News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

How Will the Scotland Independence Movement affect Scotland?

Started by US 41, September 11, 2014, 11:40:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

US 41

So why does Scotland and Catalonia even want to be their own countries? The countries they are a part of aren't even bad countries. Both Spain and the UK are developed.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM


english si

Scotland is doing it for many reasons, not least:
1) Braveheart (the film, not the reality. 2014 was set as the date for the referendum as it's the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn for this reason)
2) A long-standing grudge against the English common to all the Celtic nations (and many western European ones too)
3) A false history and a false future of the Union being spread about
4) A dislike of the current Government (whom, to be fair, the Scots didn't want - but Wales or the North of England don't want out, despite also being Labour strongholds. What they want is a change of Government and/or the SE to fall into the sea)
5) A strong dislike of the fact that the more populous SE of England votes differently to them (we didn't want to leave the Union after 13 years of Labour - the last 5 without winning the popular vote in England, nor after Scotland's existence denied the Tories a majority, which they won in England)
6) Nonsense lies about cuts (state spending has never been higher in the UK - the cuts were merely reducing the increase to slightly above inflation from massively above inflation) and how the Tories want to scrap the NHS (which they can't do in Scotland anyway, even if they wanted to!). Not helped by the entire establishment wanting to sell the line of cuts to state spending and reform of the NHS (with different groups wanting to promote those lines for different reasons).
7) A massive dislike of UKIP - despite UKIP, and the Tory and Labour EUskeptics all understanding that to be consistent, anti-Westminster arguments would also apply to Brussels (and the argument for Brexit is very similar to the argument for iScotland) - apparently it shows our politics are different, though UKIP got enough votes to get one of Scotland MEP spaces and if you correct for demography (ie that a large post-industrial city makes up more than half its population) then the politics only became different about 20 years ago (when the Tories got wiped out for the Poll Tax, and the SNP became more than a joke).
8) Kittens and Unicorns and Rainbows have been promised if they go independent
9) They reckon that not only can they get all the oil in the North Sea (save Norway and Denmark's), but they can get the revenues 'back' from Westminster for the last 40+ years. Oh, and/or not pay their fair share of the UK National Debt...
10) Apparently they have no say in the running of the UK, but the Better Together campaign is being run by guys who lived on Downing Street before the 2010 election (and for a week afterwards). Brown was Prime Minister having been the longest serving Chancellor of the Exchequer for some time (ever?) and passing that role onto a Scot (who'd been Transport Secretary before - despite Transport being a devolved issue*. 2 out of 22 current Cabinet members is pretty representative given that Scotland only has about 11% of the population of the UK and many of the posts are really England-only ones.

*So he could scrap tram schemes in English cities, but not the one that runs through his constituency and had the weakest case of the lot. Scotland's transport network was invested in by the Scottish Government, while England's got run into the ground as he refused to let any construction take place, vetoing anything he could.

Brandon

Quote from: US 41 on September 11, 2014, 11:40:58 AM
So why does Scotland and Catalonia even want to be their own countries? The countries they are a part of aren't even bad countries. Both Spain and the UK are developed.

They've been independent in the past.  Aragon (Aragon and Catalonia) merged with Castile (central Spain) to form modern Spain.  Scotland was coerced into the Act of Union in 1707, as were the Irish in 1800.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Alps

Bad idea: Asking an Englishman for an impartial view of Scots independence.

english si

Quote from: Brandon on September 11, 2014, 09:34:47 PMScotland was coerced into the Act of Union in 1707
The English wanted it less. It was basically a bail out after Scotland sought after an empire (in order to make a more attractive Union partner) in a disastrous scheme (that England encouraged by suggesting that they would be happier with a Union after the Scots got one, and then wouldn't help Scotland with it while it was going on*). Scotland weren't coerced, but took the lead in their folly. It was only when it went too far, and there was no other choice, did England finally acquiesce to the bailout - the key concession was the succession, but the Scottish lowlanders fought the Jacobites with more vigour than the English, so it wasn't a huge blow to the Scots.

Likewise in around 1607, it was the English who were opposed to James VI/I's merger of his new kingdom to his old. The Scots were fine in principle, just not in details, then.

