Quote'Yes' or 'No'? A Divided Scotland Confronts Independence Vote
By Christoph Scheuermann
Liam Stevenson was never the type to become particularly passionate about politics. A tank truck driver in Scotland, he spent most of his free time with his wife Helen and daughter Melissa in their small house in Cumbernauld, northeast of Glasgow. Every now and then, he would join his friends for a few pints.
But a couple of months ago, he experienced a transformation not unlike that of Franz Kafka's character Gregor Samsa, who became a new creature overnight. Stevenson became a political activist.
He guides his Volkswagen Golf past working class housing cowering in the shadows of gigantic residential towers. Cumbernauld was created after the war and has since become a Scottish dystopia. It is a place that remains stuck somewhere between the 1950s and 1980s. In the cold jargon of the welfare bureaucracy, the housing projects are known as "schemes" and look just as soulless as the word sounds. Stevenson spent his childhood here. He waves at a man on the way by. "That's Paul. He stabbed his son in the face. No idea why."
Stevenson wants people to see the city through his eyes so they can understand his confidence. After all, the day that could change everything is rapidly approaching. On Sept. 18, more than 4 million Scots are to vote on whether they want to become independent from the United Kingdom.
Like many of his compatriots, Stevenson dreams of independence. He hopes that it will ring in a new era of prosperity, driven by oil and natural gas. An independent Scotland would be freer, richer and more equitable, Stevenson says. Cumbernauld, too, would flourish.
The process currently underway on the British archipelago is a unique one. Free of violence, amid an atmosphere of amicability, a referendum is to be held that could result in the end of a 307-year-old union with the United Kingdom. The Scottish move toward independence is also reflective of the ongoing erosion of the European nation-state. After years of crisis, many people no longer identify with their countries, preferring instead to be part of smaller, more manageable regions. Separatists across Europe are pushing for independence, including the Catalonians in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium and the South Tyroleans in Italy. But only in Scotland is a nationally recognized referendum in the works.
The Undecided
The plan to hold the vote was born in 2011 after the Scottish National Party (SNP) emerged victorious in parliamentary elections there. In March 2013, the date of the referendum was set for this September. This year, various factions and groups belonging to the "yes" campaign have been fighting hard for Scottish secession. Foremost among them is Alex Salmond, SNP party boss and Scottish leader as first minister of Scotland. But the three largest parties in Great Britain, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, are largely opposed to Scottish independence and are working against secession under the motto "Better Together."
Currently, surveys indicate that a majority of Scots will likely vote to remain part of the UK, with between 45 percent and 55 percent in favor of staying. No survey has yet projected a victory for the "yes" camp. But many voters remain undecided, making it difficult for pollsters to make reliable prognostications. Campaigners, meanwhile, have zeroed in on those who have not yet made up their mind.
Liam Stevenson is talking into his mobile phone as he walks into his kitchen. He has organized a panel discussion on the independence referendum for this evening, to be held in a small Cumbernauld theater. He wanted to have representatives from both camps there, but the unionists declined to send anybody. Now, a PR consultant, a health worker and a member of the Scottish Socialist Party are going to speak in support of independence. Stevenson is euphoric. He has never before spoken in front of so many people and has also never organized a political event. "It gives me a huge boost," he says.
Helen scoops mince and tatties (mashed potatoes, ground beef and mashed carrots) onto his plate. The couple is eating on the sofa in front of their flat-screen television, but Stevenson is too agitated to have any appetite. "The English have gotten drunk on our riches for decades: oil, natural gas, whiskey," he says. Scotland, he continues, must finally regain control of its own resources without allowing the government in London to skim off the profits and only send a part of them back. As he speaks, his meal becomes cold.
Stevenson isn't a politician, nor is he an intellectual. If you spend an afternoon with him, you find out about his uncle's affairs and learn that Stevenson sometimes cries when he goes to the movies. He wears his heart on his sleeve -- and that too, he says, is something that separates him from the taciturn English to the south. Helen gets a quick kiss and then her husband sets off for the theater, where all 270 seats are filled. After the podium discussion, he later says, two women who had previously been undecided came up to him. They said they now planned to vote for independence.
