One Word Post - Should Scotland Be An Independent Country? Yes Or No.

[Norgethistle]

 

 

But who is the independent economic consultancy that is working on the Weir report? How can we be sure that it will not be biased, i.e. reflect the political views of the consultants?

 

KPMG's report on the economic benefits of HS2 was a classic example of the "independent consultants" producing a report with the conclusion that the client wanted. It was torn to shreds by economists and industry experts. Even the BBC ridiculed it.

 

Do you honestly think that the Weir Group will publish a report that contradicts the views of the directors or its major shareholders?

 

The same can be said of both the SNP's and the NO campaigns, if you are commissioning a report it will probably be to suit your ovn ends, but at least Weir have to answer to their shareholders

[Blackpool Jags]

Please forgive me here for what is no doubt a crass question: if the vote goes the way of pro-independence, then doesn't that mean a straight reversal of the union of the crowns - a re-establishment of the separate monarchies?

 

I'm in no way suggesting that there should, for whatever reason, be a freshly established Scottish monarchy; but that might be a logical conclusion if only theoretical? And if an independent Scotland is to retain the English monarch as its (notional) head of state, then would that be on a basis similar to that of Australia, New Zealand (Canada?) etc? I'm pretty much undecided on the big question, but why have the monarch of your recently divorced 'partner' country as your head of state - isn't that a bit like retaining your mother-in-law after a messy divorce?

 

And finally, on constitutional matters, I've always been curious as to why the original monarch of the union was referred to as James I, having been James IV of Scotland, when the current incumbent is allowed to be called Elizabeth II when her earlier namesake reigned well before the union?

[Guy Incognito]

So we have Standard life talking about moving out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26364418

 

The Weir group to take stock and more importantly publish their views http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-business-giant-plans-report-1-3321780

 

I think the Weir idea is great and should show an un politically biased view based purely on a business point of view

 

Standard Life have form for this kind of thing though.

 

Here is a newspaper article highlighting what they said in 1992 ahead of the general election of that year:

 

 

They are actually being a wee bit more circumspect this time. This is their official statement:

 

http://www.standardlife.com/utility/customer_statement.html

 

Their approach is just one of due diligence, on face value at least. From the way it was reported, though, you would have thought they had already begun dismantling their headquarters brick by brick. The misreporting of this fairly minor story was outrageous. Nowhere, for instance, do they say they will move to England, as was widely suggested in the media.

 

 

[Guy Incognito]

Please forgive me here for what is no doubt a crass question: if the vote goes the way of pro-independence, then doesn't that mean a straight reversal of the union of the crowns - a re-establishment of the separate monarchies?

 

I'm in no way suggesting that there should, for whatever reason, be a freshly established Scottish monarchy; but that might be a logical conclusion if only theoretical? And if an independent Scotland is to retain the English monarch as its (notional) head of state, then would that be on a basis similar to that of Australia, New Zealand (Canada?) etc? I'm pretty much undecided on the big question, but why have the monarch of your recently divorced 'partner' country as your head of state - isn't that a bit like retaining your mother-in-law after a messy divorce?

 

And finally, on constitutional matters, I've always been curious as to why the original monarch of the union was referred to as James I, having been James IV of Scotland, when the current incumbent is allowed to be called Elizabeth II when her earlier namesake reigned well before the union?

 

It would be a reversal of the political union which began in 1707. The union of the crowns would, as I understand it, remain in place.

 

Speaking as someone who favours a republic, however, I would be quite happy to see both dissolved. One step at a time though, eh.

 

As for your last question, it is an interesting one but it is one I don't know the answer to. Maybe one of our unionist brethren can enlighten us though.

[Blackpool Jags]

Cheers, Guy.

[kni]

Please forgive me here for what is no doubt a crass question: if the vote goes the way of pro-independence, then doesn't that mean a straight reversal of the union of the crowns - a re-establishment of the separate monarchies?

 

I'm in no way suggesting that there should, for whatever reason, be a freshly established Scottish monarchy; but that might be a logical conclusion if only theoretical? And if an independent Scotland is to retain the English monarch as its (notional) head of state, then would that be on a basis similar to that of Australia, New Zealand (Canada?) etc? I'm pretty much undecided on the big question, but why have the monarch of your recently divorced 'partner' country as your head of state - isn't that a bit like retaining your mother-in-law after a messy divorce?

