# Scotland Independence Movement



## CougarKing (5 Aug 2014)

Only 6 more weeks till the landmark referendum...

Reuters



> *Scotland's pro-independence camp betting on TV debate to win votes*
> BY ALISTAIR SMOUT
> EDINBURGH Mon Aug 4, 2014 7:04pm EDT
> 
> ...



Please also note related, older threads:

"Scotland independence could force UK defense industries to relocate"

"How do you break off a military for an independent Scotland?"


----------



## CougarKing (8 Sep 2014)

Independence more likely than previously thought?



> *Scottish referendum: Shock new poll says Scots set to vote for independence*
> 
> 'No' campaign to offer radical deal as latest figures show 51-49% backing for end of the union
> 
> ...



London getting desperate?

NY Times



> *Britain Promises Scotland More Self-Rule if It Rejects Independence*
> 
> LONDON — Shaken by polls showing momentum shifting toward independence for Scotland, the British government will offer proposals for greater political and fiscal autonomy for the Scots if they vote to remain within the United Kingdom in a referendum on Sept. 18, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, said on Sunday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (8 Sep 2014)

The Pound took a tumble today after one of those polls.  A sign of things to come I think should the Scots decide to leave.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2014)

_Goldman Sachs_ doesn't think Scottish independence is a very good idea: here ... they aren't going to become the "Singapore of the North."


----------



## CougarKing (13 Sep 2014)

We'll see how things turn out after the referendum next week:

*Reuters slide show: Independence fever in Scotland*


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2014)

P.J. O'Rourke on Scottish Independence
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/13/up-to-a-point-a-free-scotland-would-be-a-hilarious-disaster.html



> Up to a Point: A Free Scotland Would Be a Hilarious Disaster
> And independent Scotland would be a catastrophe as a country. But it would also be very entertaining for reporters like P.J. O’Rourke.
> This coming Thursday the Scots will vote on whether to make Scotland an independent nation. And I hope they do because it will be a disaster.
> 
> ...



I like that man..... :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2014)

An independent Scotland would no longer provide troops for Her Majesty's armed forces ? How would that work ?


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2014)

Not sure.

Canadians supply troops for Her Majesty's armed forces.  And I seem to recall Hanoverians and Hessians supplying troops for His Majesty King George III in a discussion with yourselves - despite the lack of British Parliamentary oversight of those forces.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2014)

From what I've gathered, in the event of a yes win:

-The UK would accept the result in good faith (as well as expect the same from Scotland in the event of a no win)
-Scotland is claiming they will owe 8% of the debt since they are 8% of the population.  The uK contends it is 12% since a disproportionate amount of money supports Scotland in the UK.
-Scotland claims to have the option of retaining the pound.  The UK says no way. One has to understand what is meant by this.  Yes they could keep the pound but they would have zero say on their economic policy if the UK excludes them from that.  Meaning no control on fiscal policy and the inability to print money.
-Scotland would remove nuclear weapon sites and form a small standing domestic military force.  Nothing to stop them here but I'm pretty sure there will be negociations.
-Admittance to the EU will not be automatic.  Many EU countries have a vested interest in wanting Scotland to fail and will probably vote against or veto their entry.  France, Spain and Itraly all have seperatist movements that will be emboldened by an independant Scotland and would use this to dissuade them.  
-They would keep the monarchy for now.  Nothing to stop them.  But I think it has more to do with appeasing monarchists and avoiding debates on several fronts.  I suspect their is a republican streak amongst the yes camp

Expect two years or so of negociations.  A yes win could mean one of two things for Canada.  If Scotland becomes a basket case country economically and likely socially it will spell the end of any serious separtist rumblings here (what little of it that remains).  If they succeed it will probably be what renews speratist fervour here (and not anything that Quebec seperatists or the federal government do here).  My take is that a quick exit by the Bank of Scotland and isolation from Europe and the UK will turn Scotland into something worse than any of the PIGS.  Even if they keep their oil industry.  Their liberal left mentality will send them to the bottom fast. Free university tuition will likely evaporate among other things.  Jobs will leave and you will see a few people jump ship elsewhere adding to the issues they wil face.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not sure.
> 
> Canadians supply troops for Her Majesty's CANADIAN armed forces.  And I seem to recall Hanoverians and Hessians supplying troops for His Majesty King George III in a discussion with yourselves - despite the lack of British Parliamentary oversight of those forces.



ftfy


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ftfy



Interesting point.  I wonder how many troops, nominally, Her Majesty does command?


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2014)

She's the head of state for around 16 countries or so.  But aside from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I'm not sure if any of the other countries have anything significant to add.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Sep 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> .....I'm not sure if any of the other countries have anything significant to add.