The debate over independence isn't one just for politicians. It has also become a vital one for people like Stevenson as well -- and for people like the author in Glasgow, the fashion designer in Dundee and the engineer from Aberdeen. Not all Scots that one meets want to split off from the United Kingdom. But there are many of them, and they are eager to talk about why.
Compelling Arguments?
Janice Galloway says she was long unsure as to whether she should vote "yes" or "no" on Sept. 18. She is an author and is sitting in a Glasgow tearoom. At the end of the 1980s, she was among the young writers, painters and other artists who began to more closely examine Scotland. Her own debut novel was about an anorexic, alcoholic teacher on the west coast. Galloway belongs to a generation that doesn't just see Scotland as being home to beautiful landscapes, romantically weathered castles and whiskey distilleries.
She says that she waited for compelling arguments from those opposed to independence, but not many were forthcoming. At the beginning of August, more than 200 prominent British wrote an open letter urging the Scots not to leave the kingdom. But aside from "let's stay together," there wasn't much to the missive. "It looked more like a dinner invitation than a defense of the kingdom," Galloway says. She found herself disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm among unionists.
Galloway spent her childhood and youth in Ayrshire on Scotland's west coast. One of her first jobs was as a singing waitress, entertaining tourists in a banquet hall. Her first paycheck went toward buying a telephone for her mother, who lived in Yorkshire at the time. When her mother spoke on the phone, she always used a fake Yorkshire accent out of shame for her Scottish roots.
In the south of the island, the Scots were seen as well-behaved minions, an image that was embodied in the figure of John Brown, a servant of Queen Victoria's. The queen loved Scotland, Balmoral Castle and, it is said, her servant, Brown. People still believe today that they might have had an affair. Brown represents the archetype of the loyal, obedient Scot, true to the queen and the throne to the death. At the same time, he stands for a period when nobody questioned the union of Scotland with the United Kingdom, largely the result of economic prosperity which benefitted the north as well. Between 1885 and 1939, one-third of British governors-general abroad were Scots. The bond remained strong deep into the 20th century. "When I was a girl, there was a strong British identity," Galloway says.
The estrangement began in the 1960s and 70s when the coal, steel and shipping industries in Great Britain began contracting. Just as Scotland had profited handsomely before, it now suffered even more. "Britishness may have had less appeal than before," writes historian Tom Devine in his work "The Scottish Nation." As the economy declined, the Conservatives lost support among the working class and Labour became the strongest political power.
Nowhere was Margaret Thatcher more hated than in Scotland. When she came to power in 1979, there were 15 coal mines in Scotland; by the time she stepped down in 1990, only two were left. Many Scots blamed Thatcher for the economic troubles and her anti-labor union policies deepened the chasm between the north and the south. Janice Galloway is one of those authors whose books helped the Scots develop a sense of self-confidence in the face of the collapse. Others include Irvine Welsh, Alasdair Gray and Iain Banks in addition to painters Ken Currie and Jenny Saville as well as the composer James MacMillan. A counterculture developed. "We were wild," Galloway says.
Waking Up from Hibernation
Welsh's novel "Trainspotting," published 21 years ago, likely had a greater influence on young Scots than any other book. The sallow skies, the social housing, even the junkie-lifestyle in Edinburgh suddenly seemed sexy. Welsh and other artists showed a way to differentiate themselves from Thatcher and the southern British culture.
This self-confidence remains today, even if bitterness increasingly mixes in with the pride. Liam Stevenson, the truck driver, grumbles an entire afternoon about the English who have "dragged us into illegal war after illegal war." Little has brought the Scots together more in recent years than their demarcation from the south, particularly when the Conservatives have the upper hand in Westminster. Of the 59 Scottish members of the House of Commons, only one is a Tory. A favorite joke has it that there are more pandas north of the English-Scottish border than there are Conservative parliamentarians. There are two pandas and they live in the Edinburgh zoo.