Basically, Scotland were historically always the more Unionist Kingdom (perhaps even as late as this decade), but they felt they had to make too many concessions to persuade England to join in - not least bankrupting themselves. Ironically, the thing that the Scots hate about 1707 is that the English were too hard to persuade - not that it was forced on them. Though they all talk about the latter.

*Speaking with a Scottish person he said that King Billy sacrificed one Kingdom to save another. He meant that as 'they are always screwing over the Scots' but if England had got involved and had a War with Spain, then how could it have taken on Scottish debt a few years later? Instead of merging to form a Kingdom of Britain that ruled the waves, sparked the industrial revolution, etc, etc both Kingdoms would have been pretty much wiped out. This guy is a unionist and he'd rather both failed than Scotland left to fail so that England wouldn't also get left in a total mess - that's why I won't really miss the modern Scottish voice in UK politics that much.
Quote from: Alps on September 11, 2014, 10:40:56 PMBad idea: Asking an Englishman for an impartial view of Scots independence.
I think Scots independence is a great idea with lots of good reasons to do it, just that the SNP don't have many good reasons (but Darling and Brown have even worse reasons for staying and few of the decent ones). I actually want Yes to win, though I am aware that a lot of the reasons why are as petty, spiteful and wrong-headed as Scotland's reasons.

Not that an impartial view was asked for...

kkt

Quote from: english si on September 12, 2014, 05:29:59 AM
Quote from: Brandon on September 11, 2014, 09:34:47 PMScotland was coerced into the Act of Union in 1707
The English wanted it less.

If the English wanted the union less, how come the English had to resort to bribing most of the Scottish parliament to get their votes?

I think it's great that the European Union, NATO, and international law are now so dependable, at least in western Europe, that Scotland isn't forced to remain in a marriage of convenience with England for Scotland's security.

England pushing Scotland around is not all ancient history, either.  Thatcher imposed a poll tax on Scotland before it became effective in the rest of the U.K.  How about in the U.S. when the Republicans control Congress they impose a special tax just on the northeastern part of the U.S.? (Or if you prefer when the Democrats control congress they impose a special tax just on the Bible Belt?)  Oh, wait, in the U.S. that would be unconstitutional...

english si

Quote from: kkt on September 12, 2014, 02:33:20 PMIf the English wanted the union less, how come the English had to resort to bribing most of the Scottish parliament to get their votes?
English MPs had to be bribed too (with English money as Scotland had none). While we see it as an English takeover now, it was seen by most at the time as a Scottish takeover of England.

And since 1707 the union has always been biased towards Scotland - they got more MPs per head until 2008, for instance
QuoteI think it's great that the European Union, NATO, and international law are now so dependable, at least in western Europe, that Scotland isn't forced to remain in a marriage of convenience with England for Scotland's security.
Except that Scotland will struggle to rejoin the EU and NATO. Certainly the EU Commission has already made it clear Scotland will be unlikely to be allowed in.

Plus it will cause all sorts of issues with NATO. The SNP have a legit point about Faslane being where the base is, and they don't want it there. However they are against UK nuclear weapons full stop, but cannot conceive of a future where Scotland isn't protected by the US nuclear arsenal via NATO. They also want rather a lot of the UK's military might as part of the divorce, but at the same time don't want to use it.
QuoteEngland pushing Scotland around is not all ancient history, either.  Thatcher imposed a poll tax on Scotland before it became effective in the rest of the U.K.
Scotland pushing England around has happened more recently (and is nearly as common as vice versa since 1603): Tuition Fees, Foundation Hospitals (for all their moaning about English Tories privatising the Scottish NHS, it was Scottish Labour MPs who actually did semi-privatise the English NHS) and Fox Hunting ban, to name but three things that Scottish MPs forced on England (against a majority of English MPs) without it affecting their constituents.

And that's ignoring that Scottish votes changed the result of the last election (meaning that no one - not just the Scots - got the Government they voted for), and gave Blair's third term a democratic mandate for all sorts of legislation that a majority of the people of England had rejected at the polls.

