Scottish "Independence" manifesto

[Dinner]

That works for the Irish.

[Dr Strangelove]

What happens if Wales goes for independence and North Ireland decides it's more Scottish than English? Would England go back to a simple red cross in a field of white?
Next thorny question - what if the UK decides to exit the EU? If Scotland goes for independence and gets grandfathered into the EU how would the UK leaving the EU affect its relationship with the rest of the EU and with the UK?

[C0ckney]

It's also annoying because the SNP aren't the government of an independent Scotland, elections for that government would take place 2 months after independence. They're basically saying an independent Scotland would look like their party manifesto, which is more than a little cheeky.

i don't see anything unusual about it. all white papers are written like that. the "if we win the election" doesn't need to be expressing stated.

Examples of them making claims that they are not able to make? The EU one is a striking example, as is the currency issue.

we've both agreed that scotland is very unlikely to have problems entering the EU and that if they wish to keep sterling, they will be able to.

Currently it is in the UK's favour to ensure monetary policy benefits the UK as a whole. Why would we care about acting in an independent Scotland's best interests if those diverged from our own due to their new policy making? Equally why would we allow them any control over interest rates? How would that benefit us in any way? They have no leverage here, which is why they're making not so veiled threats about how they'd just walk away from their share of the national debt if we didn't cooperate. A stupid threat, because they are dependent on us aggreeing to give them a share of assets.

my point was that at the moment the english and scottish economies are integrated. indeed there's a far greater difference between the north east of england and london than there is between the north east and scotland. in other words, even if the scots were to find themselves without a say in interest rates, the real situation wouldn't change, as an appropriate rate for england would be an appropriate rate for scotland. there may, in the medium to long term be some divergence, of course, at which point the scotish government would need to consider its options.

There have been major wars affecting Europe for more than 2 thousand years. We've had a lull thanks to the post WW2 shape of the world, and unprecedented cooperation between European nations, but to assume the world is now a friendly place is a massive assumption indeed. China are currently sabre waving in the east and it's going to get a lot worse as their power grows, and Russia aren't exactly following a path of democracy right now. We just don't know where the world is going to go in the future and presenting a strong defensive front can prevent things getting out of hand.

i doubt that chinese or russian tanks will be rolling down princes street any time soon. there just doesn't seem to any reason to devote a large portion of the nations resources to defence. if the situation changes, scotland could always shift a greater proportion of its resources towards defence.

[kentonio]

i don't see anything unusual about it. all white papers are written like that. the "if we win the election" doesn't need to be expressing stated.

A white paper is not supposed to be a speculative party manifesto.

we've both agreed that scotland is very unlikely to have problems entering the EU and that if they wish to keep sterling, they will be able to.

Not on the terms the SNP are claiming we haven't.

my point was that at the moment the english and scottish economies are integrated. indeed there's a far greater difference between the north east of england and london than there is between the north east and scotland. in other words, even if the scots were to find themselves without a say in interest rates, the real situation wouldn't change, as an appropriate rate for england would be an appropriate rate for scotland. there may, in the medium to long term be some divergence, of course, at which point the scotish government would need to consider its options.

That's only true if Scotland keep following a similar path to the rest of the UK, in which case whats the point in independence?

i doubt that chinese or russian tanks will be rolling down princes street any time soon. there just doesn't seem to any reason to devote a large portion of the nations resources to defence. if the situation changes, scotland could always shift a greater proportion of its resources towards defence.

You don't get to suddenly work something out when things go badly, if you don't prepare in advance then you risk being taken unawares. You can't just build ships and planes overnight, as any reading of history will show you. Not being prepared also makes you a much more inviting target for aggression. The world really hasn't changed as much as people seem to like to think.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Free Scotland!

[Dauphin]

I do like the policy idea that Scotland can achieve higher pension payouts through lower life expectancy.

[C0ckney]

A white paper is not supposed to be a speculative party manifesto.

i really don't understand the objection to the SNP, who have always campaigned for independence, who currently govern scotland, and who won the last election with a promise to hold a referendum on independence, putting forward their vision of what an independent scotland would look like.

Not on the terms the SNP are claiming we haven't.

we must be reading different statements from the SNP...

That's only true if Scotland keep following a similar path to the rest of the UK, in which case whats the point in independence?

which, as i've already said, it will, at least in the short term, because radical changes rarely happen overnight.

there is the wider point that it appears that independence won't change all that much, which would make me reluctant to vote for it. a more radical programme might convince someone like me, but probably put off many others.