 

And finally, on constitutional matters, I've always been curious as to why the original monarch of the union was referred to as James I, having been James IV of Scotland, when the current incumbent is allowed to be called Elizabeth II when her earlier namesake reigned well before the union?

 

Salmond has said that HM would remain Queen of an independent Scotland. Presumably, he is planning for an independent Scotland to apply for Commonwealth membership.

 

The naming of monarchs appears to be based on the English monarchy. Elizabeth II is the second Queen Elizabeth in England. Similarly, James I was the first King James in England and was, in fact, James VI (not IV) of Scotland.

[Jaggernaut]

Salmond has said that HM would remain Queen of an independent Scotland. Presumably, he is planning for an independent Scotland to apply for Commonwealth membership.

 

I wonder when the newspapers and BBC will give us the headline "Commonwealth Warning for Independent Scotland", with some britnat minion stating that we might not be allowed to join.

 

The naming of monarchs appears to be based on the English monarchy. Elizabeth II is the second Queen Elizabeth in England. Similarly, James I was the first King James in England and was, in fact, James VI (not IV) of Scotland.

 

No surprise, of course. Just as we all have to carry a passport with an English coat of arms, not a UK design. The reason? The English establishment does not give a hoot about anywhere else but England (and maybe the Falkland Islands and, less so, Gibraltar). We all have to dance to Westminster's tune. We're too wee, too poor, and too stupid to either see through their abuse of power or to do anything about it.

 

Until September, that is.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[Mr Scruff]

It would be a reversal of the political union which began in 1707. The union of the crowns would, as I understand it, remain in place.

 

Speaking as someone who favours a republic, however, I would be quite happy to see both dissolved. One step at a time though, eh.

 

As for your last question, it is an interesting one but it is one I don't know the answer to. Maybe one of our unionist brethren can enlighten us though.

As a 'no' voter I'd have been highly persuaded to vote 'yes' if we were to go for actual independence and not have a monarchy or patronage at the constitutional centre of our country (along with separation of church and state, separate currency etc).

 

This cherry picking of what 'independence' means has been a missed opportunity. Like you I'd rather have a republic, although I'd be in favour of a federal republic structure.

[kni]

^ I can't think of any reason why the Commonwealth would refuse an independent Scotland membership. There are no economic or political issues (other separatist/secessionist movements) that would cause problems. The main difference to the EU is, of course, that the Commonwealth is, UK excepted of course, made up of independent sovereign states who are not part of larger political and economic unions.

[kni]

As a 'no' voter I'd have been highly persuaded to vote 'yes' if we were to go for actual independence and not have a monarchy or patronage at the constitutional centre of our country (along with separation of church and state, separate currency etc).

 

This cherry picking of what 'independence' means has been a missed opportunity. Like you I'd rather have a republic, although I'd be in favour of a federal republic structure.

 

We seem to agree on separation of church and state and a separate currency. Why then are you planning to vote no? Don't you trust Salmond?

 

And what do you mean by a federal republic structure? Would you bring back the old regions and devolve powers to them?

[Jaggernaut]

^ I can't think of any reason why the Commonwealth would refuse an independent Scotland membership. There are no economic or political issues (other separatist/secessionist movements) that would cause problems. The main difference to the EU is, of course, that the Commonwealth is, UK excepted of course, made up of independent sovereign states who are not part of larger political and economic unions.

 

There's no reason why Scotland can't be a thriving and successful independent nation either within or outwith the EU, either. But that doesn't stop the constant barrage of "Warning" propaganda messages by the british establishment in order to "persuade" (brainwash) undecided voters into voting for continued dependency on Westminster for themselves and their descendants.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[Mr Scruff]

We seem to agree on separation of church and state and a separate currency. Why then are you planning to vote no? Don't you trust Salmond?

 

And what do you mean by a federal republic structure? Would you bring back the old regions and devolve powers to them?

A short response:

 

Too much potential short term pain for not enough long term gain. I think the actual transition would has the potential to be destructive and if the rebuilding from that would reap substantial benefits for my kids and theirs I'd be in favour. I actually would respect a 'ground up' approach rather than the cherry picked mish-mash currently proposed on the basis of emotive appeals.

