Scottish Independence (best, life, jobs, train)

[dragonborn]

Originally Posted by dunno what to put here

Lol, that'd defeat independence, handing over your financial status from one capital city to another.

Anyway, Scotland could go it alone but that doesn't mean it has to, I don't see Texas pursuing independence despite being oil-rich and full of Fortune 500 companies as well as having an economy comparable to India and Italy as well as a large population - one would think they'd have done it ages ago especially considering they are so proud of Texas and all things Texan.

Scotland has a long and illustrious past though and a clearly defined national identity. Texas would not benefit in the long run by going it alone. It shares a border with Mexico and the enormous financial burden to defend that border would fall on its shoulders. Besides, Americans are generally more patriotic than us. I've net Texans who are proud of both their state and their country and would not want secession. On the other hand, Scotland has a clear sense of national identity, less allegiance to the union, which has been diverting profits to London and the south east for centuries, even at the expense of other parts of England that have suffered financially as a result of heavy investment in the south east.

If independent, Wales would most likely become a similar country to Ireland. It would be no different than countries such as Ireland and the former eastern bloc countries receiving EU funding. It's the same as saying to an Irishman they'd have been better remaining a part of the UK than choosing to go it alone instead. Besides, since Wales is so small population wise and relatively homogenous, it'd be fairly easy to govern and make successful, given the right leadership.

[dunno what to put here]

National identity isn't really a reason to go it alone though. I still think we're stronger united. I see no reason to break up.

And again I don't think Wales would want to become independent from England only to lose it to the European Union. People have this view that suddenly all four constituent nations of the UK will be somehow significantly better off now then they are united.. it doesn't work like that, people need to take off their rose tinted glasses and pretending that Scotland will become a Norway clone. Besides, Ireland is largely successful because of low taxes and big companies like Microsoft taking advantage. But that could be about to change.

And most Scots I meet are proud to be Scottish and British - they generally may put Scots first but they still see themselves as British and still take pride in British achievements over the years.

As for Ireland, that situation is totally different to Scotland and Wales, much different, if that was occurring today the UK would be in the international court

[paull805]

But Texas is a state in a country not a country with its own parliament. I hear people saying "why doesn't Cornwall, Texas do the same?" if we (and Wales for that matter) choose to go independent we should be allowed to without people getting all high and mighty, we have been a independent country before, we have devalution, our own parliament, our own legal system, our own national sports teams etc we aren't in the same category as Texas.

[Tom9]

So in other words there isn't much to be gained by independence other than a boost of national pride?

[dragonborn]

Originally Posted by Tom9

So in other words there isn't much to be gained by independence other than a boost of national pride?

That's only part of it. In Scotland's case, Scotland would have a voice in the world and wouldn't just be part of the UK. It could decide its own path and destiny within or outside of the EU. It could decide to remain part of the Commonwealth or become a republic. Money generate by trade and industry would be invested in Scotland. Broken ties with other parts of the EU could be repaired.

I'm all for it if that's what the Scottish people themselves want.

[paull805]

Originally Posted by Tom9

So in other words there isn't much to be gained by independence other than a boost of national pride?

I am actually against independence personally, but I am just pointing out that Scotland (IF the people choose) should be allowed to become independent IF that's what the majority of our people want.

[paull805]

Looks like the tide is turning.

New Statesman - Exclusive poll: Scotland close to backing independence

[other99]

Originally Posted by jtur88

One thing that is increasingly an issue in Europe is non-European immigration. Generally, nations that were former colonial powers feel a certain obligation to admit people from their former colonies. As Britain struggles with increasing third-world immigration, a sovereign Scotland would have more power to exclude immigrants from former British colonies.

Countries that did not have overseas empires such as Sweden and Norway has allowed many, many non western immigrants.

[stumac]

Perhaps a little history might clear up a lot of the missunderstanding evident in this and other forums.
Scotland was an independent country for hundreds of years despite it being claimed by Edward the first of England leading to the wars of independance. In 1603 Queen Elizabeth of England died and her closest relative was James iv of Scotland who became James I of England. This ünion of the crowns" brought peace to the border between the two countries but was a financial disaster for Scotland. Many of the countries with which Scotland had strong trade links were at war with England so any Scot continuing to trade was consorting with the Kings enemies and therefore committing high treason punishable by the most barbaric execution.
This state of affairs continued for just over 100 years much to Scotlands dissadvantage and it may have continued much longer had not Queen Anne had no clear successor. The problem for England was that on the death of Anne the Scots were likley to choose a different monarch from England and this would return Scotlands status to that of pre 1603 with the real possibility that Scotand could become part of a hostile alliance against England. The only sure way to prevent this was to negotiate a treaty of union which would bind the two countries together in a political union with one parliament. This was very unpopular in Scotland but was forced through by a mixture of bribes and intimidation so that in 1707 the countries of England and Scotland ceased to exist and a new country of Britain was founded.
The terms of the union and the subsequent acts ratifying it guaranteed that the Scottish church would remain independent and that North Britain (Scotland) would retain it's own law and courts.
Now this was all over 300 years ago and the world is very different but this background is still very relevent to today. Before devolution Scotland was a country with it's own legal system but with no legislature. A country governed by a parliament whos upper house has to this day 26 seats reserved for the clergy of a foreign religion. The call to reverse the treaty of union in Scotland is not new but with the contraction of the British empire after the second world war and therefore greater emphasis on domestic matters the support for change in Scotland became stronger. Devolution was supposed to answer the call for better government in Scotland and to defuse the calls for independence. The result of devolution has been the exact opposite. Since the SNP have been in power the Scottish people have seen their lives improved in almost every area where the Scottish parliament has control and this is leading to a popular movement for more autonomy either as an independent country or with greatly increased devolution.
It is a great mistake to think of the Scottish situation in the same context as Wales, Northern Ireland or any other entity. Scotland is unique in that it entered the union by international treaty and it should be free to leave that union if that is the will of the people of Scotland.

[paull805]

It will be free to leave if we decide we want to leave.