With just weeks to go before the referendum, Scotland seems like a land waking up from a winter slumber to celebrate the Caledonian version of the Arab Spring. Blue "Yes" stickers are plastered on lampposts while "Yes" signs are displayed in windows. If it weren't for the opinion polls, one would think that the result of the referendum was a foregone conclusion.
"We've been talking about nothing else for months," says Hayley Scanlan. She works as a fashion designer in Dundee, a port city on the east coast between Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Scanlan says she is in favor of independence because Scotland needs its own voice.
Her studio is in an old jute spinning mill in the center of town which provides workspace to jewelry designers, start-ups and artists. Bits of material and leather cover the floor while at the drawing table, an assistant cuts out the patterns for the next spring collection. The room is just big enough for the two women, three sewing machines and a couple of clothes racks. When large orders come in, Scanlan's mother and aunt help with the sewing.
Scanlan says that she isn't interested in politics and has never voted, but she is planning on casting her ballot in the referendum. "It is an exciting time for Scotland," she says, adding that she is happy that she has found success in her homeland. Like many of her friends in the fashion industry, she initially wanted to move to London. But she didn't have enough money so she stayed in Dundee, where rents are much more affordable.
Scanlan belongs to the growing number of young entrepreneurs in her city that don't want to expose themselves to the stress that comes with living in the British capital. Customers reach her by way of her online shop and she occasionally works with department stores as well. She only travels to the south for Fashion Week.
Oil and Gas
Although she is Scottish, Scanlan's designs don't use plaids or tweeds. She prefers leather, wool and lighter fabrics. "We don't focus on the past, we focus on the present," she says. That is true both of her fashion and of her politics.
For her, pride in her homeland is combined with frustration with the south. In contrast with London, she says, she can be herself in Dundee and she also believes that an independent Scotland would be more prosperous. She herself has seen that energy and tenacity can lead to success. She expects the same of Scotland.
The most important argument for the "yes" camp are the oil and natural gas reserves off the Scottish coast. First Minister Alex Salmond says they would be enough to boost the country's prosperity and his party promises that income for the state would climb to over 7 billion pounds ($11.6 billion) per year by 2018. Others, though, estimate that treasure will be worth only half that. Salmond's calculations are nothing but a gigantic bet on the oil reserves in the North Sea, the London-based Economist has written. One reason is the fact that, once the fields have been pumped dry, an independent Scotland would probably be liable for the estimated 40 billion pounds it will cost to clean up the dozens of kilometers of pipelines and cables in the North Sea.
Iain Downie says the Scottish government is intentionally covering up such costs because they put a damper on the euphoria surrounding independence. Downie is just coming from rugby practice and is still glowing from the exertion as he sits down in an Aberdeen bar and orders himself a beer. He works for BP as a drilling engineer, ensuring that the oil continues to flow. He plans to vote "no" in the referendum. He wants to see Scotland remain a part of the United Kingdom.
Downie has been working at his current job with BP for the last two years and is responsible for tapping into new oil fields. He knows just how unreliable reserve estimates can be. He spent most of his first year on a swaying drilling ship west of the Shetland Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. It was winter and they were trying to find a new field 1,200 meters below the surface. It was Downie's job to calculate how thick and long the pipe had to be. In the end, the project was abandoned. "You have to be sick to like this job," he says.
His father is a retired policeman and his mother a nurse. In contrast to most Scots, the Downies respected Margaret Thatcher because she promised to bring Great Britain back to life after decades of paralysis. Iain Downie grew up in a quiet suburb of Edinburgh and his parents managed to avoid most of the pain associated with the dying mines and shipyards. The kingdom gave the family a sense of security and belonging.
Optimists and Pessimists
Downie studied in Edinburgh, has lived in South Africa and has worked in Oman and Norway. In two or three years, he plans to move to Azerbaijan or to the Persian Gulf, chasing the oil. Having a British passport opens doors around the world, he says. An independent Scotland would be insecure, Downie believes.
