Scottish Independence.
Sep. 3rd, 2014 02:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silver_sunTwo weeks today on the 18th of September Scotland with hold a referendum on whether it should, for the first time in over 300 years become a seperate country. At the moment it is too close to call which way it is going to go.
Polls have have the No vote, for Scotland to stay as part of the UK ahead by a significant margin. This has dropped over the last month to it currently being about 53% No and 47% Yes. However there are reckoned to be about 10% of voters still undecided which way to vote or whether to vote at all.
I can see the arguments for both cases. If I lived in Scotland (as a number of my relations do) I think that I would in the end vote Yes. I've listened to the debates and arguments from both sides (Including the awful Better Together one with the woman in the kitchen saying you have to vote No to independence because anything else means you don't love your family)
The argument about Scotland being too small/under populated is ridiculous - the population at 5.5 million is roughly the same as those of Norway and Denmark, and significantly larger than Iceland, which had a population of just 350,000.
Or that it hasn't happened before or that it's always a bad move. Look at Ireland. They did the same thing as Scotland wants now back in the 1920s, and while during the recession that had a rough time of it a lot of countries did (Greece, Portugal etc) so using that as a reason for Scotland not to become indepence feels like its clutching at straws for a reason.
Not to say that there aren't problems and risks with it going it alone, there are and they are significant. The currency issue is Scotlands biggest problem in this venture, especially the risk being stomped on by larger economies while it finds its feet in the first few years after devolution, should that be what happens.
Yet it does have a lot going for it. It has the ability to be self suficient in terms of energy in just a few short years. With its considerable natural resources (not just the North Sea oil fields) and it's relatively small population it could become mostly selfsuficient in terms of energy production. It was already running at just over 40% in 2012. If the current speed of growth of renewable energy is maintained then by about 2035 (although some reports say 2030 and other 2040) it could generate 100% of it power from renewables. Mainly because its using the sea in the form of a wave power barrage in the Pentland Firth.
It has its oil and a thriving tourism industry, and although the UK doesn't like to admit it Scotland does bring more into the economy per person than England does. The arguments about it not being able to fund its NHS seem baseless, and the Labour MP calling Salmon a liar about the Uk Government's slow dismantling of the NHS via underfunding (Salmon mentioned Northumberland cancelling opperations dues to lack of money, Darling said its a lie. Darling was the liar, as they had. I had the local newspaper - Berwick Advertiser - that was running with that as their front page story - two days before Salmon mentioned it on TV.)
Not to say that some of the stuff Salmon was saying wasn't likely to be playing fast and loose with the truth, but Scotland has resently had the short end of the stick where its come to Uk government initiatives - they were the guinea pigs for the Poll tax, bedroom tax (or removal of the spare room subsidy as the Cons call it) and the farcial roll out of new benefit system.
A lot has been said on Salmon's stance on Scotland's share of the national debt. What he did not say was that Scotland would automatically default on it because the debt was Englands fault. What he said was that if England refused to come to a resonable settlement over the issue of currency (basically give them the same deal that Ireland got when it gained independence from the UK)
then if they were going to be denyed all assets then they wouldn't take the debt.
I suppose the best way I've seen it explained is that if UK and Scotland were getting a divorce, and England said I'll keep the house, the savings, the car etc, you (Scotland) get nothing but 15% of all the debt. Scotland's response is (as I think anybody else would be) was you can stick that.
The argument that they would have to leave the Commonwealth makes no sense. Canada and Australia are independent of the UK and still remain in the Commonwealth. To deny that to Scotland would be baffling and just seem like England being a sore loser. So that is as far as I can tell baseless scaremongering.
So I say good luck to Scotland for their vote on independence. Whichever way it goes I hope it is best for the people who live there. And that if they do break from the Union, that England/Wales/Northern Ireland will wish them well and not sling every obstical in their way out of spite.
It will change things in the remainer of the UK if they leave. It will make it hard for the rest of us south of the border to get anything other than a Conservative government. Labour relies heavily on Scotland for votes, and much of the Better Together campaign for Scotland not to leave the union is from the Labour Party. The Conservatives seem to have little interest - unsurprising as they only have one elected MP in the whole of Scotland.
Of all the out comes the one that I hope that doesn't happen is that Scotland votes no, and to prevent a further referendum happening in the future the UK government starts to strip Scotland's Assembly of their current powers. There would be an incredible amount of ill feeling generated by such a thing, not only amonst the Yes voters, but amonst the No voters, who believed they were voting for things to remain the same.