Rugby players from the Polynesian former-colonies, and cheap UN troops from the African.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Rugby players from the Polynesian former-colonies, and cheap UN troops from the African.   ;D



Which brings us back to the Scottish Regiments and the Independence Movement


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2014)

Hmn, here's something interesting from the Bank of UK Governor Mark Carney (a former Bank of Canada Governor as some of you well know).

He has stated that "a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty."  Something that Quebecers should take note of as this would likely be the Bank of Canada's position on the matter here.


----------



## Lightguns (15 Sep 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Which brings us back to the Scottish Regiments and the Independence Movement



Your photo says it all, there are no highland regiments beyond the name, the highland regiment makes it quota only by enlistments from overseas possessions.  Scots are not flocking to the colours, they are staying at home clubbing, footballing, and living off the fat of an emaciated Great Britain.  The Scots military would likely mirror the Irish military (known as the FCA or nicknamed "The Free Clothes Association").  Small token and UN dedicated.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Sep 2014)

Ha! No wonder some articles mentioned how Scotland would be vulnerable to Russian invasion once they left the UK.

Defense News



> *NATO Says Independent Scotland Would Have To Reapply*
> Sep. 15, 2014 - 07:48PM | By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> BRUSSELS — NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Monday that if Scotland votes for independence this week it will have to reapply to join the military alliance.
> ...


----------



## dimsum (16 Sep 2014)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Scots are not flocking to the colours, they are staying at home clubbing, footballing, and living off the fat of an emaciated Great Britain.



Not to mention backpacking in, and applying to be citizens of, Australia.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2014)

The mainstream economic papers (e.g. _The Economist_ and the _Financial Times_) have been full of dire predictions about a "Yes" vote, noting that Scotland is not, in any respect, going to be a "Northern Singapore." They are equally glum about the future of the UK(-) ... and Canada.

A "No" vote, _The Economist_ notes will still be messy, forcing _federalism_ onto a traditionally unitary state.

My own, personal, view is contrarian:

     First: while I agree that Scotland will suffer, mightily, from a "messy divorce," as Prime Minister Cameron puts it, Britain (England + Wales + Northern Ireland) will become stronger when the
     economic and social (_socialistic_) dead weight of the Scots is lifted. Scotland *was* a GREAT country ... in the 18th and 19th centuries. It lost its way in the 20th and I'm afraid its future looks
     a lot more like Greece than like Singapore ... it's all about socio-political philosophy; but

     Second: in the event of a "No" vote then the UK needs to move, quickly, and decisively, towards a proper federal structure which means a (vastly stripped down) federal, UK parliament in Westminster
     and highly autonomous _provincial/state_ parliaments in Belfast, Cardiff and, say, Derby,(in the middle) or York (for tradition). This will *force* the Irish, Scots and Welsh to make socio-economic
     decisions with their own money, using their own tax base. Later, as necessary, the UK can explore _equalization_, with, hopefully, some rational thought based on what it learned from Canada's mistakes.

Will Scotland vote "Yes?" Maybe, it's possible, the way the question and voting rules are framed there is a fair chance for a "Yes," vote, but my _guesses_ (two of 'em) are:

     1. It will be a narrow "No," vote, a vote for unity; and

     2. The UK will devolve power without responsibility to Scotland and make things worse.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Sep 2014)

David Cameron went up to Scotland and asked the Scots not to quit the Union just because they wanted to give "the effin Tories a kick".  The anti-Unionist vote increased....

Scots don't like to be told what to do....especially be a Scot who talks with a plum in his mouth.

Scots don't like to be condescended to....F*ck you may be permissible amongst your friends but it is not permissible in polite company and certainly is not expected from a public figure like the Prime Minister

Scots don't like Tories - In the Scotland of my childhood one of the greatest insult was "Ach! Yer mother's a Tory."

Scots are inherently conservative - they vote the way their parents did and the Labour Party and socialism in Britain arguably originated with Keir Hardie and the miners of Lanark and Ayrshire.

And lest someone points out a contradiction between conservatism and giving birth to a new social movement I would point out that my people of the Southwest have always been anti-establishment.

They have variously been Covenanters, Cameronians, Wee Free (United Free Presbyterians founded because the Presbyterians were too Episcopalian and Catholic) and Labour party supporters.  I could add Masons to the mix as well.

The other factor in this referendum is the impact of all those Fenians in the New Towns around Glasgow - all the Celtic supporters that were relocated from the Glasgow slums in the Fifties and took up Train-Spotting for a living. They were in the slums largely because my protestant brethren kept the best jobs for themselves - easy enough to do when you could detect a man's origins by his name and accent  - a skill that allowed the cognoscenti to identify which street in Glasgow you came from or which village in Ayrshire.  