Then there's issues with the executive between 1998 and 2010 with Scottish MPs becoming Ministers over issues dealt with in Scotland by the Scottish Government - Darling at Transport being the most egregious simply as he was the most actively incompetent...
QuoteHow about in the U.S. when the Republicans control Congress they impose a special tax just on the northeastern part of the U.S.?
Not comparable - Thatcher was going to reform the tax in England too. Scottish law, BTW, has remained independent throughout the 307 years and therefore can have such differences, just as how 'federal' government in the UK created two different NHSs in the 40s - one which only Scotland now has a say and one that serves the rest of Britain, but all of the UK gets a say because it's somehow horrific that England gets a say in what happens in Scotland but Scotland can have a say in what happens in England...

Plus the poll tax was undone quickly (worth noting that it was England that rioted - Scotland just refused to pay). The Fox Hunting ban overturn, part of the 2010 Conservative manifesto was scrapped despite areas it affected giving the Tories a majority as Scotland meant they had to go in coalition with the Lib Dem or form a minority government.

How about if Dems create a special thing that means for every $10 dollars per head spent in Red States, $11 dollars per head in Blue States had to be spent? That's what Scotland has over England.

vdeane

Quote from: english si on September 12, 2014, 05:48:16 PM
Except that Scotland will struggle to rejoin the EU and NATO. Certainly the EU Commission has already made it clear Scotland will be unlikely to be allowed in.
Why!?  Are they being vindictive or something?  I don't see how the EU Commission has any legitimate reason to block Scotland.  "The UK is unhappy they declared independence" is NOT a valid reason!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

english si

The rest-of-the-UK would be independent-Scotland biggest supporters in Brussels - we've always been the most in favour of EU enlargement of the big/western countries (we want wide-and-shallow, 'Old Europe' wants deep-and-narrow). The Basque/Catalan/Corsican/Bavarian/etc issues of other member states splitting are minor hurdles, as is the EU's policy on the Crimean and Donetsk votes (that they are invalid).

The big issue is that the EU is so in favour of multi-national states (what it one day hopes to be) that it has in the past denied Bosnia Herzegovina true democracy because what (at least some of) the people of that state want is to split into several states on national lines - any elected official who dared breathe the idea of a Bosnia break up risked being ousted from office by the EU High Representative.

Scotland asserting its nationhood (which in Brussels is equated with Hitler and war) and leaving a (democratic) multinational state is basically EU heresy and treason. If Scotland can't be in union with a nation that is so close that you could argue that they form one British nation (less so now than 50 years ago), how can they be in ever closer union with the rest of Europe?

And the "we're keeping the pound and certainly not joining the Euro" line from Salmond won't endere the Scots to an EU which has ruled out expansion for 5 years (and phrased that in a way that makes it clear Scotland is excluded if it splits: "no new members").

kkt

Quote from: english si on September 12, 2014, 05:48:16 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 12, 2014, 02:33:20 PMIf the English wanted the union less, how come the English had to resort to bribing most of the Scottish parliament to get their votes?
English MPs had to be bribed too (with English money as Scotland had none). While we see it as an English takeover now, it was seen by most at the time as a Scottish takeover of England.

Some takeover.  Scotland has 10% of the MPs, Scotland is not going to dominate England or Wales with those numbers.  At most, on issues where Scotland is united but the rest of the UK is closely divided, Scottish MPs might cast a deciding vote.

Quote
And since 1707 the union has always been biased towards Scotland - they got more MPs per head until 2008, for instance

There's a large precedent for a minority region getting slightly more per capita votes in federal matters.  True in the U.S. electoral college for president, too; the red states are overrepresented because they have smaller populations.

Quote
QuoteI think it's great that the European Union, NATO, and international law are now so dependable, at least in western Europe, that Scotland isn't forced to remain in a marriage of convenience with England for Scotland's security.
Except that Scotland will struggle to rejoin the EU and NATO. Certainly the EU Commission has already made it clear Scotland will be unlikely to be allowed in.

They'd be crazy to deny independent Scotland entry.  There's a big difference between kicking out an existing EU member that's now independent and denying a new membership.

The UK feels free to legislate and set budget priorities on all sorts of matters that primarily affect Scotland.  The EU sticks to limited areas it has jurisdiction over.  It's no leap to want to reject one while still accepting the other.

Quote
Plus it will cause all sorts of issues with NATO. The SNP have a legit point about Faslane being where the base is, and they don't want it there. However they are against UK nuclear weapons full stop, but cannot conceive of a future where Scotland isn't protected by the US nuclear arsenal via NATO. They also want rather a lot of the UK's military might as part of the divorce, but at the same time don't want to use it.