He orders another beer and explains that the search for oil has become more difficult in recent years as the reserves have shrunk and become more difficult to access than they used to be. As he talks, the idea of Scottish independence seems reduced to the crazy idea of gambling addicts. For him, as an engineer who values certainty, there are too many variables, too many unknowns. "What happens with the pensions?" he asks. "Can we keep the British pound? How do we trade goods and merchandise if we don't even have a stock exchange in Scotland?"
He also thinks it is right for the British military to intervene in conflicts when it becomes necessary. In his view, Great Britain is the only European country that thinks globally and keeps all of its options open when it comes to international crises. "I am proud of the fact that we have an impact on the world," he says.
In the end, the doubts that plague Downie could also be enough to move other Scots to vote against independence. The referendum is also a measure of a country's willingness to take risks. It is a fight between the optimists and the pessimists.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/scotland-divided-ahead-of-approaching-independence-referendum-a-988064.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11045624/Scottish-independence-referendum-the-latest-poll-tracker.html
F'n William Wallace
http://news.yahoo.com/cameron-heads-scotland-independence-campaign-gathers-steam-130947403--business.html
Quote
Cameron to head to Scotland as independence campaign gathers steam
Reuters
By Angus MacSwan and Guy Faulconbridge September 9, 2014 12:57 PM
EDINBURGH/LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister David Cameron implored Scots on Tuesday not to vote for independence in next week's referendum after an opinion poll showed a surge in support for a break from the United Kingdom.
Cameron pledged to do all he could to keep the United Kingdom together and said he would head north to Scotland on Wednesday to join the fray.
"In the end, it is for the Scottish people to decide, but I want them to know that the rest of the United Kingdom - and I speak as prime minister - want them to stay."
Cameron's move made clear that the break–up of the United Kingdom - previously thought to be a pipedream - was now a distinct possibility. His spokesman said Scotland's blue and white flag would be flown over Cameron's London residence in Downing Street until the vote next week.
Britain's main political parties meanwhile scrambled to shore up the 307-year union by pledging more autonomy to Scotland.
Nationalist leader Alex Salmond said in Edinburgh that the TNS opinion poll showed the campaign opposing independence had "fallen apart at the seams".
The poll showed the referendum scheduled for Sept. 18 was now "too close to call", TNS head Tom Costley said.
The number of people saying they would vote "No" to independence dropped to 39 percent, down from 45 percent a month ago. "Yes" support was slightly behind at 38 percent but had made a dramatic surge from 32 percent a month ago.
It followed a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times that put the pro-independence camp slightly ahead for the first time this year, prompting a fall in the pound and British shares that reflected concerns that an independent Scotland would struggle economically.
In a renewed blow to nationalist hopes of keeping the pound sterling, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said a currency union between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom would be incompatible with sovereignty.
Britain's three main political parties have already ruled out a currency union with an independent Scotland, raising questions over what money Scots would use.
A split would also have huge ramifications beyond Scotland's borders, given Britain's current status as an economic, diplomatic and military power, a leading NATO and EU country, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Salmond, who heads the Scottish National Party, the ruling party in Scotland, exulted in the poll news on Tuesday morning.
"I think this is a very significant day in the referendum campaign. This is the day that the no campaign finally fell apart at the seams," he told reporters.
He was speaking at an event with European supporters of Scottish independence, who posed on the steps of the St Giles Church on Edinburgh's historic Royal Mile holding signs saying "yes" in a variety of European languages.
Whether an independent Scotland would be allowed to remain a member of the European Union, as the independence movement wishes, has been a huge bone of contention.
Several prominent European politicians have said it would be impossible and Spain, which fears Scottish independence would give a boost to separatist movements in the Basque Country and Catalonia, is deeply opposed.
But a former president of the European parliament, Ireland's Pat Cox, said in the Scotsman newspaper that the EU was unlikely to send Scotland to the back of the queue for membership - not least because that would cause "chaos" in the fisheries sector if Scotland, with rich maritime resources, was expelled.