Polls have have the No vote, for Scotland to stay as part of the UK ahead by a significant margin. This has dropped over the last month to it currently being about 53% No and 47% Yes. However there are reckoned to be about 10% of voters still undecided which way to vote or whether to vote at all.
I can see the arguments for both cases. If I lived in Scotland (as a number of my relations do) I think that I would in the end vote Yes. I've listened to the debates and arguments from both sides (Including the awful Better Together one with the woman in the kitchen saying you have to vote No to independence because anything else means you don't love your family)
The argument about Scotland being too small/under populated is ridiculous - the population at 5.5 million is roughly the same as those of Norway and Denmark, and significantly larger than Iceland, which had a population of just 350,000.
Or that it hasn't happened before or that it's always a bad move. Look at Ireland. They did the same thing as Scotland wants now back in the 1920s, and while during the recession that had a rough time of it a lot of countries did (Greece, Portugal etc) so using that as a reason for Scotland not to become indepence feels like its clutching at straws for a reason.
Not to say that there aren't problems and risks with it going it alone, there are and they are significant. The currency issue is Scotlands biggest problem in this venture, especially the risk being stomped on by larger economies while it finds its feet in the first few years after devolution, should that be what happens.
Yet it does have a lot going for it. It has the ability to be self suficient in terms of energy in just a few short years. With its considerable natural resources (not just the North Sea oil fields) and it's relatively small population it could become mostly selfsuficient in terms of energy production. It was already running at just over 40% in 2012. If the current speed of growth of renewable energy is maintained then by about 2035 (although some reports say 2030 and other 2040) it could generate 100% of it power from renewables. Mainly because its using the sea in the form of a wave power barrage in the Pentland Firth.
It has its oil and a thriving tourism industry, and although the UK doesn't like to admit it Scotland does bring more into the economy per person than England does. The arguments about it not being able to fund its NHS seem baseless, and the Labour MP calling Salmon a liar about the Uk Government's slow dismantling of the NHS via underfunding (Salmon mentioned Northumberland cancelling opperations dues to lack of money, Darling said its a lie. Darling was the liar, as they had. I had the local newspaper - Berwick Advertiser - that was running with that as their front page story - two days before Salmon mentioned it on TV.)
Not to say that some of the stuff Salmon was saying wasn't likely to be playing fast and loose with the truth, but Scotland has resently had the short end of the stick where its come to Uk government initiatives - they were the guinea pigs for the Poll tax, bedroom tax (or removal of the spare room subsidy as the Cons call it) and the farcial roll out of new benefit system.
A lot has been said on Salmon's stance on Scotland's share of the national debt. What he did not say was that Scotland would automatically default on it because the debt was Englands fault. What he said was that if England refused to come to a resonable settlement over the issue of currency (basically give them the same deal that Ireland got when it gained independence from the UK)
then if they were going to be denyed all assets then they wouldn't take the debt.
I suppose the best way I've seen it explained is that if UK and Scotland were getting a divorce, and England said I'll keep the house, the savings, the car etc, you (Scotland) get nothing but 15% of all the debt. Scotland's response is (as I think anybody else would be) was you can stick that.
The argument that they would have to leave the Commonwealth makes no sense. Canada and Australia are independent of the UK and still remain in the Commonwealth. To deny that to Scotland would be baffling and just seem like England being a sore loser. So that is as far as I can tell baseless scaremongering.
So I say good luck to Scotland for their vote on independence. Whichever way it goes I hope it is best for the people who live there. And that if they do break from the Union, that England/Wales/Northern Ireland will wish them well and not sling every obstical in their way out of spite.
It will change things in the remainer of the UK if they leave. It will make it hard for the rest of us south of the border to get anything other than a Conservative government. Labour relies heavily on Scotland for votes, and much of the Better Together campaign for Scotland not to leave the union is from the Labour Party. The Conservatives seem to have little interest - unsurprising as they only have one elected MP in the whole of Scotland.
Of all the out comes the one that I hope that doesn't happen is that Scotland votes no, and to prevent a further referendum happening in the future the UK government starts to strip Scotland's Assembly of their current powers. There would be an incredible amount of ill feeling generated by such a thing, not only amonst the Yes voters, but amonst the No voters, who believed they were voting for things to remain the same.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-09-03 11:35 pm (UTC)As to the Commonwealth, they will have to be admitted as a new nation. That will be easier than gaining admittance to the EU (which isn't going to happen), and will probably be completed before they go independent, but it does depend on the will of the countries already in it.
The Yes campaign claim that there are extreme views and actions on both sides, but so far it's only their side that's engaged in egg throwing.
On the other hand, at least it's only eggs.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-04 12:00 am (UTC)