The Fenians will vote against the English.  Full stop.  You can see that in the regional polls.
The Scots will continue to divide along Highland Catholic, Lowland Protestant lines with the Highlanders siding with the Fenians.
The Lowlanders will tend to vote for the Union while detesting the thought that they will have to admit anything to the English.

The outcome will be a near run thing, as Wellington described Waterloo, but ultimately I think it will be the conservatism of the Scots that results in a narrow No vote.

And if I'm wrong?  Well I've already decided the Irish make a better whisk(e)y for my dollar.


----------



## Remius (16 Sep 2014)

The one thing I will say is I like how clear all of it has been. 

The simple yes or no question.  How teh Bank of Scotland said it would relocate, how teh PM stated that this would be a permanent non revocable thing etc etc.  It's the sort of thing needed here if seperation becomes a thing again.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Sep 2014)

The "New Scot's" army will likely have to whore themselves out to the UN to maintain jobs and any form of a budget. When they divy up the equipment I wonder if the Scots will get the "Clansman system"?  8)


----------



## Marchog (16 Sep 2014)

> The Scots will continue to divide along Highland Catholic, Lowland Protestant lines with the Highlanders siding with the Fenians.


Don't know where you're getting this. According to the polls I've seen, the Highlands and Islands are split with advantage to the NO side. As far as I can tell, the SNP is largely a creature of the urbanites to the south that make up most of the Scottish population.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2014)

One interesting second order effect that no one has talked about yet is where will the disaffected go in the event of a Yes vote? Will Canada suddenly receive a flood of Scottish immigrants looking for opportunities out West since their own nation imploded?

And of course, just what sorts of people will these Scots be? Will they bring the Scottish work ethic of the 19th century, or the 21rst? Who would they vote for? What other sorts of changes would they bring to Canada?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2014)

I don't pretend to understand Scotland's social-political _culture_, but I can read a government balance sheet and I can read e.g. OECD data and I _believe_ that there is no rational economic argument *for* a "Yes," vote. That doesn't mean the Scots will not vote "Yes," it doesn't even mean they shouldn't vote "Yes," it just means that a "Yes," vote will be economically unsound.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't pretend to understand Scotland's social-political _culture_, but I can read a government balance sheet and I can read e.g. OECD data and I _believe_ that there is no rational economic argument *for* a "Yes," vote. That doesn't mean the Scots will not vote "Yes," it doesn't even mean they shouldn't vote "Yes," it just means that a "Yes," vote will be economically unsound.



Edward, given the last names of Kirkhill, you and me, we probably all have at least a genetic inkling of the tendency of the Scots to do the wrong thing despite all the data that emphatically plead don't do it. See the common Celtic tactic of running as fast as they can at sharp, pointed objects.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2014)

Perhaps it's time for a chorus of "A Song of Patriotic Prejudice"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8

(Flanders & Swan)

The rottenest bits of these islands of ours
We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers
Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot
You'll find he's a stinker as likely as not

     The English the English the English are best
     I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

The Scotsman is mean as we're all well aware
He's boney and blotchy and covered with hair
He eats salty porridge, he works all the day
And hasn't got bishops to show him the way

     The English the English the English are best
     I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

The Irishman now our contempt is beneath
He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth
He blows up policemen or so I have heard
And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third

     The English are moral the English are good
     And clever and modest and misunderstood

The Welshman's dishonest, he cheats when he can
He's little and dark more like monkey than man
He works underground with a lamp on his hat
And sings far too loud, far too often and flat

     The English the English the English are best
     I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

And crossing the channel one cannot say much
For the French or the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch
The Germans are German, the Russians are red
And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed

     The English are noble, the English are nice
     And worth any other at double the price

And all the world over each nation's the same
They've simply no notion of playing the game
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won
And they practice before hand which spoils all the fun

     The English the English the English are best
     I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad
It's just that they're foreign that makes them so mad
The English are all that a nation should be
And the pride of the English are Chipper and me

     The English the English the English are best
     I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest


----------



## Marchog (16 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't pretend to understand Scotland's social-political _culture_, but I can read a government balance sheet and I can read e.g. OECD data and I _believe_ that there is no rational economic argument *for* a "Yes," vote. That doesn't mean the Scots will not vote "Yes," it doesn't even mean they shouldn't vote "Yes," it just means that a "Yes," vote will be economically unsound.


As someone who supports the "No" side (and who incidentally is of Highland descent and is probably the only person registered to Army.ca who speaks passable Scottish Gaelic), on principle I would remind you that economics isn't everything. The tendency of both socialists and neoliberals to reduce everything to cold hard material goods is somewhat disconcerting to me, even with the understandable disclaimers you make. 