You don't get to suddenly work something out when things go badly, if you don't prepare in advance then you risk being taken unawares. You can't just build ships and planes overnight, as any reading of history will show you. Not being prepared also makes you a much more inviting target for aggression. The world really hasn't changed as much as people seem to like to think.

again, who is going to invade scotland? the most serious threat will probably come from icelandic trawlers!

[Ben Kenobi]

What happens if Wales goes for independence and North Ireland decides it's more Scottish than English?

Northern Ireland is already majority Catholic. That's why there's proposals to repartition with just County Antrim and County Down.

[Alexander's Horse]

The Scottish independence movement reminds me of their attempts to colonise North America, all airy wistful stuff, but maybe with a hard landing.

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

Darien Scheme (1695)[edit]

Main article: Darien Scheme

The Darien scheme is probably the best known of all Scotland's colonial endeavours, and the most disastrous. In 1695, an act was passed in the Parliament of Scotland establishing The Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies and was given royal assent by the Scottish representative of King William II of Scotland (and III of England). This act gave the company a 31-year monopoly on trade with Africa and Asia, authorising it to arm and equip ships and to establish colonies in uninhabited or unclaimed areas of America, Asia or Africa. These powers were similar to those of the English East India Company, which opposed the establishment of a Scottish rival.

Capital for the company of £400,000 (estimated at one-quarter to one-third of the liquid wealth of Scotland) was raised solely in Scotland, due to intrigue by English merchants and the English government which prevented shares being sold in Amsterdam and Hamburg.[8] This opposition also prevented shares being sold in England, as was the original intention.

In 1696, 2,500 Scottish settlers, in two expeditions, set out to found a Scottish trading colony at Darién on the isthmus of Panama. These settlers were made up of ex-soldiers, ministers of religion, merchants, sailors and the younger sons of the gentry, to receive 50 to 150 acres (0.61 km2) each. The government of the colony was run by a committee, the chairman of which changed every two weeks, thus preventing any real sustained progress in solving the problems faced by the settlers.[citation needed]

These problems included a lack of provisions due to famine in Scotland, the Scots' lack of colonising experience, diseases such as malaria, poor weather and the proximity of the Spanish, who claimed the land the Scots had settled on. Also, for a trading colony established to trade with passing ships in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, they carried a poor choice of trade goods, including wigs, shoes, bibles, woolen clothing and clay pipes.[citation needed]

The colony received no assistance from the crown or English colonies in the West Indies or Jamaica, despite having been promised, in the 1695 act, the assistance of William II. Thus, the Scots faced assaults by the Spanish on their own. In 1699, they dealt with this by recruiting a Jamaican captain to raid Spanish shipping as a privateer, but this achieved little. Soon thereafter, the Spanish mounted an expedition of 500 men to wipe out the Scots. This was effective, as most settlers had already succumbed to disease or starvation.[citation needed]

Notice too that England was a big help (not) once the die was cast.

[notyoueither]

Colonising Panama at that time was very poor choice to make.

[Alexander's Horse]

It is often forgotten though that England brutally conquered Scotland over centuries and behaved just as badly there as it did in Ireland and Wales.

So it isn't all about money.

[C0ckney]

is that what they teach in australian schools?

[molly bloom]

It is often forgotten though that England brutally conquered Scotland over centuries and behaved just as badly there as it did in Ireland and Wales.

So it isn't all about money.

More a case of Scots in the Lowlands behaving badly. The language there was more akin to English for a long time- in the Orkneys they spoke a Norse dialect and in the west and the Western Isles, Scots Gaelic, and the culture was much more akin to Irish.

The English/Scots border area was a notoriously lawless place (with the kind of vendetta/raiding seen in Sicily or Sardinia) reflected in the domestic architecture.

If you haven't read John Prebble's book on the Darien tragedy, I recommend it. And also Peter Watkins' film 'Culloden' :

[Fake Boris]

I think I've read this thread before, LOL

[Alexander's Horse]

is that what they teach in australian schools?

Well first they taught us the British Empire represented everything that was great and good and we were very fortunate to be part of it, as the pinnacle of human civilisation.

Maps like this were common in Australian schools



Then we were told the British empire was very bad and maps like this started to appear. Apparently 90% of countries have been attacked by Britain at one time or another.



So it was all very confusing frankly.