The question I'm asking myself is not so much if, but how. The successor state to the United Kingdom will simply be... as far as I know... the United Kingdom. Scotland will have to start from scratch and I'd be adamantly opposed to Scottish accession to the EU, if only because of the blunt instrument (referendum) by which they're moving toward independence and the ungovernability of the current Union due to its many members.

Yeah I also agree that it sets a complicated and unfortunate precedent with respect to EU membership.

Honestly I don't see much reason for their independence other than psychological reasons, which is to say, they don't have a good reason.

Granted, I am not conversant in their debate, but from hearing people talk about it, generally the Yes camp seems to be mostly consisting of nostalgics.

I agree and I also don't see how - in this cultural area - the Scots don't already have exactly what they want.

Thinking about it, they'd probably be out of NATO too. In these days NATO membership seems to come in handy on the world stage.

There arent any good reasons to vote no. it is the pro democracy arguement that is persuading people in scotland.

Why aren't there good reasons to vote no? Here's a good reason: the United Kingdom has been united for 300 years. Why stop now?

I think for clarity YES and NO need to be defined :-)

And here I thought this thread was going to be about Macbeth...:D

Thucydides the answer is for more democracy and for a political elite that is more willing to represent their electorates views. Do you know about the democratic deficit in the UK? Most people in Scotland would prefer to have a representative democracy - a democracy that legislates with Scottish interests the main reason for their policies, not British ones. Currently, out of the 4 major parties in Scotland, only one political party doesn't follow orders from London; when asked Scottish people tend not to be too pleased about this.

@ redhouse: "I think for clarity YES and NO need to be defined"

Okay, I can provide that. The exact wording of the referendum question is:

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

The only voting options are "YES" or "NO" and the outcome will be decided on a simple majority basis. (That is, if there is even one more vote cast for "NO" than for "YES", then the outcome is "NO", and vice versa)

If a simple majority of those casting a vote select "YES", then Scotland will secede from the rest of the UK and become a seperate, sovereign country.

If a simple majority of those casting a vote select "NO", then Scotland will remain part of the UK as it is now.

In theory, I have scottish descent. That doesn't give me a vote, but I gotta say I'm in the YES camp. I like that the Scots at least attempt to keep Great Britain sane and non-horrible, but they don't really deserve to be saddled with it.

Yes is still behind in poll averages.

The closer of an argument against independence is the currency issue. Scotland using the pound without rUK's permission will for Scotland to more or less immediately balance their budget. All these Caledonia lefties who want to be free of even the possibility of living under a Tory government are ironically creating a Thatcherite paradise in their homeland.

Yeah, there are several major issues with this whole cannot use the pound stuff. First, the British government can't stop Scotland using the pound, barring ridiculous measures. Second, Scotland can use the Euro. You know, like most of civilized europe does.

Yes is behind in poll averages because the central government is making promises to the scots it probably won't keep, but whatever.

Yeah, they can't be stopped from using the pound. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the effects of using the pound without permission, which would be harsh.

As for the euro, the SNP has said they won't use the euro. Even if they changed their mind, it would just mean giving Berlin control of the economy rather than London. Why is Hollande be so un-socialist in his policies? It's because Merkel won't let him. Scotland joining the euro would have a host of problems all its own.


It's not behind in poll averages because of those promises, it's behind because the average of polls puts No ahead still. Right now, this poll with yes barely ahead is an outlier.

No one has ever suggested Scotland can't use the pound. The options are either they can use it but have zero influence over the interest rates etc, or (if rUK is feeling generous) have a say in the currency consistent with the size of their population (which amounts to the same thing). Whether Scotland has the Euro option is a matter for debate, and not something I'd like to bet on.

Scotland's biggest problem (should it vote yes) is that it will be a new nation with few friends. The rUK will be a close friend, of course, but will be obliged to put its citizens first which will mean Scotland will get far less generous treatment than what they're used to. The Americans will be bloody annoyed with them, but more importantly a number of European nations will have it in their interests for Scotland to be seen having a hard time of it. Further afield most nations will view Scotland as a tiny voice in a big world.

Still, it is very much Scotland's choice and it surprises me how much opposition there is around the world to the concept of the referendum. I remain confident the Scots will make the right choice. If not I will write an angry letter to the SNP complaining about the inconvenience of me having to get a Scottish passport

"Still, it is very much Scotland's choice and it surprises me how much opposition there is around the world to the concept of the referendum."
-Because this is not a yes/no kind of question
-Because this is what we elect a parliament for
-Because the English and Welsh should also have a say in this, not just the Scottish

@ redhouse: "Because this is what we elect a parliament for"

What do you mean by this statement? Both the UK Parliament, and the Scottish Parliament, voted to hold this referendum.

Well that's merely a personal question, I don't believe my parliament has the right to give me back issues that I give to them to be resolved. So it's more of a general opposition to referenda than to this one, although when Scotland would apply for EU membership, then I certainly believe the process by which independence was acquired matters.

So... you'd be fine with the SNP unilaterally declaring independence? They have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, after all.

As I said, I believe it's not just the Scottish who should get a say in this :P

Why do you believe that?

Who wouldn't believe that?

I don't see how it fits into self-determination. Hypothetically, 90% of Scots could vote for independence, but since England has so many more people it could still block independence. How can we justify that?

Okay Invictus... If we really must...

Let's take a few Texas towns where there's lots of oil. Do they have the right to secede from the US?

If we're talking about legal rights, no. I don't understand where you're going here. A town in Texas is clearly distinguishable from a place like Scotland.

Okay. Well, Alaska secedes: what do you do? Do you accept the higher gasoline prices due to their owning a lot of fields?

Also, I never said that the English, Welsh and N-Irish should get a say in the decision the same way that Scotland does. Perhaps you could agree that at least 67% has to be against secession to stop it if less than 55% of the Scottish want it, just to name an example, but they deserve a say.

Because of our, ahem, messy history with secession there isn't much of a mechanism for how to do it without just winning another civil war. The closest thing is a Supreme Court case called Texas v. White.

That case says that peaceful secession of a state would require the consent of the other states. While I suppose this could mean 49 other referenda, in practice it must mean Congress gives the OK.

So Alaska seceding would follow this Scottish example pretty closely, I imagine. The one difference would be that Congress would probably agree to independence AFTER a successful referendum rather than guaranteeing independence based on the result before the referendum was held, but that's a minor point (it's because we don't have national referenda here; it only happens at the state level).

Also, Congress could pass a new law regulating how this works, too.


As for the 12:09 post, I still don't see why you think some lady in Norfolk ought to have a say in whether Scotland is independent, regardless of how we play with percentages.

@ Red

That sounds like madness to me. Scotland has been a nation for a very long time and has the ultimate control over its destiny. Scotland, like England, is very British, and one thing that Brits do not stand for is being told what to do. The principle that a British nation decides its fate far outweighs the principle that all those impacted should have a say. After all, the UK is impacted by whatever incompetent self serving prat the French choose to put in power, but that doesn't mean we should have a share of the vote.

@Kofi

I know about the democratic deficit, yes. It is a deficit that is long-standing, and transnational. I am simply unconvinced that an independent Scottish government would be any more democratic. It's naive to think so.