Scottish Independence

[The Minsky Moment]

If the Canadian example serves, the British will try to punish the Scots any way they can for daring to be different.

I doubt that very much.  But if Scotland goes independent, rump UK will naturally pursue its own interests.  Some will involve cooperation with Scotland, some not.  Either way, its decisions will have a big impact.

[Viking]

If Scotland remains part of UK, a financial drain, as UK corporations based in Scotland move back to England is to be expected. 

Why would that happen? I would think that UK corporations based in Scotland (such as certain banks and pension funds) know better than to do something purely out of spite. I was under an impression that the UK is not Russia, so their corporations do not necessary follow the government's bidding.

Scottish banks probably would be English banks after de-union.

[Martinus]

If Scotland remains part of UK, a financial drain, as UK corporations based in Scotland move back to England is to be expected. 

Why would that happen? I would think that UK corporations based in Scotland (such as certain banks and pension funds) know better than to do something purely out of spite. I was under an impression that the UK is not Russia, so their corporations do not necessary follow the government's bidding.

Scottish banks probably would be English banks after de-union.

He was talking about Scotland staying in the UK.

[The Minsky Moment]

In the specifics? Most likely not.  But in the larger picture:
A combination of real grievances [...] and hysteria.
most likely.

One of the interesting things about the present Scottish campaign is the relative absence of grievance.  At least the press accounts have been playing up the fact that Salmond's genius is pitching independence in a positive way, without grievance.  Sure there probably is a core of support for independence that does see it as driven by grievances against England.  But that core was not sufficient to get to a majority.  If Yes succeeds it will be for different reasons.

[The Minsky Moment]

America, in its first years of independance looked like a failed country.  There was economic turmoil and lots of citizens emigrated to Canada - British territory.  Yet, were there any talks of rejoining the British Empire at this time?  Despite the concessions offered by the British during the War of Independance, did Congress ever seriously think of rejoining the Empire to end the war?

Congress was quite worried about the possibility of a future reintegration back into England - thus the odd provision in the Constitution about the President having to be naturally born in the US, the provisions outlawing titles of nobility, and the guarantee of republican government of the states - all aimed at preventing a stealth British takeover of individual states or the national government itself.

In reality of course, once Britain accepted peace, it very quickly acclimated itself to the realities of American independence, which relieved it of the burdens of governance while still retaining most of the economic advantages.  Even when Britain went to war in 1812, it had no intention of reversing independence in whole or in part.  Rejoining Empire was not really a viable option.

[viper37]

Tell me, if Scotland votes for independence, would you then support some subset of Scotland demanding independence because 51% of the voters in that area don't want to be part of Scotland? And then a subset of that subset voting to rejoin Scotland?

This is all strictly about the will of the people, right? No need to actually evaluate what is happening - as long as 51% of *some* population wants to secede, they should be allowed?

Scots will decide for themselves.  They'll have their own constitution, they'll likely adresse the situation.
I'm no more supporting of Scotland independance than their current status or any other status they may wish to negotiate with the United Kingdom. 

Unlike the federalist crowd of this forum, I believe the right to self determination is a valide one, when exerted under democratic conditions.  If a people feel different than the larger country they live in, they have their reason, most likely a mix of truth and hysteria, and they will chose for themselves what is the best course of action, just like other countries chose their health care system.

[Eddie Teach]

just like other countries chose their health care system.

The US chooses not to decide. 

[viper37]

So every time you disagree with the outcome of an election and have contempt for the way a campaign is being handled it means you want to use force?  Or is that your solution for how to solve Quebec's problems?

there's a little more than mere "disagreements" here.  Some of you consider Scots to be morons because they want to seperate from the Union, despite this being done democratically.  I sense outright hostility toward any form of non acceptance the of statu quo in any country. 

Or is that your solution for how to solve Quebec's problems?

October crisis, suspension of civil rights&all.  You should read on that
It led directly to the 1st election of the PQ a few years later, and the 1st referendum.  The 2nd referendum was created by Trudeau, when he feared Mulroney would succeed where he failed and put pressure on his allies to reject the Lake Meech Accord.  Before the October crisis, Quebec independance was a fringe idea.  It then gained momentum, culminating in 2 PQ elections and a referendum.  In 1988, the idea of independance in Quebec was pretty much dead.  By the end of 1990 it was a leading option in polls.

Alberta had an independance movement while the Liberal party was governing.  It was based purely on economical relations with Canada and a rejection of French in an english country.  But as soon as their MPs were in the leading party, it stopped existing.

