Scotland Independence Referendum Set for June 24

[saxitoxin]

I - Voting is now scheduled for June 24, 2014, to determine the breakup of the UK. The British government conceded to Scottish demands that 16 year olds be allowed to vote, that a simple majority would be sufficient for secession and that the referendum be held on the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/14/scottish-independence-2014-referendum

II - The Washington Post has declared the continuing fragmentation of Europe is a dangerous trend and says the balkanization of Britain could produce a Yugoslavia-like scenario. It is urging a "no" vote.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-could-create-a-less-stable-world-claims-leading-us-paper-1-2608965

III - The Royal United Services Institute has produced a White Paper that says Scotland would save $3 billion on military matters in independence and predicts an independent Scotland would field a 10,000-man army, a 20-ship navy composed of 2 of the RN's Type 23 frigates plus a number of patrol craft and minesweepers, and an air force built around the aging BaE Hawk.

http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N507BDE949F81D/#.UJHb3oaHeSo

IV - The Scottish National Party has launched an ambitious plan to, on the eve of the vote, flood the country with 60,000 Americans descended from Scots who were sentenced to prison travel to North America but bumbling by the SNP has put the plans in doubt.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/60000-americans-told-to-drop-plans-to-visit-scotland.19260659

[MegaProphet]

My roommate does not think that Scottish Independence is in the best interest of the nation. She's worried that it's economy will suffer.

[maxfaraday]

I - Voting is now scheduled for June 24, 2014, to determine the breakup of the UK. The British government conceded to Scottish demands that 16 year olds be allowed to vote, that a simple majority would be sufficient for secession and that the referendum be held on the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/14/scottish-independence-2014-referendum

II - The Washington Post has declared the continuing fragmentation of Europe is a dangerous trend and says the balkanization of Britain could produce a Yugoslavia-like scenario. It is urging a "no" vote.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-could-create-a-less-stable-world-claims-leading-us-paper-1-2608965

III - The Royal United Services Institute has produced a White Paper that says Scotland would save $3 billion on military matters in independence and predicts an independent Scotland would field a 10,000-man army, a 20-ship navy composed of 2 of the RN's Type 23 frigates plus a number of patrol craft and minesweepers, and an air force built around the aging BaE Hawk.

http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N507BDE949F81D/#.UJHb3oaHeSo

IV - The Scottish National Party has launched an ambitious plan to, on the eve of the vote, flood the country with 60,000 Americans descended from Scots who were sentenced to prison travel to North America but bumbling by the SNP has put the plans in doubt.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/60000-americans-told-to-drop-plans-to-visit-scotland.19260659

Will red, blue, green and purple be the colours of their new flag?

[saxitoxin]

Will red, blue, green and purple be the colours of their new flag?

A Highland Welcome -

[Army of GOD]

[comic boy]

My roommate does not think that Scottish Independence is in the best interest of the nation. She's worried that it's economy will suffer.

She is correct which is why the Scots will almost certainly vote no.

[pmchugh]

It wont get voted through, mostly because people aren't confident in our economic situation. There were some recent statistics showing that a difference of being £500 better off was enough to cause a 45% change in the way people would vote. I will probably vote yes, but unless the pro-campaign can convince the public that we would be better off economically alone then I doubt they will get much more than 40-45%.

[BigBallinStalin]

My roommate does not think that Scottish Independence is in the best interest of the nation. She's worried that it's economy will suffer.

She is correct which is why the Scots will almost certainly vote no.

How do you know (re: underlined)?

[MegaProphet]

It wont get voted through, mostly because people aren't confident in our economic situation. There were some recent statistics showing that a difference of being £500 better off was enough to cause a 45% change in the way people would vote. I will probably vote yes, but unless the pro-campaign can convince the public that we would be better off economically alone then I doubt they will get much more than 40-45%.

Why are you voting yes?

[saxitoxin]

Does the independence question have to rely on economic matters? Maybe Scots don't want to be a nuclear weapons warehouse, or don't want their culture blandly homogenized, or want to bring back their German king instead of time-sharing England's German king.

I doubt Croatia did an economic analysis before it left Yugoslavia. Aren't Scotland and Croatia roughly the same? Can independence be a valid goal even in the face of an economic loss?

[BigBallinStalin]

Does the independence question have to rely on economic matters? Maybe Scots don't want to be a nuclear weapons warehouse, or don't want their culture blandly homogenized, or want to bring back their German king instead of time-sharing England's German king.

I doubt Croatia did an economic analysis before it left Yugoslavia. Aren't Scotland and Croatia roughly the same? Can independence be a valid goal even in the face of an economic loss?

Sure, norms matter, but clarifying the perceived benefits and costs in a monetary fashion is still useful.

If the cost of transition was $100,000 per Scot for 10 years, then independence may be a bad move--even after considering your concerns. In order to know if that is best for every Scot, then a referendum whose voters are informed (lol) would be ideal.

[comic boy]

My roommate does not think that Scottish Independence is in the best interest of the nation. She's worried that it's economy will suffer.

She is correct which is why the Scots will almost certainly vote no.

How do you know (re: underlined)?