On the other hand this could be some sort of subconscious knee-jerk reaction against anything related to clan Campbell, my ancestors' sworn enemies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2014)

Part 1 of 2

Unrelentingly _elitist_, I suppose, but here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Economist_, are two articles, one reflecting on _attitudes_, albeit those of tweedy university dons and <shudder> economists, and the other all about the _dismal science_:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/09/scottish-nationalist-movement


> Of Oxford, Edinburgh and Glasgow
> 
> Sep 16th 2014
> 
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2014)

Part 2 of 2

And now from one of _The Economist's_ resident economists:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/09/scottish-referendum


> 48 hours
> 
> Sep 16th 2014
> 
> ...




So, I repeat: there is no _rational_ argument for a *Yes"* vote, but this is about a _dream_, isn't it? And dreams, by their very definition, are irrational.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Sep 2014)

For all you of Scottish heritage:


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Sep 2014)

One of my favorite blogs has a nice explanation of Scottish independence for Americans.Alot of info I didnt know.

http://ace.mu.nu/

The Scottish Wars of Independence, and Why That Has Nothing to Do With Any of This

Scotland was an independent state before the Wars for Scottish Independence depicted (inaccurately) in Braveheart, too. English control of Scotland was a fairly short-lived affair. The Scottish king, Alexander III, died, and then so did his daughter and heir at a young age, leading to a disputed succession.

 Edward I -- who I'll just call "Edward Longshanks," because we all know him from Braveheart -- graciously offered to mediate the succession dispute, and came up with a terrific solution pleasing to all parties: He invaded Scotland and declared himself "Lord Paramount," overlord over whatever king should eventually take the Scottish throne.

Longshanks was depicted as the villain in Braveheart, but you gotta admit: That's a Pimp move, man.

This sparked the First and Second Wars of Scottish Independence, which were fought in rapid succession. 

Ultimately, Robert the Bruce became King of Scotland and managed to drive out Edward and his pretender to the throne (a man named Edward Balloi), and Scotland was free once more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Sep 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One interesting second order effect that no one has talked about yet is where will the disaffected go in the event of a Yes vote? Will Canada suddenly receive a flood of Scottish immigrants looking for opportunities out West since their own nation imploded?
> 
> And of course, just what sorts of people will these Scots be? Will they bring the Scottish work ethic of the 19th century, or the 21rst? Who would they vote for? What other sorts of changes would they bring to Canada?



Gacckkk! Could we really be able to put up with that many immigrating into top executive union spots. I'm always amazed at how many say they're leaving because of the weather. They leave one, waterlogged island and fly half way around the world to take up residence in another off the west coast.


----------



## CougarKing (18 Sep 2014)

Some food for thought of another major implication of an independent Scotland:

Business Insider



> *Scottish Independence Could Indirectly Lead To The End Of Britain's Nuclear Arsenal*
> 
> *A Scottish vote to leave the United Kingdom on Thursday could ultimately lead to the end of the country's nuclear arsenal, which consists of 225 warheads.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (18 Sep 2014)

The day of decision...

Agence France Presse



> *SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? | Scotland votes on independence*
> By: Agence France-Presse
> September 18, 2014 3:02 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Sep 2014)

A good one.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2014-09-18-editorial-cartoon


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2014)

A young friend asked me a question yesterday, about how Scotland might manage its currency, and it occurs to me that a few (even one or two?) members might find my answer of mild interest.

There are several ways to manage a national currency.

     1. The most common way, for advanced economies, is to _float_ the currency - to, essentially, allow the currency trading markets to decide its value. This is how the Canadian dollar and US dollar and most major
         currencies are managed. _Floats_ are almost never free of interference by central banks. Even avowed "free floaters" like David Dodge and Mark Carney at the Bank of Canada intervened in currency markets,
         by buying or selling Canadian dollars, to moderate the effects of some swings;

     2. The other very common method is to _peg_ the values of a currency to that of another very stable, globally traded currency, like the Swiss Frank, but, as we saw in 2011, even the Swiss are not above interfering
         and devaluing their currency to help national competitiveness. For many years Canada tried to mix a _float_ with periodic _pegs_ which led us, in 1962, to:

              
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



              Prime Minister Diefenbaker's surprise devaluation of the in 1962 gave us the _Diefnbuck_

         That, a mix of a _float_ and periodic _pegs_ against the US dollar, is how China manages its currency, the RMB.

         A _peg_ does not require a 1:1 ratio between currencies. A country can decide to _peg_ its currency at whatever level it wants 50 Marks or Pounds or Pesos or whatevers to the Frank or 50 Franks to the Mark, etc.
     