It shouldn't be an unsolvable problem.  NATO has things independent Scotland will want -- the U.S. nuclear umbrella; an alliance in case they're attacked; help with the more technological armed forces -- air force, navy.  Scotland has things the remaining UK and NATO will want -- use of Faslane either indefinitely or at least 15 years until the replacements for Trident are operational; use of Scottish bases for ASW in case the cold war with Russia heats up; Scottish troops participating in joint missions.  An agreement should be possible, assuming the remaining UK isn't vindictive.

Quote
QuoteEngland pushing Scotland around is not all ancient history, either.  Thatcher imposed a poll tax on Scotland before it became effective in the rest of the U.K.
Scotland pushing England around has happened more recently (and is nearly as common as vice versa since 1603): Tuition Fees, Foundation Hospitals (for all their moaning about English Tories privatising the Scottish NHS, it was Scottish Labour MPs who actually did semi-privatise the English NHS) and Fox Hunting ban, to name but three things that Scottish MPs forced on England (against a majority of English MPs) without it affecting their constituents.

And that's ignoring that Scottish votes changed the result of the last election (meaning that no one - not just the Scots - got the Government they voted for), and gave Blair's third term a democratic mandate for all sorts of legislation that a majority of the people of England had rejected at the polls.

Then there's issues with the executive between 1998 and 2010 with Scottish MPs becoming Ministers over issues dealt with in Scotland by the Scottish Government - Darling at Transport being the most egregious simply as he was the most actively incompetent...
QuoteHow about in the U.S. when the Republicans control Congress they impose a special tax just on the northeastern part of the U.S.?
Not comparable - Thatcher was going to reform the tax in England too. Scottish law, BTW, has remained independent throughout the 307 years and therefore can have such differences, just as how 'federal' government in the UK created two different NHSs in the 40s - one which only Scotland now has a say and one that serves the rest of Britain, but all of the UK gets a say because it's somehow horrific that England gets a say in what happens in Scotland but Scotland can have a say in what happens in England...

Plus the poll tax was undone quickly (worth noting that it was England that rioted - Scotland just refused to pay). The Fox Hunting ban overturn, part of the 2010 Conservative manifesto was scrapped despite areas it affected giving the Tories a majority as Scotland meant they had to go in coalition with the Lib Dem or form a minority government.

I have trouble believing fox hunting is still a serious issue in 2014.  Okay, once Scotland is gone, the English aristocracy can prove their manhood by killing all the helpless animals they want, okay?

Quote
How about if Dems create a special thing that means for every $10 dollars per head spent in Red States, $11 dollars per head in Blue States had to be spent? That's what Scotland has over England.

Actually it's the other way around, blue states subsidize the red through farm and transportation subsidies.

english si

Quote from: kkt on September 15, 2014, 01:23:54 PMSome takeover.  Scotland has 10% of the MPs, Scotland is not going to dominate England or Wales with those numbers.  At most, on issues where Scotland is united but the rest of the UK is closely divided, Scottish MPs might cast a deciding vote.
Like 'who forms the Government' at the last two elections? Hardly minor issues...
QuoteThe UK feels free to legislate and set budget priorities on all sorts of matters that primarily affect Scotland.
Other than the nuclear deterrent and building new ships for the Navy, next to nothing affects Scotland primarily that comes from Westminster. Some stuff does affect Scotland - but Scotland has representation there, just as it does for the stuff that doesn't affect Scotland.

In fact, other than on reserved issues like Defence, Foreign Policy, etc, budget allocation outside Scotland has zero effect on Scotland. The size of budget has some influence, as Scotland gets the slightly-more-per-capita amount to spend how it wishes - unlike the English budget which is spent how the UK wishes.
QuoteThe EU sticks to limited areas it has jurisdiction over.
Most naive statement ever!

The EU started it's space programme (among other things, but the space programme is one of the clearest examples of spending in an area that it doesn't have permission to) before the ink on the EU Constitution approving it was dry, let alone ratified and even after it was rejected by the French, Dutch and Irish they still kept spending money on things they hadn't been given the power to do and the treaty authorising that spending was dead...

