Posted on 07/15/2012 11:03:50 AM PDT by robowombat
Scotland's 'explosive' push to secede from the U.K. Scotland's first minister promises to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. Could it really succeed? POSTED ON JANUARY 13, 2012, AT 5:21 PM
Scottish nationalists have dreamed of independence for centuries, and now, Scotland First Minister Alex Salmond is really trying to pull it off. Salmond has announced plans to hold a referendum in fall 2014 on breaking away from the United Kingdom, setting off a week of friction between Edinburgh and London. Will Scotland and the U.K. really part ways? Here's what you should know:
What exactly is Scotland's relationship to the U.K.? More than 300 years ago, Scotland and England were joined by the Act of Union that formally created the U.K. (the two nations, though separate, had already been ruled by one king for more than a century). Today, Queen Elizabeth II is still Scotland's head of state. Scotland has a government, legal system, and parliament of its own, in addition to representatives in the U.K. Parliament.
And Scotland wants independence? Some Scots do. Such talk has been percolating ever since 1707, when the U.K. was formed. But over the centuries, there didn't seem to be much chance that the split would actually happen. Now, says Alex Massie at The Daily Beast, "for the first time since Bonnie Prince Charlie led an army of Highland Scots into England in 1745, the survival of the United Kingdom is in doubt."
What's driving this latest push? In the 1980s, conservative Tories failed to deliver a promised referendum to establish a Scottish assembly and faced a brutal backlash from voters. The Labor party didn't want to make the same mistake, and in 1997, a referendum passed leading to the creation of the Scottish Parliament. There, resurgent Scottish national sentiment has thrived. One major driver: The common wisdom that unity with its larger neighbor was essential for Scotland's prosperity has eroded over the last few decades, particularly as Scotland's heavy industry declined.
But why now? Last May, Salmond's Scottish National Party won 69 of Parliament's 129 seats. It was "a thumping, astonishing victory" when you consider there are five parties in the system, Massie says, and the seemingly clear and overwhelming mandate made a referendum on independence "inevitable." Indeed, it makes perfect sense that this would be happening now, says Heather Horn at The Atlantic. Europe is in the grip of a painful economic crisis, and "nationalism surges as economies stagnate."
So is this the end of the union? Not necessarily. A referendum is bound to be "explosive," says Anna Tomforde at Monsters and Critics. And its success or failure could depend on many variables — such as whether it's a yes-or-no vote on full independence, or a multi-question ballot with a middle-ground option maintaining an element of unity. Despite Salmond's popularity, polls suggest most Scots don't actually support full independence. Thirty-five percent want to be a completely separate nation, while 55 percent remain opposed. So the government in London, which at first insisted that British Parliament would have to OK any vote, is now pushing for a referendum as soon as possible, says Agence France Presse, so Salmond won't have time to win over a majority.
Sources: AFP, Atlantic, Daily Beast, Guardian, Monsters and Critics, Telegraph
Well there is Laphroaig!
I had an epiphany of Sarah Palin in war paint, the Tea Party is a fully armed organize continental militia and she leads the nation to a better future than what the communists have done.
Yup, Canada has the best in bagpipes: see offkilter.net
“Labour will collapse.”
Ah, this makes me think that there will be a huge fight to stop the split from happening. It would be a wonderful thing, though.
The sorry state of Scotland makes me sad. As a Presbyterian, I hate seeing what has become of the holy land. ;-)
Natural gas and oil and lots of it.
For starters, I think this is a great idea.
One of the best ways to get rid of socialism is to force these twerps to pay their own way. Once done, suddenly socialism doesn’t look quite so attractive.
So the best way to get the Scots’ heads out from under their kilts is to cut them off from the subsidy from England. Force them to reckon with the costs of their political class.
The other upside is that the English political system will be rid of the grifters from the north, as you point out.
It’s nowhere near that high.
Government employment in Scotland is a bit under 25% (remember, their NHS means that most medical professionals are considered government employees) and they have about 11% of working age people on the dole.
If you look at the Scottish economy, they’re operating at a trade deficit without the North Sea oil, and they’d be just about break-even with the North Sea Oil included in their economic stats. That’s better than the US is doing...
Of course the Scots would argue they are net contributors to the UK as they believe the north sea oil belongs to Scotland, not to the UK. . . . . .
Scotland is a lovely place, but as you say, when scottish tax-payers have to fund their ‘everything free’ system by themselves it won’t be so much fun.
Whilst I want Scotland to become independent I doubt it will happen soon. The current financial fiasco that is the euro makes this an incredibly dangerous time for tiny countries to want to become ‘independent’.