 

By federal republic, I'm referring to the whole of the UK, since I think that would provide what some are looking for (not those in favour if 'independence' in name only) in terms of local controls, but sharing resources and opportunities nationally. I realise that this response should properly take much longer, but time is limited this lunchtime...

[Norgethistle]

No surprise, of course. Just as we all have to carry a passport with an English coat of arms, not a UK design.

 

You obviously do not have a passport then or have no idea of the difference between the English coat of arms and the UK coat of Arms (Which is on the passport) and has the Harp (Ireland) and the lion Rampant (Scotland)

 

[Norgethistle]

There's no reason why Scotland can't be a thriving and successful independent nation either within or outwith the EU, either. But that doesn't stop the constant barrage of "Warning" propaganda messages by the british establishment in order to "persuade" (brainwash) undecided voters into voting for continued dependency on Westminster for themselves and their descendants.

 

There has to be warning,, as to be thriving and self sufficient will take decades of hard work, higher taxes and lower benefits to curb the increase in national debt and start to pay it off to a level the interest isn't strangling a small country

[Jaggernaut]

There has to be warning,, as to be thriving and self sufficient will take decades of hard work, higher taxes and lower benefits to curb the increase in national debt and start to pay it off to a level the interest isn't strangling a small country

 

The usual. "Independence is OK for other small countries, but not for Scotland. Be warned!"

[Jaggernaut]

You obviously do not have a passport then or have no idea of the difference between the English coat of arms and the UK coat of Arms (Which is on the passport) and has the Harp (Ireland) and the lion Rampant (Scotland)

 

 

Oh really? Have a look here:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-185567,00.html

[kni]

Oh really? Have a look here:

 

http://www.theguardi...-185567,00.html

 

NorgeThistle is right and the Guardian reader, Alasdair from Uttoxeter, is talking nonsense.

[Jaggernaut]

NorgeThistle is right and the Guardian reader, Alasdair from Uttoxeter, is talking nonsense.

 

On the cover of UK passports: the "Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom," which is the official coat of arms of Queen Elizabeth II (II of England, not Scotland). It shows two examples of the three passant guardant lions of England, one example of the Scottish lion rampant and one Irish harp. The dexter supporter is a crowned English Lion, the sinister is a Scottish unicorn (appropriately enough, chained). The coat features only the motto of the English monarchs (the Scottish motto is totally different, and features nowhere.)

 

So why is this the Royal Coat of Arms of the UK, one might ask? Why was no truly new version created? The answer should be no surprise: it was designed by the English establishment (ETA: as was the designation of Elizabeth as II), and done so to explicitly or tacitly express English dominion over the other countries of the UK (Wales doesn't ever feature). In fact it is also known at the Queens "Arms of Dominion."

 

I think that most britnats don't even pay attention to these things, given their emotional and/or blind loyalty to Westminster's dominion over Scotland.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[kni]

^ Like it or not, Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. All UK/EU citizens carry British/EU passports. The SNP proposes that QE2 will continue to be our monarch after independence. Is the SNP proposing that the new Scottish passports (non-EU hopefully) have the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland or a new coat of arms. This Wikipedia page shows that the history of the Royal Coats of Arms is more complex than your "establishment" conspiracy theory. To describe supporters of the Union (including close members of my family) as "britnats", i.e. short for British Nationalists (and the BNP/ fascist connotations), is deeply offensive.

Edited March 4, 2014 by kni

[Norgethistle]

 

 

The usual. "Independence is OK for other small countries, but not for Scotland. Be warned!"

 

Are you for real,? I never said in my post it's ok for small countries but not for Scotland. I stated for it to be " thriving" to quote you, would take hard work and a lot of tough decisions not quite in line with some folks ideas of a socialist utopia ( low taxes, high benefits)

The Norway model of 20 years ago will get us there, 38% income tax for starters, no redundancy payments, but how would folk feel about that? Only once the debt was paid ( between 20 & 30 years)of did the wages start to rocket and start to give a good way of life

[Jaggernaut]

Are you for real,? I never said in my post it's ok for small countries but not for Scotland. I stated for it to be " thriving" to quote you, would take hard work and a lot of tough decisions not quite in line with some folks ideas of a socialist utopia ( low taxes, high benefits)

The Norway model of 20 years ago will get us there, 38% income tax for starters, no redundancy payments, but how would folk feel about that? Only once the debt was paid ( between 20 & 30 years)of did the wages start to rocket and start to give a good way of life

So what's wrong with that? It's widely accepted that Norway generally has a great standard of living. Scare stories about the level of income tax, the cost of beer etc. don't wash because the salaries permit those levels and costs.