I don't think seperatist movement just happen like that, overnight.  I don't think they happen solely because there's a genocide going on.  I think that holding a vote on seperation from a bigger entity is no more stupid than keeping a non state funded health care system that costs twice as much as any other system and does not provide a greater life expectancy overall.
To each their own decisions.

If Americans like inefficient government and redundant state agencies, it's their choice.  That does not make them morons.  If some Quebecers or some Scots wish to cut their ties with the British Empire or its successor state, that makes them different than those who feel they are correctly treated, simply.

[Zanza]

Scotland has to apply to join. Queue the Spanish and French objections.

I think Zanza's point was different - that negotiations should not be hard as Scotland's legal system is already fully integrated with that of the EU so there should be no big issues to resolve before they can (re)join.

I am not sure how true that is though - I know some of the old countries have pretty slipped from EU standards, and of course it is not clear what the Scotland's budgetary discipline will look like.

And on top of that, assuming the UK stays, I don't see why the UK would, for example, want to give up votes in the EU Council to accomodate Scotlands accession - and I am not sure how willing other countries will be to effectively dilute their votes by allowing Scotland to have extra votes etc. So in short I don't think Zanza's optimism is well founded.

Is there somehow ill will towards Scotland in any European country? How is it even a question that we would accommodate them if they democratically and peacefully decide to split off from the UK? They are part of the EU now and should stay so no matter what.

The European Parliament elections had a separate constituency for Scotland anyway, so they would just keep those MEPs. The votes in the Council are politically determined anyway. Spain and Poland have 27 votes with about 40 million people each, Germany, France, Italy and Britain all have 29 votes. There is no reason why England couldn't get 29 votes either as it would still belong to the "bigger" bracket even without Scotland. Scotland would just get about 7 votes and that's it.

[Duque de Bragança]

It applies to the scots because the are British citizens. If they cease being British citizens the cease being EU citizens. Scotland has to apply to join. Queue the Spanish and French objections.

Spain maybe, but France? The UK is seen there as an EU impediment to put it mildly. So anything that weakens it won't be opposed. Jacobins only care about French regions, not regions from other countries, unless they want some part of France.

[Barrister]

I think you'll find precisely zero example where people purposely congregate to form their own local majority in order to effect seccession.

Israel

Good example.  Also a terribly unique one.

[mongers]

So will sending three westminster politicians, widely seen as out of touch from the concerns of ordinary folk, have any positive effect ?

Scottish independence: UK party leaders in 'No' vote trip to Scotland

Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband will abandon their weekly Prime Minister's Questions clash and instead fly north on Wednesday.

It came as the Scottish pro-Union party leaders announced their backing for more powers for Scotland.

First Minister Alex Salmond said the campaign to keep the Union was now in "absolute panic".

Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will also be campaigning in Scotland, ahead of the 18 September referendum, although the three leaders will not travel or appear together.
....

Full article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29126386

[Josquius]

One thing I'm not getting is how the northern isles seem to be so overwhelmingly unionist.
It strikes me that they should take a leaf out of Scotland's book, start shrieking about the oil being theirs, declare independence (after a referendum) and then share out the billions amongst the few thousand islanders.

[Malthus]

Fine. So Canada was empty and can't serve as an example for the densely populated Eurasian continent and state formation there.

This also is not corect.

What you have to realize about Canada is that, while as a country Canada is huge, most of it is not habitable (or only habitable by a very thin population). Both today and in antiquity, the vast majority of the population lives in a relatively thin strip along the southern border, where agriculture is possible - much of the interior isn't suitable, either because of the so-called "Canadian Shield" (where the bedrock was exposed by glaciation), or because it is simply too far north and too cold.

This thin strip of inhabitable land had an existing native population, and still does.

Now, in point of fact, some places were temporarily not inhabited when European colonization took place - mostly because of inter-native wars, such as the infamous war of extermination between the Iroquous confederacy and the Hurons.

[Sheilbh]

really?  Americans did not feel Americans?  They all felt they were the same people as the soldiers of the Empire who recently disembarked in their lands?  They considered themselves loyal subjects of His Majesty and were ready to accept his rule&judgment just as any other British citizen was expected to?  In the preceding years, there were no feeling at all that they were abandonned by Great Britain, left to fend for themselves against the French & Indians?  No feeling that they should decide of their own war policies during the French&Indian Wars?  No resentment against heavy taxation from a Tyrant oversea, Great Britain's legitimate ruler, in the years to come?  No feeling that they were treated differently than other British subjects?
Many of those things have nothing to do with nationalism.

Most of them are though. Did they feel American? Was there a sense of difference - and will for self-reliance - about Americans than Britain? Those are feelings of American nationalism.