     3. There was, for a while, a _middle way_ in Europe: the _European Monetary System_ (1979 until the arrival of the € in 1998) which we called the EMS the _snake_ because member countries were allowed to
         _float_ their currencies in a _range_ between fixed upper and lower _pegs_, so you can imagine a currency moving up and down, within that range, rather like the track a snake makes in the sand.
         The _snake_ was, in theory, a great system because it gave you common currency while still leaving sovereign nations with some, albeit not compete, control over their monetary policy, something
         which € states cannot have. The problem was that the _snake_ depended upon nation-states being honest about their financial affairs and some, at least one major European power refused to follow the rules
         and, equally, refused to be called to account.

     4. The final way is to simply use another currency - which is what Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau suggested might happen. And it can happen, it does happen, consider e.g. Ecuador and
         El Salvador. But, there's a problem, the US Administration and the Federal Reserve make monetary policy to suit US interests, not those of East Timor. Further, a country that wants to use another's currency
         (as opposed to just _peg_ to it) must make arrangements to have sufficient supplies of that currency which, _de facto_ means it becomes dependent on the US banking system.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Sep 2014)

At the same time, merchants may just place a fixed value on an item, with a currency exchange rate list for several currencies to match that value.  This was common in the EU when the process of converting to the Euro was being done.  It placed a strain on cashiers manning the tills, but was legal until such time that Euro became the only accepted currency.  You may still find examples of this in some International Airports where travelers may be doing some Duty Free shopping.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2014)

Niall Ferguson 



> Scottish referendum: Alone, Scotland will go back to being a failed state





> Scottish history offers proof that even the most failed state can be fixed – by uniting with a richer and more tranquil neighbour. For most of the early modern period, the Scots kingdom was Europe’s Afghanistan. In the Highlands and the Hebrides, feudal warlords ruled over an utterly impoverished populace in conditions of lawlessness and internecine clan conflict. In the Lowlands, religious zealots who fantasised about a Calvinist theocracy – government by the godly Elect – prohibited dancing, drinking and drama. John Knox and his ilk were the Taliban of the Reformation. Witches were burnt in large numbers in Scotland, not in England.
> 
> Being the Scottish monarch was one of Europe’s most dangerous jobs. James I was murdered. James II died besieging Roxburgh Castle. James III also died in battle. So did James IV, at Flodden in 1513. James V died after yet another defeat at the hands of the English at Solway Moss. Mary I – Mary Queen of Scots – was actually imprisoned and executed by the English. James VI’s reaction on hearing that he had succeeded the woman who had condemned his mother to death was not one of repugnance but relief. As King James I of England, he could not wait to relocate south.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11102126/Scottish-referendum-Alone-Scotland-will-go-back-to-being-a-failed-state.html

Just a thought about Tcheuchters and Sassenachs.  To Tcheuchters Sassenachs were anybody from south of the Highland Line (roughly the line south of Stirling.  Lowlanders called the Gaelic speaking Highlanders Tcheuchters.  As far as the British government was concerned all the Highlanders spoke Erse and the Highland Regiments were originally listed on the Irish Establishment.

The Highlanders that didn't leave Scotland during the clearances or the Potato Famine (the same one that hit Ireland) all ended up washing up in Glasgow, in the same tenements as the Irish, doing the same low wage jobs.

With respect to currency 

Scots banks have a tradition of issuing their own paper money













> The legal position with regard to Scottish Banknotes is as follows:
> 
> Scottish Banknotes are legal currency – i.e. they are approved by the UK Parliament.  However, Scottish Bank notes are not Legal Tender, not even in Scotland.  In fact, no banknote whatsoever (including Bank of England notes!) qualifies for the term 'legal tender' north of the border and the Scottish economy seems to manage without that legal protection.
> 
> ...



http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/legal_position.php

ERC - if you hadn't brought up the subject I would never have learned about this.  It's why I love this site.


----------



## Remius (18 Sep 2014)

I read about this a few months ago and is failry well summerized here.  Something I was unfamiliar with but may hold some interesting lessons.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/17/why-scotland-is-part-of-great-britain-disastrous-17th-century-colony-in-panama-behind-union/


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> With respect to currency
> 
> Scots banks have a tradition of issuing their own paper money
> ...




That was the case in Canada until _circa_ 1935 ...










... and it is still the case in e.g. Hong Kong where both the government and selected chartered banks issue notes:














And your point about legal tender is well made.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Sep 2014)

Regardless of who wins tonight, I do hope that it works out for the Scots.  I do pray, however, that if it is the "yes" side, it doesn't get our lot in Que. all fired up once more.  I've heard enough  from that camp to last my lifetime.


----------



## McG (19 Sep 2014)

BBC is predicting a win for the No vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29270441


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Sep 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> BBC is predicting a win for the No vote.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29270441



Over a million voted Yes, though. There should be a few interesting discussions from this point on in Scotland as a result...