The UK opted out of certain things (eg stuff relating to the Euro), so the EU just puts a lot of the regulation affecting those areas in other areas so that the UK has to accept it.

Oh, and they openly proclaimed stuff along the lines of 'who cares if it's illegal' when it came to bailing out Greece, etc. There's zero attempt to even keep the illusion of rule of law (I guess they hire auditors for the budget, even though they ignore that they haven't ever been approved by the auditors) and the EU thinks the answer to any question is 'more Europe, less national government'.
QuoteIt's no leap to want to reject one while still accepting the other.
Indeed - there are many who feel that the Union (of 1707) is worth keeping, while seeking to leave the EU. That's as they hold Britain as being a demos, but not Europe. I guess some Scots see themselves as European, but not British, and feel there isn't a British demos, but there is a European one that excludes the English...

However, the SNP's anti-Westminster argument for independence completely and utterly is the same as the argument for Brexit. A distant and remote Government that doesn't represent our politics and we form a small percentage of the population so have only a little say...
QuoteI have trouble believing fox hunting is still a serious issue in 2014.  Okay, once Scotland is gone, the English aristocracy can prove their manhood by killing all the helpless animals they want, okay?
The Scottish imposition of the law on England killed thousands of hounds and hundreds of horses. And foxes aren't helpless, but a vicious pest.

But the animals killed either way weren't the point - the point was that Scotland can and has imposed unpopular laws on England, despite its size. The argument works both ways (and in 2012, the poll in Scotland was at about 30% yes, and the poll in England was at about 45% yes, though the two have swapped over since). The reaction in rural England against the ban was also stronger than the Scottish reaction to the Poll Tax - the same massive protests and widespread non-compliance of the law.

And you ignored the other ones like the Scots privatising the English NHS - something the English can't do to their NHS, even though the SNP say that if Scotland stays it will happen at every opportunity they can (and it will be the thing that gets them over the line if they do go over the line and leave).

US 41

Quote from: vdeane on September 13, 2014, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: english si on September 12, 2014, 05:48:16 PM
Except that Scotland will struggle to rejoin the EU and NATO. Certainly the EU Commission has already made it clear Scotland will be unlikely to be allowed in.
Why!?  Are they being vindictive or something?  I don't see how the EU Commission has any legitimate reason to block Scotland.  "The UK is unhappy they declared independence" is NOT a valid reason!

Many think that Cyprus, Spain, and Italy would block Scotland attempting to shut down the independence movements in their countries. They would want to show pro-separitists that rejoining the EU might not be an option. All EU states have to agree before a new member is added.

There have been talks of adding Turkey to the EU. However it will probably never happen. In France and Belgium it is illegal to wear burquas. Europeans usually don't trust North Africa and the Middle East. Half of Spain was once overrun with a Muslim population. Spain would most likely be another country to block Turkey. Kosovo will easily have the same problem as Turkey since over 95% of their population is Muslim. Christians and Muslims not trusting each other is just a fact. It's been that way for hundreds of years.

Macedonia has had trouble joining the EU because them and Greece have disagreements in certain areas.

Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

vdeane

Quote from: US 41 on September 16, 2014, 02:28:28 PM
Many think that Cyprus, Spain, and Italy would block Scotland attempting to shut down the independence movements in their countries. They would want to show pro-separitists that rejoining the EU might not be an option. All EU states have to agree before a new member is added.
Except Scotland would NOT be a new member, but rather a newly independent country that was an EU member under the UK.  In the US, if a state splits off from another, we don't kick them out, but that's essentially what the EU is doing here.

IMO it's illegitimate for a country to do anything to suppress or discourage separatism, but that's getting political.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

kkt

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 16, 2014, 02:28:28 PM
Many think that Cyprus, Spain, and Italy would block Scotland attempting to shut down the independence movements in their countries. They would want to show pro-separitists that rejoining the EU might not be an option. All EU states have to agree before a new member is added.
Except Scotland would NOT be a new member, but rather a newly independent country that was an EU member under the UK. 

I agree with your point...

Quote
In the US, if a state splits off from another, we don't kick them out, but that's essentially what the EU is doing here.

... but not with this example.  The only time part of a U.S. state has split off from another was West Virginia splitting from Virginia, and that was when Virginia was in secession during the Civil War.

Quote
IMO it's illegitimate for a country to do anything to suppress or discourage separatism, but that's getting political.

