 50 people on the island, and much of the welfare money from the island is administered by New Zealand on Britain's behalf. You've split up islands there that are uninhabited. Some of those ideas can't be independent because they are uninhabited.

The Falkland Islands have absolutely no desire for independence whatsoever due to constantly being menaced by the Argentinians (and of course they were invaded by Argentina well within living memory). They are extremely pro-British there. Next year, a referendum is to be held in the FIs on whether or not they wish to remain under British sovereignty. They will almost certainly vote 95%+ to retain the current arrangement of the Falkland Islands being a British overseas territory. Independence is very much not wanted in the FIs, as that would probably mean an immediate invasion from Argentina if the British withdrew.

The Isle of Man have no real desire for independence, but there are nationalist parties in existence on the Isle of Man. They probably could go independent, but again it's not worth it for them.

Saint Helena is a small island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. It's one of the most isolated and difficult to access islands in the entire world. It is about 2,000 miles off the nearest coast of Africa, and is accessible only by the Royal Mail boat or by sailing there yourself. For centuries, it was an important stopover for ships sailing to Europe from Asia and South Africa. The British also used the island as a place of exile, most notably for Napoleon I, Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo and more than 5,000 Boer prisoners. Saint Helena is Britain's second oldest remaining overseas territory. It has no airport, although one has been in the pipeline for years. It has a population of around 3,000 people all in all, although many people have left the island due to the severe lack of work on the island. St Helena is dependent on British aid and it's people are, by UK standards, poor. Given this state of affairs, and the Saints' lack of opportunity with the outside world, it's like going back in time over a hundred years. I've wanted to visit for years and it seems so isolated and exotic. By all accounts though, very little goes on there. There is no chance of the Saints ever thinking about independence - they're utterly dependent on Britain for their very survival.

Montserrat is very unlikely to go for independence because it's largely dependent on UK aid. Remember that the eruption of the Soufriere Volcano wasn't so long ago, and a considerable portion of the island is now uninhabitable. A lot of Montserratians were very grateful to the UK, as a lot of those who had to flee from their homes live in the UK. The population of Montserrat is now 5,000 - 8,000 people fled the island (most of them went to the UK) and not very many have gone back. I doubt this small Caribbean island will be banging the independence drum any time soon.

Gibraltar has a very complicated history. Gibraltar near the southernmost tip of the Iberian peninsula, which is the subject of a disputed irredentist claim by Spain. Gibraltar was captured in 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). Spain formally ceded the territory in perpetuity to the British Crown in 1713, under Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. This was confirmed in later treaties signed in Paris and Seville. Spain later attempted to recapture the territory militarily by a number of failed sieges, and reclamation of the territory by peaceful means remains its government's policy. In May of 1954, despite objections by Spain, Queen Elizabeth II visited Gibraltar. Spanish dictator Francisco Franco had renewed claims to The Rock. Based on British National Archives files from 1953, Franco claimed that Spain had been promised The Rock in return for not attacking the territory during the Second World War. British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill denied that he promised to give Gibraltar to Spain. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office conducted a full review of their files to see whether Franco's claim had any foundation. A confidential memo called the Spanish communiqué "a flimsy and unconvincing document", and the Government put an end to the dispute by refusing to comment on the claims. The territorial claim was formally reasserted by the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco in the 1960s and has been continued by successive Spanish governments. In a 1967 referendum on sovereignty organised by the British Government, 99.6% of voters voted to remain under British sovereignty. They have insisted that the Gibraltar dispute is a purely bilateral matter between Britain and Spain, and that the current Gibraltarians are mere settlers whose role and will are irrelevant. This principle appears to have been reflected in the United Nations resolutions on the decolonisation of Gibraltar in the 1960s, which focused on the "interests" and not the "wishes" of the Gibraltarians. Speaking to the UN C24 in 2006, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, stated: "It is well known and documented and accepted by all that, since 1988, Gibraltar has rejected the bilateral Brussels Process, and will never be content with it." Gibraltarians argue that one cannot claim to be acting in the "interests" of a population, while at the same time ignoring its wishes and democratic rights. In a second referendum on sovereignty held in November 2002 by the Government of Gibraltar due to an attempted deal cooked up by the Foreign Office behind the backs of the Gibraltarians, 187 voted yes (1%) and 17,900 voted no (99%) on the proposal of sharing sovereignty with Spain. Spain continues to harass and hassle the traffic into Gibraltar and refuses to recongise the rights of the people of Gibraltar. They do not desire independence from Britain, although many now consider themselves less solely British and more Gibraltarian and British or simply Gibraltarian.

