- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Explain your position in detail on Scottish secession.
NetiquamErro – Here’s a chance to shine at British Politics… The stage is yours!
As long as they continue to allow exports of scotch to the us, I dont care if they merge with greenland.
Scotland would be very unwise to go anywhere. To put it into perspective, there are more people in London, than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined!
Alright, Yekke2, invitation accepted.
I think there are several issues at play here. It would take a lot more energy than I’m willing to expend at the moment to give an exhaustive response, but I’ll try and cover as much as possible.
Firstly, they would quite obviously be making a massive mistake to secede. Has independence been achieved in 2014, they would now be bankrupt. The entire case for independence rested on oil receipts that were off by a factor of a couple thousand. In order to remain as a functioning economy, the Scottish government would have had to slash spending, cut services and raise taxes. The Barnett formula guarantees them far more spending per head than any other part of the UK, to a massive extent. They, and the devolved government’s big Government and liberal policies, are quite literally subsidised heavily by the rest of the country.
On a purely emotional level, as divorces go it would be an incredibly illogical one. Scotland and the rest of the UK share so much of their culture, makeup and history, both would be diminished significantly by losing the other, although Scotland would be by far the worst off. Their cultures, peoples and history are inextricably intertwined. The nationalist sentiment, fuelled by Hollywood garbage and a misguided sense of marginalisation, is stupid at best. The countries, the nations, share a common language, army, monarch, history and creed. It is virtually impossible to distinguish a truly native Scot from many of those living throughout the UK.
Besides, most of the SNPs claims make no sense whatsoever.
Their argument that they are dominated politically by England is ridiculously ignorant. The Prime Minister before last was Scottish. The last Labour government, in power for 13 years, did so off the back of Scottish votes. Constituency sizes and compositions mean that Scottish votes, per person, carry far more power. And that is without even taking into account devolution, which gives them an unprecedented level of local control, including over spending and criminal law, without losing any of their voting rights over the rest of the United Kingdom. They get to vote on issues relating to the rest of the country that do not effect them, whilst they have been granted powers over their area that excludes the national Parliament.
And even were this not the case, it has scarcely been 3 years since we had what the SNP themselves called a once-in-a-generation referendum, which the Union convincingly won. To push for another within three years is beyond ridiculous.
Their claim that Britain’s exit from the EU, and the effect this will have, justify giving the ‘Scottish people’ another vote, but to leave the UK to remain in the EU makes no sense, considering that Scottish/English trade is five times as valuable as Scottish/European trade. If anything, Brexit makes the case for even closer Union stronger.
And much of the momentum behind the nationalist movement is due to Scotland being more left wing and liberal than the rest of the country, particularly England. For one thing, political views, especially only slightly differing ones, are not a valid reason for secession. Political positions change like sand in the wind, and to form a new country and break up another because of this is wrong. Besides, as mentioned before, Scottish politicians, parties and votes have had too much influence over the UK democratic process, not too little.
Anyway, in summation, the case for Scottish independence is very weak, and that’s even supposing the Scottish can be clearly distinguished from the rest of the UK’s population, which is doubtful, and that the right to secede is even one that should be codified into law. Those making the case for the Union should not bother proving, rightly, that Scotland would be weaker and poorer after secession, but should focus on the two nations shared history, trade and culture.
There, Yekke2. That enough for ya?
1. The original reason for Scotland joining with England to form Great Britain had to do with England bailing out Scotland, after Scotland got in a mess due to bad fiscal policies.
2. Scotland has been a junior partner (even if several of the greatest British prime ministers were Scots). As a non-UK, EU-member, Scotland would be an even more junior partner relative to much larger countries such as France,Germany and Italy
3. Scotland is significantly to the left of England. Indeed, without Scotland being in the UK, the Tories would have a lock on England.
4. Scotland would still be a member of the Commonwealth (and perhaps still have a resident monarch), and would still be in NATO (albeit as a minor member similar to Denmark or Netherlands or Portugal).
5. Note that the Scottish legal system, and local public administration, were never merged with that of England.
Sales of Scotch tape to England would be reduced, but the increase in sales to the EU would more than make up for it.
NeutiquamErro, Wow, that is most eloquent. I think Sturgeon is just trying to show she’s in charge, when everyone knows she is largely irrelevant.
btw, Scotch and Scottish are not the same thing.
akuperma: You make good, well reasoned points. however…
Scotland is not s ‘junior partner’ of the United Kingdom. As per the status quo, it is merely a part of a wider, integrated country that punches far above its weight politically. And even were it demonstrably a ‘junior partner’, considering that its population makes up just 8.3% of the UK’s, there’s good reason for it. And for a group of 5+ million people, its votes are worth more, and they have dual voting rights unavailable to most of the rest of the UK. If they argue that they feel like a different country, and that Scotland should be distinct from the rest of the UK for purely nationalist reasons, that’s one thing. But to make the argument that they’re somehow hard done by at present, or that they’d be more powerful or richer alone, have no basis whatsoever.
It is true that Scotland is significantly to the left of England, but not to the extent the SNP would have you believe. The Tories are the second biggest party in the Scottish Parliament, ahead of Labour, and garner a significant vote share there in general elections. One of the biggest successes of the SNP is getting non-Scots to equate them inextricably with the Scottish people, when in actual fact they only represent a segment of them. Also, this does not not justify independence. Firstly, the numerous Labour governments we’ve had, and almost certainly will have, come in off the back of Scottish votes, including the 13 years of Labour we’ve literally just had. Secondly, a slightly different political tilt is not a valid reason for secession. It’s basically saying that the way we currently vote in general elections defines us as a nation. Which is frankly ridiculous, as these people have no way of knowing for sure what position the next generation will take.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.