Yes, the EU is supposed to be about democracy.  So here we have a country that was conquered through brutal military action, occupation longer and more harsh than the southeastern U.S. endured during reconstruction, and sealed with bribery to give a veneer of legitimacy.  The inhabitants want to separate from that, and they're going about it democratically, not through terrorism like Ireland in the late 1910s and early 1920s.  The EU should by happy to abide by the results of the election, whatever they are.

Molandfreak

Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2014, 01:06:17 PM
... but not with this example.  The only time part of a U.S. state has split off from another was West Virginia splitting from Virginia, and that was when Virginia was in secession during the Civil War.
Maine waves hi
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

vdeane

Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2014, 01:06:17 PM
Quote
In the US, if a state splits off from another, we don't kick them out, but that's essentially what the EU is doing here.
... but not with this example.  The only time part of a U.S. state has split off from another was West Virginia splitting from Virginia, and that was when Virginia was in secession during the Civil War.
There's also Maine splitting off from Massachusetts in 1820.  And while it's more complicated, Vermont essentially split from both New York and New Hampshire.  The Carolinas also split in two back when they were colonies.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

1995hoo

The first US state to split off from another was Kentucky, which was part of Virginia until June 1, 1792. Virginia consented to Kentucky splitting off and Congress admitted the area as a new state.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

kkt

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2014, 01:06:17 PM
Quote
In the US, if a state splits off from another, we don't kick them out, but that's essentially what the EU is doing here.
... but not with this example.  The only time part of a U.S. state has split off from another was West Virginia splitting from Virginia, and that was when Virginia was in secession during the Civil War.
There's also Maine splitting off from Massachusetts in 1820.  And while it's more complicated, Vermont essentially split from both New York and New Hampshire.  The Carolinas also split in two back when they were colonies.

Okay, I'm embarrassed.  Yes, Maine and Kentucky are clear examples.

vdeane

I'm not sure I'd consider Kentucky an example.  Kentucky didn't split off due to resentment of being governed by Virginia but rather the federal government's plan to create new states by convincing the original 13 states to give up all claims west of the Appalachians.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

english si

Quote from: kkt on September 15, 2014, 01:23:54 PMActually it's the other way around, blue states subsidize the red through farm and transportation subsidies.
Perhaps I wasn't clear - these aren't farm or transportation subsidies - this is money Labour gave Scotland for being Scotland (though, admittedly, even Thatcher didn't touch it). The formula isn't based on need, but based on England having ~85% of the population and Scotland having ~10% and thus as Scotland (the third richest UK 'region') has 11% of the population of England it gets 111% of the per capita spending. And, since devolution, they can spend most of it however they like without English say-so (unlike the money spent in England, which - outside London - is spent however the UK says it will be, regardless of what the English majority views)

To add insult to injury, in the (now pretty certain) event of a 'no' vote, Scotland will have near total control of its taxes and still get Barnett formula subsidies if the 'vow' of Ed, Nick and Dave manages to make its way through the Commons. It probably won't as many English MPs are rightly bitter that Scotland gets home rule and its bribe continuing, while England is unlikely to have any devolved Government (save London) - especially rural/southern England that won't get put into a city region - meaning that Scotland has a say in things like trash-collection in England.

England-outside-Greater-London has the least powerful local government (counties, boroughs, districts, etc) in the EU, save Malta (which is less populous than most English counties).
QuoteThere's a large precedent for a minority region getting slightly more per capita votes in federal matters.
The UK isn't a federation its a marriage. If only the English (and no one else) had a say on England-only matters, it would be fine. But for 13 years (1997 to 2010) Scotland had not only a say in England-only matters, but a larger per-capita say in such things. And they still get a say in our buiness.
Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 12:55:36 PMExcept Scotland would NOT be a new member, but rather a newly independent country that was an EU member under the UK.  In the US, if a state splits off from another, we don't kick them out, but that's essentially what the EU is doing here.
It's a new member under EU law. While, personally, I think Scotland (like every country) would be better off having a Norwegian/Swiss-type relationship with other European countries (a trade agreement, not a superstate - even a customs union is too far if its with the little-Europeans who hate the idea of the wider world), I think the EU should aim to let them enter on the existing UK terms the minute they become independent.