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2014)

BBC numbers show 55% "no" to 45% "yes", with district "yes" results in Dundee City, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire - attached BBC map shows yes in pink, no in green-ish.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2014)

So, the "Yes" vote was concentrated in a narrow strip running from Inverclyde (1 on the map) to Dundee (15), a largely urban, 'lowland,' and industrial region and, of course, resoundingly anti-Tory in their politics. This is a _fair to (almost) good_ result for the Labour Party, except in Glasgow and Dundee,: it got out the vote and campaigned well but failed to carry Glasgow.





Key to Council Areas since 1996:
1. Inverclyde
2. Renfrewshire
3. West Dunbartonshire
4. East Dunbartonshire
5. City of Glasgow
6. East Renfrewshire
7. North Lanarkshire
8. Falkirk
9. West Lothian
10. City of Edinburgh
11. Midlothian
12. East Lothian
13. Clackmannanshire
14. Fife
15. City of Dundee
16. Angus
17. Aberdeenshire
18. City of Aberdeen
19. Moray
20. Highland
21. Na h-Eileanan Siar (Western Isles)
22. Argyll & Bute
23. Perth and Kinross
24. Stirling
25. North Ayrshire
26. East Ayrshire
27. South Ayrshire
28. Dumfries & Galloway
29. South Lanarkshire
30. Scottish Borders

Not Shown:
Orkney Islands
Shetland Islands

But look at the vote _splits_, especially by age:





Based, *I assume*, on exit polls
18-24 year olds and those above 55 voted "No." The two 'ends' 16-17 years olds and 65+ don't, really, surprise me, but the 18-24 year old vote does - I rather _guessed_ that the "Yes" vote would be solid up to about age 35 and then the "No" would dominate; that's not quite how it worked.


----------



## Lightguns (19 Sep 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> BBC numbers show 55% "no" to 45% "yes", with district "yes" results in Dundee City, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire - attached BBC map shows yes in pink, no in green-ish.



Ahhh, you will never tame a Highlander, so the English part of Scotland voted to stay English.  It will make for an interesting debate in Scotland, much like our debate in Quebec about those nasty Canadian loving Allphones in Montreal!


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2014)

Actually, if we take Kirkhill's word for it, the current _Highlanders_ voted "No," as did the "Border Scots," and only the urban ex-Highlanders, in that narrow strip South the real highlands, voted "Yes."



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> Just a thought about Tcheuchters and Sassenachs.  To Tcheuchters Sassenachs were anybody from south of the Highland Line (roughly the line south of Stirling.  Lowlanders called the Gaelic speaking Highlanders Tcheuchters.  As far as the British government was concerned all the Highlanders spoke Erse and the Highland Regiments were originally listed on the Irish Establishment.
> 
> The Highlanders that didn't leave Scotland during the clearances or the Potato Famine (the same one that hit Ireland) all ended up washing up in Glasgow, in the same tenements as the Irish, doing the same low wage jobs.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2014)

:highjack:   :sorry:

Further to the _money_ discussion (and money, or, at least, thrift is a defining characteristic of the Scots, is it not?), I just saw this about coins (which, especially when issued by a government, are the very definition of legal tender:

http://www.news.gov.hk/en/categories/finance/html/2014/09/20140919_151840.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Coin collection plan to start
> September 19, 2014
> The Monetary Authority will launch a coin collection programme on October 6 with two Coin Carts roaming the city to collect coins from people for the next two years.
> 
> ...




The _Octopus card_ is an interesting HK innovation. It started life as a transit fare card but it can now be used as a general purpose cash card. You can use them in, literally, tens of thousands of places. Singapore has a similar, but less all pervasive system. On my way out of HK on my last trip I went to the MTR station at the airport and _loaded_ all my HK cash onto my _Octopus_ card, knowing it's there when I return.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2014)

Looking at the CBC news in the gym this morning, there seems to be a "wave" of calls for independence referenda across Europe. A partial list would include parts of Spain, Belgum and Venice, but I confess I only caught the tail end of this.

While I'm sure many people are fed up with the mismanagement from the "center", creating smaller nations with fewer resources might not be the best way to go forward, unless your population has the same incentives and work ethic as the people of Hong Kong or Singapore. Sadly, what I am getting out of most of these independence movements is they want to create their *own* bureaucratic welfare state on the tiny foundations of whatever ethnic, linguistic or other sub grouping the independence movement claims to represent.

Unless the "center" is something like Saddam's Iraq or the IS "Caliphate", I suspect that the vast majority of people are better off staying (or in a federated state, moving to whatever part of the nation has the best incentives; i.e. Alberta in Canada)


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2014)

What I am hearing is that the Scottish Referendum has caused many of those independence notions in other European nations to pause for second thought.  