 

Yes, I'm for real. Your support of Scotland's continued dependence on Westminster is also for real, it's clear.

[Jaggernaut]

^ Like it or not, Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. All UK/EU citizens carry British/EU passports. The SNP proposes that QE2 will continue to be our monarch after independence. Is the SNP proposing that the new Scottish passports (non-EU hopefully) have the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland or a new coat of arms. This Wikipedia page shows that the history of the Royal Coats of Arms is more complex than your "establishment" conspiracy theory. To describe supporters of the Union (including close members of my family) as "britnats", i.e. short for British Nationalists (and the BNP/ fascist connotations), is deeply offensive.

 

I didn't call you or your family britnats, but I have no qualms about using the word to describe those whose position is one of "Rule Britannia" at all costs, to prevent Scotland's independence. You find the term "deeply offensive?" So what? I find blind loyalty to Westminster domination over Scotland, and the decades of lying and the plundering of Scotland's resources for the benefit of the Westminster ruling classes to be deeply offensive, to an entire nation.

 

I have no idea about the SNP's plans for a Scottish passport design. Why bring the SNP here? My position on passports has nothing to do with the SNP.

 

And don't forget, the referendum isn't about the SNP.

[Guy Incognito]

 

A short response:

 

Too much potential short term pain for not enough long term gain. I think the actual transition would has the potential to be destructive and if the rebuilding from that would reap substantial benefits for my kids and theirs I'd be in favour. I actually would respect a 'ground up' approach rather than the cherry picked mish-mash currently proposed on the basis of emotive appeals.

 

By federal republic, I'm referring to the whole of the UK, since I think that would provide what some are looking for (not those in favour if 'independence' in name only) in terms of local controls, but sharing resources and opportunities nationally. I realise that this response should properly take much longer, but time is limited this lunchtime...

 

I am struggling to follow your logic a bit here. You say you would be in favour of change but what the SNP propose isn't radical enough, so instead you favour no change at all?

 

To be honest, I don't subscribe entirely to the SNP brand of independence either. Essentially, it is just Devo Max with some sprinkles on top. But even that is preferable to maintaining the status quo. In fairness to them, building things from the ground up appears to be exactly what they are trying to do, rather than making too many radical changes all at once. Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.

 

For a long time I have felt that the negotiation period post-Yes will present the biggest challenge to the SNP; it is almost inconceivable that it will go as smoothly as Salmond often suggests. However, as corny as this may sound, I firmly believe that a Scotland run fully by the people who live there and genuinely care about it is vastly preferable to the state of affairs we have at present.

 

The last thing I want to see, post-independence, is for Scotland to end up in a 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' situation. Things have to be different, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless. Maybe I have bought into the concept a little too profoundly, but in the event of leaving the UK and its post-imperialist pretentions behind I honestly think Scotland would start from a ground zero of tying to do things differently. The thought of decades more edacious, right-wing, 'I'll scratch your back', Westminster rule depresses me deeply.

 

 

Are you for real,? I never said in my post it's ok for small countries but not for Scotland. I stated for it to be " thriving" to quote you, would take hard work and a lot of tough decisions not quite in line with some folks ideas of a socialist utopia ( low taxes, high benefits)

The Norway model of 20 years ago will get us there, 38% income tax for starters, no redundancy payments, but how would folk feel about that? Only once the debt was paid ( between 20 & 30 years)of did the wages start to rocket and start to give a good way of life

 

Anyone who thinks that 'socialist utopias' have low income taxes probably doesn't understand how socialist - or social democratic - societies work. Many European nations have income tax rates of around 30%. That said, it is more important to increase the overall tax take than to simply tax people more. Increase earnings and the government's tax take will rise in turn.

