How many people who are NOT citizens of the UK, think Scotland should be independent

And it was ruled from London (one way or another) for many centuries of horrible poverty (with people emigrating like rats off a sinking ship) beforehand.

 

That is how I understand Scotland to be.

 

You don't have an understanding.

 

Well the Scots on this forum are saying you are wrong. That Scotland is in fact a completely separate nation.

 

Long story, but basically we signed into a political union and this means government is shared. Scotland has a separate government for national issues. The larger common issues like defence, are worked from the unified part of the government which happens to sit in England. This part has too much power and Scotland has often been disadvantaged by it, but it's difficult to combat, even by weight of numbers. Scotland has 6 million people. England has 60 million. So by rights, there are more people to represent down there. It's not supposed to happen, but of course we feel disadvantaged.

Or, we did. In recent years, since devolved Scottish Parliament was set up and took over the national issues, it is fighting for more power all the time, for control of taxes, for example.

The funny thing is, Scotland has this devolved government. Wales has a version of it. Ireland is a different situation but they are moving in the right direction. Because we have the separate government, we make decisions about all of these various things alone. But England doesn't have a devolved government, it just has Westminster. Scottish representatives sit in Westminster. They vote on English issues and influence government on their national issues, but the English have no say over Scottish national issues.

To add insult to injury, Scotland is governed by the SNP Party which has only one reason to exist, that is independence. That leadership deliberately sets out to grant Scotland much better conditions than English people have. For example, free university while English students are being asked to pay astronomical fees. Free medical prescriptions. There's a list and England is not happy, because funding for these things is granted to Scotland from the common public fund...which England must contribute to.

Anyway, I could go on all night about this. I won't, I'm sure you're asleep already.

 

It doesnt need to be. Either Scotland is its own country or its not.

Then Scotland isnt a separate country from that point forward.

Since we have established that Scotland is not a separate country, the next issue (IMO) is merely to determine whether or not they are fairly represented.

 

Do you ever read for comprehension? It is a different country.

Joining the EU doesn't mean France is not a country.

UK Union is just a variation on the theme. The first draft of the EU, whose success probably inspired the EU.

Are you getting it yet?

Oh never mind. It's pointless. If it doesn't fit in a neat category, it must be forced in there for the US people. Who are totally off the mark as usual.

 

The US does not appear to consider it a different country. We deal with them through the UK. Just as the UK deals with Texas and Puerto Rico through the US government.

Is their economic system completely independent?

Is their military completely independent?

Is their political system completely independent?

If the answer to any of those questions is "no", then they are not a separate country. Sorry.

 

Really. How different a country was it when it released al-Megrahi?

Under the UK umbrella then, was it?

I don't think so.

As to economics:

read the "Edinburgh is one of Europe's largest financial centres" and weep.

Also note the "shares a border with England". Separate country.

I have to go, it's late here. Please try to absorb while I'm gone and don't make me hurt you when I come back.

Edit] Btw, nobody cares what the US considers it. I know it's a shock to you, but there is a world outside the US. US considering something in a certain way, has no bearing on reality for the rest of us.

 

Really.

Why does it matter? How does it change what I just said?

Scotland is not independent, therefore it is not a nation in this context.

Absorb what? All the non-sequiturs you just posted? heh heh

Then why was this thread started in the first place? If you dont want our opinions, dont start threads asking for our opinions. That seems like common sense to me.

Most of the part that matters is inside the US though.

Obviously it does or else the OP would have included "except Americans" in his post.

 

What good would it serve to severe Scotland from the UK? What, are you gonna start your own army, AF and marines? What system of government will you have? Will you start your own currency? Will you honor the treaties that the UK is currently under? Will you pay the UK for government buildings and other assets in Scotland? Will you allow free trade and travel between England or will you set up checkpoints, immigration offices and customs and duties inspection points all along the border? Seems like a lot of hassle with no reward.

Scotland is smaller than the state of Maine. I don't think it will ever be an economic powerhouse.

 

These are the same questions that must be answered by all independent nations.

 

I am divided on this issue (and many others).

 

And therein lies the rub.

 

You need to resurrect Lady Macbeth. She'll (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)slap the Scots into taking some action!

Was the hope drunk
Wherein you dressed yourself? Hath it slept since?
And wakes it now, to look so green and pale
At what it did so freely? From this time
Such I account thy love. Art thou afeard
To be the same in thine own act and valor
As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting “I dare not” wait upon “I would, ”
Like the poor cat i' th' adage?