Need I go on? Most of the others are desolate and uninhabited islands (so there's really nothing to give independence to) or places where there simply isn't the desire for independence.

As for Northern Ireland: read numerous books on the subject and talk to many locals and make up your own mind. It's an enormously complex area.

Last edited by Tequila on 11 Sep 2012, 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

They'd still be allowed to have English constituencies. Irish people are allowed to stand for election in the UK, no questions asked.



There is almost no support for Ulster Nationalism in NI though.

I didn't say Ulster nationalism though, as that implies a loyalist nationalism would preside only, instead continue with the power sharing, but be realistic, that at best they are going to achieve a high level of autonomy.

Like you said these countries would have to come up their own economic strategies.

It is a hard, sell, but it may end up happening regardless, because that a direction power sharing could be heading too. How many other scenarios, and you envision, that doesn't involve sitting on hands?

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 11 Sep 2012, 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Republic of Ireland is a special case proviso, to become an MP. To do with history, but it is an anachronism now. Sinn Fein, don't choose to go to Westminster, either.

You are not eligible to for membership of the Oireachtas as a British citizen.

Control over its own economy/public spending, borders, defence and foreign relations to name but a few good reasons.

It would also give Scotland a rightfully deserved profile on the global and European stage.

Not to mention the massive historical injustices that it would right.

Ulster nationalism is a different matter though, its proponents have argued for mostly as a compromise to a United Ireland and continuence of the Union as opposed to dogmatic reasons used by the SNP or Plaid Cymru in their own parts of the world.

While we're on the matter the Loyalist paramiltaries, specifically the UDA pledged their allegiance not to the UK first, but to Ulster. It could be argued they are Ulster nationalists, of sorts.

Unsurprisingly its mostly a phenomenon that came from unionist circles. There is a Ulster national party, I do not know of its membership numbers though.

From 2006:

I will be voting No in the referendum. An independent Scotland would struggle to compete on the world stage and (currently) gets a good deal out of the Union.

There is so many links between UK member states that that to separate would result in many business having difficulty serving both countries.

---
Joining the EU would be a necessity if Scotland gets independence, a free floating currency would also be required (the Eurozone has shown that currency union without federal union does not work).

Due to the geographic situation it would not be possible for Scotland to enter the Schengen Area unless England enters as well.

I vote no on this one. I see nothing wrong with being a union while still identifying ourselves with our given countries. I think becoming independent would only encourage the separation mentality some of our people have that makes them dislike the English for some reason. Its not the 1700's anymore, England are not our enemy. Someone should remind Salmond of that I reckon. As for the economy there is the oil yes, but that won't last forever you know. I'm not confident we have the resources to maintain what we have at the moment. Look at how well it turned out for the Republic of Ireland.

Cameron is working hard to make Scotland independent.

This is definitely very true. The tories being in power is increasing the chance of independence (although I think it's still unlikely to go ahead). The Scots simply don't vote Tory (well only a small minority) and having them in power just gets on our nerves and leaves a bad taste in our mouths, when we hear them speaking. They tried to destroy our country a couple of decades ago (no-one can tell me otherwise, as I can remember it clearly) and we're still trying to recover. This government is of the same ilk and thankfully we have devolution this time round. If Labour was in power, independence would not get the 'Yes' vote (even though Tony Blair was was far from the best leader we've ever had).

But, I'm undecided on the matter of independence. Devolution has been good for Scotland, in my opinion. Our MSPs seem to making better choices with the budget than would have been made otherwise. I'm happy that we still have free further education, etc. We also don't appear to have the same trauma in relation to school places, etc, which those in the rest of the UK have. Our kids get into their catchment school, no ifs or buts. There has been cuts made in other areas, but they have been sensible, in my opinion. If they were given the whole budget to play with, maybe they would be just as sensible, but on the other hand, maybe they'd make a mess of it.

And a lot of English people actually welcome his work in that area. You might well find that quite a lot of English people are more pro-independence for Scotland than many Scots.

Interestingly, can a country actually expel a region of its own country after simply having enough? It happened to Singapore when it was part of Malaysia.

A federal model would be a lot better. We need to end this resentment between England and the other regions of the UK. TBH, as an Englishman I can understand why the English feel they get a raw deal out of the Union.

Not necessarily. I've heard some people call for a Northern Irish state on its own - although they were officially unionists, they absolutely hated loyalism and Orangeism and wanted no part of it for their own reasons.



Yes, although whether that state of affairs is really any good is debatable if they don't really get anything done and simply carry on as a basket-case. Northern Ireland is the most subsidised region of the UK.