"It has always respected the expressed democratic will of the peoples involved," Cox said.
THE THIN RED LINE
The leaders in Scotland of Britain's main three parties said on Tuesday they had agreed to the timetable for a process handing the Scottish parliament in Holyrood more power after a "No" victory, including over welfare and income tax.
This would start immediately after the referendum, leading to publication of draft legislation on Jan. 25, 2015, with passage after the 2015 general election. The parties' exact plans differed in detail, they said in a statement.
"The Scottish people now have real certainty that a 'No' vote is a vote for change and the uncertainty lies with the 'Yes' campaign, who have no answers on currency, pensions and jobs," said the leader of Scottish Labour, Johann Lamont.
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson and Liberal Democrat Willie Rennie stood with Lamont as she made the announcement at Holyrood.
The previous evening, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, a Scot, made an impassioned appeal to Labour Party supporters in a miners' welfare club in central Scotland in support of staying together.
Outlining a Labour plan to give the Scottish Parliament more power, he said. "This moves us as close to federalism as we can."
"Scotland is already a nation. We are proud of our history and culture. Do we want to sever all constitutional links with our friends, our neighbours, our relatives in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?"
Salmond dismissed the offer as nothing new. The nationalist leader also scoffed at the idea of Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband's rescue mission to Scotland.
"If I thought they were coming by bus I'd send the bus fare," Salmond said, labelling Cameron the most unpopular Conservative leader ever among Scots and Miliband the most distrusted Labour leader.
Old Etonian Cameron has been largely absent from the debate after conceding that his privileged background and centre-right politics mean he is not the best person to win over Scots, usually more left-wing than the English. His job will be on the line if Scots vote for independence.
Following an independence vote, Britain and Scotland would face 18 months of talks on how to carve up everything from North Sea oil and the pound to European Union membership and Britain's main nuclear submarine base at Faslane.
The question has provoked months of fervent debate in Scotland, from boardrooms to street campaigns.
Proponents of independence say it is time for Scotland to run its own affairs and choose its own leaders rather than be ruled from London. An independent Scotland can use its North Sea oil revenue to create a prosperous and fairer society, they say.
Advocates of staying in the union say the country is stronger as part of a bigger entity and that going it alone would put it in a precarious economic position.
Independence supporter Andrew Anderson, a 52-year-old human rights worker at Tuesday's rally in Edinburgh, said he was optimistic of victory.
"I think the polls are behind the movement on the ground and are just catching up. There's definitely a mood swing," he said.
"We don't get the government we vote for and it's time we did. Small countries can be successful."
Anderson said he had lived in England and his son and daughter did now. "I don't need to be ruled by David Cameron to be friends with people in England."
This site has some good stuff on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04dcjr5
Many Scots were kind of irritated that Parliament "woke up" when the polls showed a secession was actually possible.
Until then it had been the "dinner invitation" approach to stay united.
If they vote to leave because of something a dead former PM did in the 1980's then they aren't very forward looking.
On the flip side, UK investment in general Scotland hasn't been top shelf.
If they do vote Yes, then there will be a general negotiation on how they will do it and for how long. It may take 5 years perhaps 50. Even then there will probably be some form of treaty involved to cover defense issues, legal jurisdictions, etc.
Just determining what to do with all of the Royal lands held in Scotland will take awhile to sort.
In the end Scotland will look like Canada and Australia.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/
QuoteThursday, September 11, 2014
The Strategic Fallout from Scottish Independence
It is surprising that such a dire event as the break-up of the United Kingdom is getting little coverage in the United States. Great Britain, the United States, and the rest of the world can ill-afford the strategic effects of Scottish independence at a time when there is growing global uncertainty and instability. The sundering of the United Kingdom will seriously affect the ability of the English/Welsh/Northern Ireland remnant to remain a significant military participant in securing global stability. The dissolution of the British Union may also spur other nationalist groups such as the Basques, Andalusians, Walloons, and other European minorities to demand their own states. A Europe divided and occupied by nationalist crisis would be ill-equipped to support the United States in its ongoing struggle with Islamic extremists, or be strong enough to aid fellow European states menaced by Vladimir Putin's resurgent Russia. An independent Scotland is the potential tipping point for a new round of European disorder at a time when neither the continent nor the world can afford such activity. The United States should vigorously support a continuing unified Great Britain as Scottish secession will only accelerate global disorder at a time neither the U.S. nor its European allies can afford such an occurrence.