 

I accept that increased taxation is probably a hard sell, especially in our society where the neo-American 'me-me' mindset has become ingrained. But if the benefits of paying a bit more in to get a bit more out are explained properly, then it could fly.

[Mr Scruff]

I am struggling to follow your logic a bit here. You say you would be in favour of change but what the SNP propose isn't radical enough, so instead you favour no change at all?

 

To be honest, I don't subscribe entirely to the SNP brand of independence either. Essentially, it is just Devo Max with some sprinkles on top. But even that is preferable to maintaining the status quo. In fairness to them, building things from the ground up appears to be exactly what they are trying to do, rather than making too many radical changes all at once. Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.

 

For a long time I have felt that the negotiation period post-Yes will present the biggest challenge to the SNP; it is almost inconceivable that it will go as smoothly as Salmond often suggests. However, as corny as this may sound, I firmly believe that a Scotland run fully by the people who live there and genuinely care about it is vastly preferable to the state of affairs we have at present.

 

The last thing I want to see, post-independence, is for Scotland to end up in a 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' situation. Things have to be different, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless. Maybe I have bought into the concept a little too profoundly, but in the event of leaving the UK and its post-imperialist pretentions behind I honestly think Scotland would start from a ground zero of tying to do things differently. The thought of decades more edacious, right-wing, 'I'll scratch your back', Westminster rule depresses me deeply.

The problem is that trying to summarise a complex argument in a few words is probably beyond my capabilities, But there is a logic to this that I can see.

 

I see an 'independence' where we remain in a currency union (either euro or £) but somehow think we can avoid then being in a fiscal/ political union to be worse than we are just now.

 

I see a federal, republican UK preferable to an independent Scotland (on balance).

 

I see a republican truly independent Scotland as potentially preferable to the status quo. But that's not on offer, which means the short-medium term pain as we mature economically and politically would have insufficient pay-off in the end. The idea of a highly institutionalised, state controlled, command economy that stifles innovation and enterprise depresses me, but there would be a clamour for exactly this coming from other (often non-SNP) voices. I think this would take a generation to work through.

 

That all said, I'm not a 'no' under any circumstances voter even with the current mish-mash of 'independence' on offer, but I've got to say that the no camp has done little to persuade me (and being called a 'britnat' (?) and 'brainwashed' by supporters certainly doesn't persuade in any way)

[Guy Incognito]

The problem is that trying to summarise a complex argument in a few words is probably beyond my capabilities, But there is a logic to this that I can see.

 

I see an 'independence' where we remain in a currency union (either euro or £) but somehow think we can avoid then being in a fiscal/ political union to be worse than we are just now.

 

I see a federal, republican UK preferable to an independent Scotland (on balance).

 

I see a republican truly independent Scotland as potentially preferable to the status quo. But that's not on offer, which means the short-medium term pain as we mature economically and politically would have insufficient pay-off in the end. The idea of a highly institutionalised, state controlled, command economy that stifles innovation and enterprise depresses me, but there would be a clamour for exactly this coming from other (often non-SNP) voices. I think this would take a generation to work through.

 

That all said, I'm not a 'no' under any circumstances voter even with the current mish-mash of 'independence' on offer, but I've got to say that the no camp has done little to persuade me (and being called a 'britnat' (?) and 'brainwashed' by supporters certainly doesn't persuade in any way)

 

To me, it sounds like you are saying you don't feel it is worth the bother. I actually understand that, although I disagree. Anything worth doing takes time. For instance, a republican Scotland isn't on offer - at the moment - but that doesn't mean that will remain the case for ever. The currency union, if we take the unionist parties at their word, is currently dead in the water. By extension so is the Euro, given that a requirement to join is that a country must have had its own floated currency for a certain period (two years, I think). A federal UK could work and I could be persuaded to give that a shot, but that is most definitely not on anyone's agenda at present.

 

My vision of an inde Scotland is a bit to the left of most people's, and certainly the SNP, but that is a debate to have - and one I would relish having - post-independence. I have now reached the point where I feel independence is a necessity if we truly want Scotland to improve. Unfortunately, the debate keeps getting bogged down with issues connected with things like currency. Now, that isn't insignificant, far from it, but it isn't the be all and end all.