 

The flaw in this is one of the commonly held issues of terminology misunderstandings, which stems basically from the common existence of 'Nation States', (in mainland Europe in particular, which developed that way mainly through the 19th Century). 'Nation' and 'state' are different terms with very different meanings, but the common existence of 'nation states' often blurs the distinction for those who are commonly used to the 'nation state' as a concept.

A 'nation' is a collection of people with a common cultural, 'national' identity.
A 'state' is an administrative body - the governmental and bureaucratic system that runs things.
That difference is critical to the understanding of the situation.

Most European countries are 'nation states' - i.e. the 'state' and 'nation' cover (roughly) the same geographical area. The people of one 'nation' have been gathered together under one 'state' (or the people of a 'state' have been gradually assimilated into one 'nation'). France, Germany, Italy, etc., are 'nation states'.

The USA as a 'nation', comprised of a number of different administrative 'state'. The people in all of those 'states' define their 'national' identity (mostly) as American'. The USA itself is a 'nation state', divided also into smaller administrative 'states', but where the people feel identify themselves as a part of that 'nation'.

The UK is significantly different, and this is something people outside the UK tend to forget because of the long-standing existence of it as a single 'state'. It is not a 'nation state', nor a 'nation' divided into 'states'. It is a 'multinational state' - a governmental and administrative unit that covers several separate 'nations', where the people would identify themselves as being (at least partially) 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' or 'English' by nationality, even though they are all citizens of the same 'state'. It is, in effect, more like the EU than the USA - a collection of people with different 'national' identities governed by a single 'state' apparatus.

The Scots are a 'nation'. They have their own cultural and 'national' identity, within their own defined geographical area. It is different from that of the 'nation' of England or the 'nation' of Wales. These are not simply 'regions' or 'sub-states', but all separate 'nations' with separate historical identities as 'nations' that have remained as separate 'nations' despite centuries of the 'state' trying to assimilate us into one. We are all living within one 'state', with one set of governmental and administrative apparatus, and one democratic system of government, but we are separate and distinct peoples.

As an example of this, look at out 'national' teams for most sports. There are some areas (such as the Olympics) where a single multinational 'UK' team competes (and there are some within the different nations who are not happy with that situation!), but in most other areas (Rugby, Soccer, etc.) the national teams that compete on the international stage are Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. These are the national teams supported by the individual nations. The Olympics, in fact, causes a problem - the UK doesn't enter a soccer team, because there is no GB soccer team, but separate national teams controlled by separate national associations. I believe they have reached a deal for 2012 where England will compete as a 'UK' soccer team, but I don't know if people in the US always fully realise that when they play England in the World Cup at soccer they are playing ONLY England, not the UK - Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland compete as separate teams (which often don't qualify for such tournaments, because we are so much smaller in population).

A multinational 'state' is OK as long as the balance of power within it is able to recognise the differences between the 'nations'. The inherent problem with the UK as a 'state' is that the 'nations' within it are too uneven in size to allow that to happen. It is overwhelmingly dominated by England and the interests and agenda of the English. Scotland and Wales have almost no say in how it is run.

That is the basis of the argument for independence - to allow the 'nation' of Scotland to form a 'nation state' of their own, so that Scotland can be run according to the will of the Scottish people, not according to the will of the English people.

 

The reward would be the ability to run the affairs of Scotland according to the will of the people of Scotland.

Of course, there are economic considerations, but there are smaller independent countries in the world than Scotland (and even Wales), and there are mechanisms for wealth generation already within Scotland. There are issues there to be considered, but that's up to the people of Scotland to decide.

Nobody is suggesting towing Scotland into the middle of the Atlantic, and setting up border posts and so on. All that is pretty irrelevant within the EU these days anyway. There is no problem with Scotland and the UK working together on issues like defense (and again that is gradually becoming more multi-state within the EU anyway) - there's no likelihood of Scotland declaring war on the UK! In fact, the suggestion is we would actually get along alot better on this island if we were able to run our own affairs - it would remove much of the cause of the friction that currently exists between the nations of the UK.

Scotland could maintain its own currency, or join the Euro, or possibly tie its currency to the UK (as it is at the moment, even though Scotland actually already has its own bank notes which are different from those in England) - that's up to the Scottish people and parliament to decide (and it would maintain its own democratic parliament). The government assets belong to the UK, and this would be a separation of the UK, so the assets in Scotland would belong to Scotland anyway - they don't belong to 'England' to start off with. Current UK treaties would be honoured unless the people and government of Scotland decided they wanted to renegotiate them - they would then be free to make their own decisions on that, and have whatever treaties they chose with whatever other countries they chose.

 

Viv is correct on this, but it's an understandable mistake to make because the UK is such an odd creation compared with much of the rest of the world!

Scotland is a 'nation'.

Scotland is a 'country'.