It is very much the majority opinion over here , if it were not so then there would be overwhelming support in Scotland and that is simply not the case. What you have to realise is that , despite public statements to the contrary , Scotland leaving the union would serve Cameron very nicely , it would all but guarantee a conservative government for decades.
In truth most of us in England could care less , there would be some historical sentiment but the English very much see themselves as subsidising Scotland so there would not be too many tears shed south of the border.
It is widely thought that the SNP have used the threat of independence as a bargaining tool , by refusing the second ballot question Cameron has called their bluff , in political terms he has played a blinder.

[BigBallinStalin]

My roommate does not think that Scottish Independence is in the best interest of the nation. She's worried that it's economy will suffer.

She is correct which is why the Scots will almost certainly vote no.

How do you know (re: underlined)?

It is very much the majority opinion over here , if it were not so then there would be overwhelming support in Scotland and that is simply not the case. What you have to realise is that , despite public statements to the contrary , Scotland leaving the union would serve Cameron very nicely , it would all but guarantee a conservative government for decades.
In truth most of us in England could care less , there would be some historical sentiment but the English very much see themselves as subsidising Scotland so there would not be too many tears shed south of the border.
It is widely thought that the SNP have used the threat of independence as a bargaining tool , by refusing the second ballot question Cameron has called their bluff , in political terms he has played a blinder.

(regarding leverage).

show

(still not seeing evidence that Scotland would be economically worse off). Honestly, I wouldn't trust any economic impact report, or at a minimum, I'd give it a wide, unresolvable leeway.

[MeDeFe]

I think any economic impact could be kept to negligible levels. A majority vote in favour of independence won't mean that Scotland secedes immediately, it would merely be the beginning of the process and leave ample time to formulate trade agreements that ensure the process goes as smoothly as possible for everyone involved, which is more or less all of Europe.

[comic boy]

The SNP makes the case that Scotland would be better off economically but its position is based on one sided assumptions such as 90% ownership of North sea oil , immediate entry to the EEC and retention of assets but not shared debt. Unfortunately this rhetoric seems based more on wishfull thinking than sound economic and legal advice.
Given that Scotland has the highest percentage of public sector workers in the United Kingdom , with only 170,000 taxpayers working in the private sector, there is the very real fear that if the SDP forecasts prove optimistic then the post independent economy would collapse.
In short there could , in the right circumstances , be economic upturn but the flip side would be a literal disaster , hence the scepticism of many Scots.

[BigBallinStalin]

The SNP makes the case that Scotland would be better off economically but its position is based on one sided assumptions such as 90% ownership of North sea oil , immediate entry to the EEC and retention of assets but not shared debt. Unfortunately this rhetoric seems based more on wishfull thinking than sound economic and legal advice.

Generally, that kind of economic report is a giant "if P, then Q" argument. It may be valid and not sound, but with policy prescriptions, they can never be sound (how does one prove future actions?). Nevertheless, they're necessary in order to plan and coordinate. The problem is that such analysis can be biased (thus bad economics), or even if the report is based on good economics, the politicians will ignore parts of the report and highlight only the good (rhetoric). Just sayin'.

Given that Scotland has the highest percentage of public sector workers in the United Kingdom , with only 170,000 taxpayers working in the private sector, there is the very real fear that if the SDP forecasts prove optimistic then the post independent economy would collapse.
In short there could , in the right circumstances , be economic upturn but the flip side would be a literal disaster , hence the scepticism of many Scots.

That could be a serious problem, but maybe not--depending on how Scotland retains 'tax rights' over North Sea oil, etc.

MeDeFe stated the transition will be slow, and from what I've read about this, I agree. In my opinion (and this is may be too early to say), economic growth/contraction is likely to be minor, so I would be hesitant to claim 'a disaster could occur because the Scotland became a sovereign state.' There's healthy skepticism and unhealthy skepticism.

[Symmetry]

There really is no option of a fast transition- it would have to be slow if Scotland was to become truly separate. Untangling the two nations would take a long time. My guess would be the the initial transition would be nominal, and then political (don't forget that the former prime minister of the UK was Scottish), and from there on I think we're looking at about a decade at least.

[pmchugh]

It wont get voted through, mostly because people aren't confident in our economic situation. There were some recent statistics showing that a difference of being £500 better off was enough to cause a 45% change in the way people would vote. I will probably vote yes, but unless the pro-campaign can convince the public that we would be better off economically alone then I doubt they will get much more than 40-45%.

Why are you voting yes?

I am not an economic expert, and quite frankly I have no idea whether we would be better off or not but I certainly don't take to the scaremongering in some parts of the press. So this is a wash for me.

Scotland in general has a different political landscape from England, and independence would give Scots a government much more in line with their own values.

And finally, it would mean the death of the Torries in Scotland.

[saxitoxin]

1. Every recent proposal for independence for any nation in the world has been accompanied by the threat of economic disaster for the independence-seeking region (see: Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, etc.) and wild pronouncements of how the leftover areas would actually be better off without them.