Then if they’re smart, they don’t join the Euro. That simple. They retain the Scottish Pound and if they’re smart, they back it with metal. If they were to do that and have banking transparency, they’d have a flood of money washing up on their shores. Their problem wouldn’t be a lack of money, it would be the same problem the Swiss are having - the Swiss Franc has to be deliberately devalued so as to maintain some level of export pricing viability.
I examined the numbers last night on Scottish GDP with and without north sea oil. Without the oil factored in, they’re doing a bit better than the US is, financially. Now, you can look at that either one of two ways, in light of your comments....
Ah - forgot to mention this:
Considering the crap that is sloshing around the UK banking sector and The City, it is probably a very good time to get loose of The City, even if that means ditching the union.
The banking liabilities in the world due to derivatives gone mad are the largest in London and NYC. If the Scots (and anyone else) can isolate their national treasuries from having to backstop the large banks, then that alone is a sound reason to want to split off.
Beg to differ:
From Macleans Ca 3/18/2010 by Mark Steyn:
“In Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, government spending accounts for between 73 and 78 per cent of the economy, which is about as high as you can get without embracing full-scale Sovietization. In the English city of Newcastle, three-quarters of the working population are employed by the government.”
‘Last year Scotland provided 9.3% (6 billion of that from Oil) of the U.K. revenues and received 9.4% in return, with defence etc. given free.’
Do a bit of research and you find this -
Financial Year 2010/11
Total Revenue from Scotland as a % of UK - 8.3%
(NOT including North Sea Oil)
Total Revenue from Scotland as a % of UK - 9.6%
(INCLUDING North Sea Oil on a geographical share)
Expenditure in Scotland by UK Government as a % of UK - 9.26%.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS
Defence, etc. is NOT free. The difference in per capita expenditure figures between Scotland and the rest of the UK does not take into account the Barnett formula consequentials.
Figures for 2011/12 have not been published yet. How does it feel knowing that you have been used to spread deliberate misinformation?
“How important is this issue to people in Scotland and England these days?”
Like you see on this thread, the English are likely to say something like, “There go those silly Scots again. Good riddence. We want out money back.”
Scottish nationalists, on the other hand, are very serious about independence - with less regard for the economics and more regard for self-determination. Scotland is VERY socialist.
Scots have struggled for centuries to maintain their culture in the face of what many Scots see as English “occupation”. I have never observed a more quietly stubborn people (their national flower is the thistle), the American tendency to see anyone from the UK as “English” not withstanding.
Oh, Welcome aboard. Hope you enjoy the Forum.
No doubt from where you are it may appear that ‘the two sources of data are so inconsequential’. I can assure you that here in Scotland they are in fact VERY consequential. Something that you will not be aware of is ‘The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order’ in 1999. This went through Westminster on the ‘nod’. It removed 6000 square miles of the North Sea from Scottish Waters into English Waters.
Thanks for the welcome.
“Then if they’re smart, they don’t join the Euro. That simple. They retain the Scottish Pound and if they’re smart, they back it with metal. If they were to do that and have banking transparency, they’d have a flood of money washing up on their shores.”
They don’t intend to join the euro - they will keep the pound. The problem is, there is no such thing as the ‘Scottish Pound’ and the creation of one is not feasible. They will use the English pound and the bank of england will be their central bank. The BoE will set interest rates to suit England, not Scotland and the scots will have no fiscal control over the currency they use and no lender of last resort - precisely what has caused most of the problems in the eurozone.
“I examined the numbers last night on Scottish GDP with and without north sea oil. Without the oil factored in, they’re doing a bit better than the US is, financially. Now, you can look at that either one of two ways, in light of your comments....”
When you examined the numbers did you allow for the fact that 25% of scots are employed in the UK public sector? 95% of those jobs and the english money that funds them will disappear on day one of independence. Add to that the fact that many of Scotland’s iconic industries such as Whisky are owned by London based companies (ie Diageo) who pay their tax in England and things don’t look quite so rosy.
“Considering the crap that is sloshing around the UK banking sector and The City, it is probably a very good time to get loose of The City, even if that means ditching the union.
The banking liabilities in the world due to derivatives gone mad are the largest in London and NYC. If the Scots (and anyone else) can isolate their national treasuries from having to backstop the large banks, then that alone is a sound reason to want to split off.”
Not possible as they intend to retain the UK pound and the bank of england as their central bank. They will get all the disadvantages coupled to zero fiscal influence.
Me too. I love Scotland and would love to live there.
Moosie, you’re asleep, but I’ll see you tomorrow!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.