Scotland is NOT (currently) an independent 'state', although it was until forming a 'union' with England to create the UK.

This is why the US deals with it through the UK - the UK is currently the 'state'. When it comes to independence of Scotland, we are not talking about creating a new 'country' (it already is a country), or making a 'region' into a 'country' - we are simply talking about dissolving a multinational 'union' that currently exists between two separate countries.

This sort of thing has happened in recent times, for example with the separation of 'Slovakia' and 'The Czech Republic' (from the former 'state' of Czechoslovakia), so is hardly unprecedented on the international stage (it should be noted that there's little chance of the problems that happened with the separation of Yugoslavia being seen in the UK - we don't hate each other that much!).

I realise that this is a concept which some people may be unused to, but that is the unusual situation that the UK has. It is one 'state' which covers several 'nations' or 'countries', all of which are distinct from one another, but they are currently governed together as one. Another problem with appreciating this is the regular use of 'England' as a term to mean the UK by some in the US - that is simply a misunderstanding on their part. England is part of the UK, and the politically dominant part because of its population, but England is not the same as the UK, and Scotland is not in any sense a part of 'England', and never has been. There have been centuries of attempts to unify the UK as a single 'nation' and get the people to forget their separate national identities (and cultures, and this is where the nonsense of 'Britishness' and so on comes from), but these have never been anything like completely successful.

Here's a couple of links for illustration:
Office of National Statistics - Countries of the UK
Wiki - Countries of the UK
and a map from wiki showing them:

 

Patriotnews.
Regarding the military forces if Scotland became independent.
At present the Army, Navy and Air Force are British Forces, not English so there is no reason to expect that an independent Scotland would not have it's share of these, any more than England could expect to retain them all.

 

In other words, you are arguing semantics.

Which is fine. In this case I think it is appropriate. But in America when most people think of a country or nation, they are thinking of a completely independent entity. Even though on paper the States in the US could be considered separate entities (they all have their own laws and Constitutions...a few of them even used to be separate nations), we dont think of them as separate from the US.

And it really looks to me like Scotland is analogous to that. They dont have a separate military or government.

As to whether they SHOULD have one...IMO I dont think it is necessary unless they are being oppressed. And being outvoted in a democracy does not necessarily mean they are oppressed. I think it would be more reasonable to call for reforms within the government to give representation to smaller population areas (which is basically the function of the Senate in the US...it gives a voice to the smaller states).

A lot of people on here seem to think that desire alone is sufficient reason to secede...I disagree.

 

It's not a case of semantics, it's a case of not knowing what a nation is. I don't think it's just an American error, as I've had conversations with people from many places that make the same mistake. It's very important to understand the difference between nations, countries, and states ESPECIALLY in the U.S. Most people never stop to think why we call Vermont (for example) a state instead of a province. The reason for that is when the U.S. was formed it was 13 very distinct states who cooperated under a federal government. Up until the Civil War most Americans thought of themselves as being a citizen of their state instead of being a citizen of the United States. Each of the 13 states was not only a state but also a nation, though they were not countries. This is still somewhat true today, but the Civil War for the most part crushed this thinking. In fact, an argument could be made that the term state is no longer accurate when referring to the individual states.

 

What other reason could their possibly be? Or do you believe that once a country is formed it should never be dissolved, which of course will eventually lead to one global state with immense centralized power and almost no individual rights.

 

uh huh

If you are politically subordinate to another country, then you are not a country. And that is what "nation" is referring to in this context...a completely autonomous state that is not subordinate to another state.

 

I gave one...if they are being oppressed.

That is often subjective of course, but IMO Scotland is not being oppressed by the UK.

Not if everyone within the country is being represented and is not being oppressed. No, I dont think dissolution should be casual.

Hardly. It would depend on the specific form of government that such a global nation took. A global democracy using a republican system of representation would probably work just fine IMO.

 

You have no idea of the difference in culture. Have a look at what happened when the burden of battle was lifted and Scottish people were free to create instead of kill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment

If this country is able to self-govern in peace, what will it create then? It is our risk. I am convinced to deprive us of that freedom, is to deprive the world of a huge contribution from a country bursting with original and practical thinkers.

How ignorant do you want to be? Honestly, it's insulting in the extreme. One of the main reasons the English made truce is to acquire the Scottish military instead of having to fight it.

Do you know who created the SAS? Do you know where the SAS train? DO you know where the nuclear deterrent is based? Here's a clue. You can see it from where I am sitting now, btw...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0awiclsshUI"]YouTube - HM Naval Base Clyde[/ame]

And now I'm sorry, but you have rattled my cage with your nonsense.

...to be continued