However, the EU have been very clear that iScotland ceases to be in the EU the minute it departs a member state. EU law says "The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory". Salmond and the SNP are basically committing electoral fraud here by saying that they will be part of the EU guaranteed (and the papers will say tomorrow, as their websites have broken the story today, that they covered up the above linked document that was sent to them). Especially as Salmond's "Keep the pound" policy is illegal under EU law (no Central Bank) and even if achieved in better ways than basically relying on the Bank of England (it does seem strange - wanting independence, but then wanting fiscal policy decided by the old country) to support Scottish banks, then as its shadowing the Pound and not the Euro, then that's also illegal unless Scotland somehow gets the EU to let them keep the UK's opt out of that law.
Quote from: kkt on September 17, 2014, 01:06:17 PMYes, the EU is supposed to be about democracy.
Supposed is the key word there.
QuoteSo here we have a country that was conquered through brutal military action,
Which was par for the course in the 13th century when England last conquered Scotland. Especially in Scotland where inter-clan warfare was rife...
Quoteoccupation longer
Are we talking about England here? We were effectively occupied by Scotland from 1603 to 1646 and arguably occupied by the Scots from 1660 to 1688. Or are you talking more than 700 years ago and Edward 'Hammer of the Scots' Longshanks conquered the Scots for a mere 18 years?
Quoteand more harsh than the southeastern U.S. endured during reconstruction
Really?

Highlanders, maybe - but the lowlanders have always hated them more than the English have and they got worse treatment before 1707 than they typically got after it (though their treason against England was higher that the South during the US civil war - not succession, but invasion and imposing on England and lowland Scotland their choice of king). The majority of Scotland was pretty much happy with the union from about 1710 to 1980 - to the point that it was 'North Britain', not Scotland, throughout the 19th Century. England was still England, rather than 'South Britain', as it was the more reluctant partner for most of that time (88 to 97 and the last year or two are probably it).
Quotesealed with bribery to give a veneer of legitimacy.
And the only reason it was English money used to bribe MPs of both Parliaments into the Union is that Scotland had none... As I said, neither country particularly wanted Union come 1707.
QuoteThe inhabitants want to separate from that, and they're going about it democratically
It's hardly democracy. 9% of the electorate of my country get to have a say in its destruction. Just over 4% of the population wanting divorce will trigger it - that 91% of people don't get a say is hardly democracy, but understandable. That the Nationalists will not tolerate non-Scottish British voices making a contribution to the debate as it is none of our business is totally nonsensical.

When the Leader of the Opposition in the UK Government cannot go outside in places that overwhelming vote for his party because the Ubernats have made it a big security risk, then you know that voter intimidation is a serious issue. And that's before we get onto the gerrymandering of enlarging the franchise to get the more Nationalist young people, electoral fraud in various places (they found some 3 year olds registered to vote) and the misleading of the public that Salmond has done.
QuoteThe EU should by happy to abide by the results of the election, whatever they are.
Yes indeed and they will*. Which means kicking iScotland out and having them apply for membership, or breaking the laws and treaties that have created the EU. Given they often do the latter, and tend to ignore referenda that give the 'wrong' result, they really will respect the result - even if that means not respecting the Scottish people or common sense...

Likewise the UK will abide by the results of the election and thus boot them out of the Stirling zone if they vote 'Yes'. Both seem unfeeling, but both are respecting the vote far more than the alternative.

*Well, at least, hopefully they do. They didn't respect Irish, Dutch or French referenda on the EU Constitution.

1995hoo

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 02:28:40 PM
I'm not sure I'd consider Kentucky an example.  Kentucky didn't split off due to resentment of being governed by Virginia but rather the federal government's plan to create new states by convincing the original 13 states to give up all claims west of the Appalachians.

That wasn't cited as a condition of a state splitting off from another by the earlier commenters in this thread. But for what it's worth, Kentucky residents did have a number of complaints about being part of Virginia. Some were practical, such as the distance to the rest of the Commonwealth via Cumberland Gap. Some were region-specific, such as Virginia's government essentially the ignoring the importance of trade via the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to what was then Kentucky County. The latter certainly qualifies as dissatisfaction with the way the state government was running things.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

hbelkins

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 17, 2014, 06:32:13 PMBut for what it's worth, Kentucky residents did have a number of complaints about being part of Virginia.