Damaged Britain and Dependent Scotland
The pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) has created a Defence White Paper detailing its "demands" on the British Armed Forces should the independence vote be successful. These include handing over one of Britain's only two Typhoon fighter squadrons, 10% of Britain's rapidly dwindling surface fleet, and 3 of the British Army's 36 infantry battalions. These losses may seem small, but an independent Scotland would also demand the removal of Britain's Trident nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN's) and their associated support units from the longtime British submarine/nuclear weapons bases at Faslane and Coulport. Such a move could threaten the continuing viability of the British nuclear deterrent and likely cost thousands of jobs and millions of pounds in lost investment according to a report issued by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) last month.
Scotland's overall security status would not enhanced in a post-independence environment. The SNP claims it will maintain Scottish membership in both the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but both organizations have rebuffed this claim , stating that an independent Scotland would need to seek membership in both as a new independent state. The re-admittance process for Scotland could take years to complete without any firm guarantee of success. Scottish financial freedom will also likely suffer. Several large defence contractors are delaying significant spending in Scotland until after the referendum. Furthermore, companies like BAE systems, Thales, and Babcock have discussed leaving Scotland entirely if independence is approved. This change will take thousands of defence jobs away from the would-be new state and cripple its economic output from the start. The SNP has claimed it will maintain the Pound Sterling as its currency, but Bank of England officials have clearly rejected such a proposal. SNP officials have placed great hope in the North Sea oil and natural gas deposits to fill the new nation's financial coffers. Unfortunately, North Sea oil production peaked in 1999, and while there is still oil to be had, significant new investment in equipment and infrastructure is needed to economically extract this increasingly elusive resource. Finally, SNP officials have suggested the new Scotland would operate like Scandinavian states with regards to its defence affairs. A Scotland however without a viable currency, defence jobs, significant military assets, oil income or a place in international security organizations is a state more equivalent to Kosovo or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) than with Finland or Sweden.
Beginning of European and greater Global Chaos
Beyond a loss of stability and economic fortune in the British Isles, Scottish independence could be the harbinger of further European national chaos. Other disaffected global minorities with state ambitions are watching the outcome of events in the United Kingdom with growing interest. Spain, which has significant populations of Basques, Catalans and Andalusians faces regular calls for greater self government and even independence from these nationalities. Belgium has seen significant tensions between its Walloon and Flemish peoples that have threatened to break up that nation. French-speaking citizens of Quebec have regularly agitated for independence. All of these groups, as well as others could be emboldened by the break-up of the British state.
The present world security situation can ill-afford a Europe distracted by internal divisions. The aggressive Russian state led by Vladimir Putin has used national conflicts in Georgia, the Caucuses, and now the Ukraine to break down potential pro-Western states on its borders. Scotland is not adjacent to Russia, but festering national crisis in otherwise stable nations could be exploited by unfriendly nationals and non-state actors to further their own non-democratic goals.
Effect on the United States
European nations menaced by such internal disputes will be unable to vigorously respond to aggression and threats to peace and stability elsewhere. This condition represents a danger to the United States. The U.S. needs reliable colleagues for international military action. Great Britain, Spain, and other European states weakened by major internal division are poor partners for such activities. Great Britain has been a most reliable U.S. ally for nearly a century, and a close friend for a far longer period. It has been a close partner in U.S. efforts to combat terrorism in the post Cold War and post 9/11 environment. It is one of the few NATO nations that regularly meets its alliance military expenditure requirements. A damaged and distracted Britain could seriously weaken U.S. attempts to build coalitions to combat the growing menace of the radical ISIS state in the Levant, or the aggression of Vladimir Putin.