The EU is a novel idea that will go through many years of uncertainty before it really becomes a family of nations and a truly unified Europe.  I think we are all too hard on our expectations of a strong union from the get go, and don't really think of the growing pains Europe has to go through to make it work.  Referendums for separation from any union really need to be well thought out.  Thankfully we in the West have democratic processes in place that allow for peaceful referendums of this sort to take place.  We have come a long way.  Other Regions of the world would prefer to go in the opposite direction.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, if we take Kirkhill's word for it, the current _Highlanders_ voted "No," as did the "Border Scots," and only the urban ex-Highlanders, in that narrow strip South the real highlands, voted "Yes."



I stand by my assessment.  Although every part of Scotland was split with nationalists everywhere the closer you got to Glasgow the more likely it was that that the population were Yes supporters.

Part of the Yes problem though, was summarized by this comment from a Labour supporter in Clackmannanshire: "The nationalists are nothing but Tories in kilts."

That may take a bit of parsing.

Labour in Scotland is full of the spirit of Burns's "A man's a man for a' that......And all the world oer... shall brithers be for a' that."  They are internationalists at heart although they are also Scots.  They don't see a contradiction there.  

Labour agrees on one thing.  They don't like Tories.  Tories are not necessarily English.  They detest Scottish Tories equally.  Tories have variously been Jacobites, Episcopalians, Landowners responsible for the clearances, Mine owners and Shipyard owners.  Not to mention town councillors.  That is to say, anyone with power to constrain them (and charge malting taxes).  

The nationalists have generally been middle to upper class Scots, starting with the Jacobites.

The Tories and Labour agreed on one thing.  The only people that didn't wear breeks were Tcheuchters.   Highlanders were brought down from the north to suppress the honest, God-fearing, witch-burning Covenanters and the lowlanders have never let them forget it.

Even today "respectable" lowlanders buy a Walter Scott kilt to dress up for their wedding and other ceremonials.  Beyond that kilts are seldom worn.

Alex Salmond's strategy was to take over the centre-right nationalists and co-opt them into a left-leaning organization.  This is the strategy of the Party Quebecois and the IRA.

The strategy works as long as you don't ask them what comes the morning after.  All can agree that change can be good.  The problem always remains - what kind of change?

Obama, Salmond and Trudeau skip the messy details (and split their countries down the middle?).  Half the Scots were canny enough to want to know what was on offer before agreeing to change for the sake of change.


One thing I was pleasantly surprised to see - and that was the lack of confrontations.  Well done to the Scots.


And one last point - I wouldn't want to be David Cameron (or Ed Milliband).

The calls are now out for a grand constitutional convention to deal with the governance of the English, Welsh and Ulstermen as well as the Scots.  But that would break up Westminster and turn it into Ottawa.  Labour would lose its strength which is dependent on Scots and Welsh voters.  Westminster could end up as a Tory fiefdom for ever.  One up for David.  But he has to negotiate that at the same time as winning a general election and manage a referundum on the EU while trying to co-opt the UKIP vote. 

The next three years could be as momentous for the Brits as the 1685-1689 period - if not as bloody.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Sep 2014)

Hoping to ride the youth vote to a "Yes" victory backfired on Scotlands left.They had changed the voting rules to allow 16 year olds the vote. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/17/scotland-independence-teen-vote/15768549/?csp=fbfanpage

LONDON — To misquote a famous British rock group, they are talking and voting about their generation.

Scotland's independence vote Thursday represents the first time voters in the United Kingdom as young as 16 will help decide a significant matter of state: Should Scotland stay in the union or should it go (to misquote another British rock group)?
About 120,000 teens ages 16 and 17 are likely to cast ballots, estimates Graeme West, who helps run Generation Yes, an organization raising awareness for young Scottish voters. In a tight vote, they could change the course of history.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2014)

Actually, Kirkhill, I was pleasantly surprised, indeed impressed, to see how much detail the "Yes" campaign provided. They had plans, real plans, the sort of detail that not Quebec separatist ever had the courage to enunciate. I _suspect_, in fact, that all the detail gave the "No" campaign the opening it needed to introduce uncertainty which, in turn, creates fear. (The firm, detailed counter arguments, (and there were some) did, not, _it appears to me_, persuade the Scots, it was the more vague uncertainties that, I _think_, were raised, especially in the overseas media, in the last week that first stopped and then reversed the shift to "Yes" which _peaked_ a week to early for that cause.)

I agree with you on two other points: BZ to the Scots for a civil campaign and I, too, do not envy David Cameron or Ed Milliband.