Yes, we hated the ban on radar detectors and the "80 mph as reckless driving" law.  :-D

Seriously, there are probably counties in the southwestern part of Virginia that are closer to Frankfort than they are to Richmond. They're definitely closer to Charleston, WV. I can understand if Lee, Scott, Wise and even Dickenson and Buchanan feel neglected.



Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

vdeane

Quote from: 1995hoo on September 17, 2014, 06:32:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 02:28:40 PM
I'm not sure I'd consider Kentucky an example.  Kentucky didn't split off due to resentment of being governed by Virginia but rather the federal government's plan to create new states by convincing the original 13 states to give up all claims west of the Appalachians.

That wasn't cited as a condition of a state splitting off from another by the earlier commenters in this thread. But for what it's worth, Kentucky residents did have a number of complaints about being part of Virginia. Some were practical, such as the distance to the rest of the Commonwealth via Cumberland Gap. Some were region-specific, such as Virginia's government essentially the ignoring the importance of trade via the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to what was then Kentucky County. The latter certainly qualifies as dissatisfaction with the way the state government was running things.
My understanding is that Kentucky was NOT a split but rather the feds strong-arming Virginia into ceding its land, which later elected to become a state itself.  Before this happened, there was actually a proposal for a split (state of Franklin), but it didn't follow the same borders.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 17, 2014, 08:35:39 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 17, 2014, 06:32:13 PMBut for what it's worth, Kentucky residents did have a number of complaints about being part of Virginia.

Yes, we hated the ban on radar detectors and the "80 mph as reckless driving" law.  :-D
:thumbsup:
QuoteSeriously, there are probably counties in the southwestern part of Virginia that are closer to Frankfort than they are to Richmond. They're definitely closer to Charleston, WV. I can understand if Lee, Scott, Wise and even Dickenson and Buchanan feel neglected.
I suspect those counties were part of the original Franklin proposal.  The state of Franklin was to include land that remained part of Virginia.

Quote from: english si on September 17, 2014, 02:52:41 PM
It's a new member under EU law. While, personally, I think Scotland (like every country) would be better off having a Norwegian/Swiss-type relationship with other European countries (a trade agreement, not a superstate - even a customs union is too far if its with the little-Europeans who hate the idea of the wider world), I think the EU should aim to let them enter on the existing UK terms the minute they become independent.

However, the EU have been very clear that iScotland ceases to be in the EU the minute it departs a member state. EU law says "The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory". Salmond and the SNP are basically committing electoral fraud here by saying that they will be part of the EU guaranteed (and the papers will say tomorrow, as their websites have broken the story today, that they covered up the above linked document that was sent to them). Especially as Salmond's "Keep the pound" policy is illegal under EU law (no Central Bank) and even if achieved in better ways than basically relying on the Bank of England (it does seem strange - wanting independence, but then wanting fiscal policy decided by the old country) to support Scottish banks, then as its shadowing the Pound and not the Euro, then that's also illegal unless Scotland somehow gets the EU to let them keep the UK's opt out of that law.
I do not understand why Europe like setting up laws to make things more convoluted rather than streamlined.  They should merge the EU, Schegen, currency, etc. into one system where you're either in or out, and states shouldn't be kicked out for declaring independence.  This is one of those cases where laws and morals/common sense aren't in agreement and IMO in such cases the law should be thrown out the window every time.

I suspect Scotland wants to retain the pound so that they don't have to re-label prices or exchange currency when visiting the UK.  Plus the Euro is a weaker currency anyways.  Keeping the pound would allow them to keep the financial system identical.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

kkt

Quote from: vdeane on September 18, 2014, 01:20:42 PM
I do not understand why Europe like setting up laws to make things more convoluted rather than streamlined.  They should merge the EU, Schegen, currency, etc. into one system where you're either in or out, and states shouldn't be kicked out for declaring independence.

Plus the Euro is a weaker currency anyways.

You seem to have answered your own question.  The UK doesn't want the Euro or Schengen so they can keep the pound strong and restrict immigration.  Yet the UK and Euro countries still mutually benefit from other aspects of the EU.


DandyDan

Just a stupid question: if Scotland successfully left the UK, would the UK be the UK anymore?
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.