2. Why would the breakup have to be slow and take 10 years? The breakup of Yugoslavia happened in the space of a year. South Sudan was independent from Sudan 8 months after their referendum. Czechoslovakia divided less than 60 days after enacting their partition agreement. A rump UK may need 10 years to figure out where to store their nuclear weapons, where to move X/Y/Z facility, etc., but Scotland should only need a few days to deliver eviction notices. There's a difference between "we need 10 years to manage the breakup" and "we want 10 years to manage the breakup." Yes, a fast breakup would be extremely messy for the leftovers of the UK, however, I'm unclear why that would matter to a post-Union Scotland at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sometimes, it's more profitable to be nice (do it slowly).

[MeDeFe]

1. Every recent proposal for independence for any nation in the world has been accompanied by the threat of economic disaster for the independence-seeking region (see: Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, etc.) and wild pronouncements of how the leftover areas would actually be better off without them.



2. Why would the breakup have to be slow and take 10 years? The breakup of Yugoslavia happened in the space of a year. South Sudan was independent from Sudan 8 months after their referendum. Czechoslovakia divided less than 60 days after enacting their partition agreement. A rump UK may need 10 years to figure out where to store their nuclear weapons, where to move X/Y/Z facility, etc., but Scotland should only need a few days to deliver eviction notices. There's a difference between "we need 10 years to manage the breakup" and "we want 10 years to manage the breakup." Yes, a fast breakup would be extremely messy for the leftovers of the UK, however, I'm unclear why that would matter to a post-Union Scotland at all.

As a scholar and expert in the field of lovemaking surely you know the difference between a quick in-n-out in a public restroom, and candlelit dinner followed by an extended session in a bed covered in rose petals. Scotland and England however have been in a threesome with the EU and managed to get themselves entangled in bondage ropes not intended for use by more than one person at a time. Simply cutting the ropes and letting them drop to the floor would free them, yes, but also lead to severe bruises and broken bones, untangling this knot is going to take some time.

[saxitoxin]

1. Every recent proposal for independence for any nation in the world has been accompanied by the threat of economic disaster for the independence-seeking region (see: Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, etc.) and wild pronouncements of how the leftover areas would actually be better off without them.



2. Why would the breakup have to be slow and take 10 years? The breakup of Yugoslavia happened in the space of a year. South Sudan was independent from Sudan 8 months after their referendum. Czechoslovakia divided less than 60 days after enacting their partition agreement. A rump UK may need 10 years to figure out where to store their nuclear weapons, where to move X/Y/Z facility, etc., but Scotland should only need a few days to deliver eviction notices. There's a difference between "we need 10 years to manage the breakup" and "we want 10 years to manage the breakup." Yes, a fast breakup would be extremely messy for the leftovers of the UK, however, I'm unclear why that would matter to a post-Union Scotland at all.

As a scholar and expert in the field of lovemaking surely you know the difference between a quick in-n-out in a public restroom, and candlelit dinner followed by an extended session in a bed covered in rose petals. Scotland and England however have been in a threesome with the EU and managed to get themselves entangled in bondage ropes not intended for use by more than one person at a time. Simply cutting the ropes and letting them drop to the floor would free them, yes, but also lead to severe bruises and broken bones, untangling this knot is going to take some time.

When you put it in that way I see your point.

[notyou2]

The SNP makes the case that Scotland would be better off economically but its position is based on one sided assumptions such as 90% ownership of North sea oil , immediate entry to the EEC and retention of assets but not shared debt. Unfortunately this rhetoric seems based more on wishfull thinking than sound economic and legal advice.
Given that Scotland has the highest percentage of public sector workers in the United Kingdom , with only 170,000 taxpayers working in the private sector, there is the very real fear that if the SDP forecasts prove optimistic then the post independent economy would collapse.
In short there could , in the right circumstances , be economic upturn but the flip side would be a literal disaster , hence the scepticism of many Scots.

The federal jobs issue you mentioned makes it very similar to the Quebec independence issue in Canada.

[Symmetry]

The SNP makes the case that Scotland would be better off economically but its position is based on one sided assumptions such as 90% ownership of North sea oil , immediate entry to the EEC and retention of assets but not shared debt. Unfortunately this rhetoric seems based more on wishfull thinking than sound economic and legal advice.
Given that Scotland has the highest percentage of public sector workers in the United Kingdom , with only 170,000 taxpayers working in the private sector, there is the very real fear that if the SDP forecasts prove optimistic then the post independent economy would collapse.
In short there could , in the right circumstances , be economic upturn but the flip side would be a literal disaster , hence the scepticism of many Scots.

The federal jobs issue you mentioned makes it very similar to the Quebec independence issue in Canada.

Hmm, that figure seems kind of way off.

The public sector, in Scotland, has a significant impact upon the economy and comprises central government departments, local government, and public corporations. In quarter 3 of 2005, there were 577,300 people employed in the public sector, which accounts for 23.4% of employment in Scotland - this includes all medical professionals employed within the National Health Service in Scotland, those employed in the emergency services and those employed in the state education and higher education sector.[62] This is in addition to employees of the government in the civil service and in local government as well as public bodies and corporations.

Link

[pmchugh]

I wish half the people in this thread lived in Scotland. Even Especially saxi.