This author sincerely hopes that Scottish citizens will reject the surface trappings of independence offered by the SNP in favor of the deeper security and financial freedom provided by inclusion within the British state. Scotland is more stable, secure, and financially viable within Great Britain that it can ever be as a separate country. A separate Scotland will leave the remaining English/Welsh/Northern Ireland state weakened at a time when the West needs a stable front against multiple threats of aggression.
Another take:
QuoteAlready, the myth of political apathy has been scotched by the tumultuous movement north of the border. As soon as something is worth voting for, people will queue into the night to add their names to the register. The low voter turnouts in Westminster elections reflect not an absence of interest but an absence of hope.
If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fear-mongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it. That you can be hated by the Daily Mail and still have a chance of winning.
If Labour has any political nous, any remaining flicker of courage, it will understand what this moment means. Instead of suppressing the forces of hope and inspiration, it would mobilise them. It would, for instance, pledge, in its manifesto, a referendum on drafting a written constitution for the rest of the UK.
It would understand that hope is the most dangerous of all political reagents. It can transform what appears to be a fixed polity, a fixed outcome, into something entirely different. It can summon up passion and purpose we never knew we possessed. If Scotland becomes independent, England – if only the potential were recognised – could also be transformed.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope
All good points made but I don't think it will be that disastrous as they say.
They are simply points for negotiation if the vote goes towards being independent.
They could be part of the Commonwealth for trade, apply for NATO and EU membership.
No one batted an eye in the west when eastern Europe began to devolve back into its pre modern form. Only Yugoslavia had a problem, but those were problems that date back to the battles between Ataturk and Constantinople.
I am not blind to their economic concerns but if they are willing to work them out as free people, then they should try.
Rhetoric aside, the independence questions is almost literally fueled by oil & gas. How long before the issue is moot?
QuoteSpain, which has significant populations of Basques, Catalans and Andalusians faces regular calls for greater self government and even independence from these nationalities. Belgium has seen significant tensions between its Walloon and Flemish peoples that have threatened to break up that nation. French-speaking citizens of Quebec have regularly agitated for independence. All of these groups, as well as others could be emboldened by the break-up of the British state.
Hmmm... California, Texas, and Hawaii too?
A Scottish 'Yes' also means exit from EU, NATO
By JOHN-THOR DAHLBURG
Associated Press
BRUSSELS (AP) -- If Scottish voters this week say Yes to independence, not only will they tear up the map of Great Britain, they'll shake the twin pillars of Western Europe's postwar prosperity and security - the European Union and the U.S.-led NATO defense alliance.
In breaking away from the rest of the United Kingdom, Scotland would automatically find itself outside both the EU and NATO, and have to reapply to join both, officials from those Brussels-based organizations have stressed.
For the EU especially, Scottish re-entry could be a long and arduous process, with other countries dead set against letting the Scots retain the privileges awarded Britain: the so-called opt-outs from being required to use the euro single currency and to join the multination Schengen zone where internal border controls have been scrapped.
For NATO's admirals and generals, the current Scottish government's insistence on a sovereign Scotland becoming free of nuclear weapons would pose enormous strategic and operational headaches, even if a transitional grace period were agreed on. A new home port would have to be found for the Royal Navy's four Trident missile-carrying submarines and their thermonuclear warheads, currently based on the Clyde.
This "risks undermining the collective defense and deterrence of NATO allies," Britain's Ministry of Defense has said. In what might be read as a warning to the Scots, the ministry has said a nuclear-free stance could constitute a "significant" hurdle to Scotland being allowed back into NATO.
Until Scotland rejoined the alliance, to which it's belonged with the rest of Britain for 65 years, new arrangements would also need to be found to patrol vital shipping routes in the North Atlantic and North Sea. If Scotland were to choose not to rejoin, it would pose a conundrum for NATO for which there is no real precedent: what to do following the loss of a developed, democratically governed part of alliance territory that has opted for neutrality, said Daniel Troup, research analyst at the NATO Council of Canada.
Asked how NATO would react to secession, alliance secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen told The Associated Press that "should the Scottish people vote in favor of independence and should they decide to seek membership in NATO, in that case, such an application will be addressed like other applications and eventually it will need consensus, that is, unanimity among NATO allies to accept a new member of our alliance."
Rasmussen refused to say Monday what the military consequences of Scotland's independence might be for the alliance, saying, "I'm not going to interfere with the Scottish debate, and it is a hypothetical question at this stage, because we don't know the outcome of the referendum."
Emergence of a new Western European country of 5 million inhabitants with roughly the land area of the Czech Republic or the U.S. state of Maine or would also set in motion political and social forces whose effects are impossible to predict. Because of British voting patterns, the political groups in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that are seeking Britain's exit from the European Union would become proportionately stronger in Parliament.
Meanwhile, on the continent, from Catalonia in Spain to the Dutch-speaking Flemish areas of Belgium, other European peoples that do not have their own states would likely be emboldened to follow the Scots' example.
Loss of Scotland would also weaken the influence of Britain inside the 28-nation European Union. For the moment, the British, along with the Germans and French, constitute the trade bloc's Big Three. Without Scotland's population, Britain would drop to No. 4, behind Italy.
That would mean fewer British members of the European Parliament, as well as a reduced say in population-weighted decision-making in the EU's executive.
"In the European Union, size matters," said Almut Moeller, an EU expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations. "It will be a rump United Kingdom."
This would have major policy implications. A whittled-down Britain would have a weaker hand in pressing for the kind of EU it favors: more of a free market, and less of a political union.
Simultaneously, said Professor Richard G. Whitman, director of the Global Europe Center at the University of Kent, politicians and civil servants in London would be "massively preoccupied" for years in disentangling England from Scotland, following more than three centuries of political and economic unity.
The result would be "a much-reduced bandwidth for defending a more liberalistic agenda" in Europe, Whitman said, including the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the United States.
Under both NATO and EU rules, any existing member could blackball Scotland's application for admission, and some might find domestic political cause to do so. Spain, for example, might want to discourage independence-minded Catalans. For the English, divvying up the common assets with the Scots might turn as acrimonious as a Hollywood divorce, Whitman said.
If Scotland sought special arrangements while trying to get back into the European Union, that could provide a wedge for other countries to demand renegotiation of their own terms of membership, and calls to revise the treaties that are EU's constitutional basis, Moeller said. Germany, the bloc's richest and most influential nation, would be adamantly against that, she said.
A dissenting prediction comes from a Swedish expert on the EU. The 18-month interlude between Thursday's vote and the start date of actual Scottish independence would be enough to allow the Scots and EU to negotiate a deal so that on the very day it became a country, Scotland could seamlessly become an EU member in its own right, said Niklas Bremberg, a research fellow at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.
The most fateful consequence of a Scottish vote in favor of independence could be very close to home: in neighboring England. The English have already soured sufficiently on the European Union to the extent that in the March elections for the European Parliament, they cast more votes for the anti-EU UKIP party than any other.
Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think tank, predicted the Scots this Thursday could set an example of sorts-for the English.
"The exit of Scotland from the UK would increase the chances of the exit of the UK from the EU," Zuleeg said.
---
Associated Press writer Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.
© 2014 The Associated Press.
Personally, more interested in the Catalonia situation than the session of Scotland in the UK.
Both the Basque and Catalan speaking regions extend into Southern France. If either region becomes autonomous in Spain, it could create an interesting situation in France.
Both regions have been trying to get out from under Spain for centuries.
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 16, 2014, 09:40:26 AM
Both the Basque and Catalan speaking regions extend into Southern France. If either region becomes autonomous in Spain, it could create an interesting situation in France.
That's a good point. France has a much more centralized government than either Britain or Spain, so interesting indeed.
Regardless of vote I predict a lot of Scots will get drunk.