*The Next Steps*

The unenvied Cameron and Milliband must, now keep their promise and restructure the British Union. 

It seems to me that the key is England, not Scotland.

The first, essential step is to recognize that what Scotland wants and what Cameron/Milliband _promised_ is a federation.

The parliament in Westminster needs to:

     1. Create four provinces: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, each to have a capital with a legislature and powers such as one might find in §2 of the Australian Constitution or in §91 and §92 of
         the Canadian Constitution. (Britain, most emphatically, does *not* need a written constitution, just one Act of the _national_ parliament which defines the divisions of powers and taxation authorities.)

     2. Broker agreements with the four provinces regarding how they _may_ want to share some of their powers, i.e. through a super-provincial or sub-national agency to manage e.g. the _National_ Health
        ~ which does not need to be a _national_ responsibility, unlike say tariffs, monetary policy and defence.

Thus, we they end up with *five* legislatures: a _national_ parliament in Westminster and four provincial or state legislatures/assemblies/parliaments in England/Capital TBD, Northern Ireland/Stormont, Scotland/Edinburgh and Wales/Cardiff.


----------



## Privateer (19 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> England/Capital TBD



Winchester?  Some historical precedent.  (Capital before London.)

If this significant reformulation of the United Kingdom to a federalist state occurs, it is interesting to compare the change wrought by one peaceful referendum in Scotland, as opposed to decades of violence in Northern Ireland.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2014)

Point taken on the SNP detailing contrasting to the PQ but I would still argue that there were many holes left in the platform that could be (and were) exploited by the Unionist side.

But that I consider a minor quibble now. (Which is to say that you are right but I'm buggered if I will admit it   ).

With respect to the federalization of the union:  a couple of additional complicating factors enter into the equation.

The North of England, strongly of the opinion that there was never a man born south of The Wash, has as little love for the Home Counties as the Scots (whom they equally and cordially detest as sheep-shaggers).  There has already been some press speculation about whether Derby or York should be the North's capital with the edge going to the Viking city of York.

Privateer - Winchester might be the choice for the South of The Wash regional capital but it was never York's capital.

As well there are rumours of the Cornish wanting special treatment.

Finally there is this from Nick Clegg:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/nick-clegg-devolution-scotland-referendum-wales-england



> Nick Clegg has said that "the cat is out of the bag" on devolution in the UK, predicting that the issue will dominate British politics whatever the result of Scotland's independence referendum. The deputy prime minister promised to be "on the picket lines" calling for greater decentralisation in England as he insisted that irreversible further powers would be handed to Scotland even after a no vote.
> 
> Clegg is due to give a major speech on the topic on Friday when he helps launch a report on decentralisation in England prepared by the centre-left thinktank the Institute for Public Policy Research.
> 
> ...



I sense a "Canadian" discussion coming - Should Toronto and Calgary get tax room and who should they get it from.... the Feds or the Provinces?  Westminster or Edinburgh?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Winchester?  Some historical precedent.  (Capital before London.)
> 
> If this significant reformulation of the United Kingdom to a federalist state occurs, it is interesting to compare the change wrought by one peaceful referendum in Scotland, as opposed to decades of violence in Northern Ireland.




Damned good point; very perceptive.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> I sense a "Canadian" discussion coming - Should Toronto and Calgary get tax room and who should they get it from.... the Feds or the Provinces?  Westminster or Edinburgh?




Someone said that the most horrifying thought for the day is: millions and millions of unfortunate Brits having to _Google_ 'Meech Lake Accords' and 'Charlottetown Agreement' in order to understand the path to constitutional paralysis.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Damned good point; very perceptive.



Agreed.  Apologies for the delayed acknowledgement Privateer.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Sep 2014)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Winchester?  Some historical precedent.  (Capital before London.)
> 
> If this significant reformulation of the United Kingdom to a federalist state occurs, it is interesting to compare the change wrought by one peaceful referendum in Scotland, as opposed to decades of violence in Northern Ireland.



Its in the memories. The troubles in Northern Ireland started in the early '60's. Prior to that the last time the Irish-Brits had gone it was in 1920's; in other words in living memory. Heck, there were people who had fought in the Irish Rebellion against the British who were still alive in the '60's!

On the other hand, the last time the Scots and British duked it out was at Culloden in 1746. Ancient history.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Its in the memories. The troubles in Northern Ireland started in the early '60's. Prior to that the last time the Irish-Brits had gone it was in 1920's; in other words in living memory. Heck, there were people who had fought in the Irish Rebellion against the British who were still alive in the '60's!
> 
> On the other hand, the last time the Scots and British duked it out was at Culloden in 1746. Ancient history.



When I was in Bosnia (Republic Serbska) we would be retailed with stories of the Battle of Kosovo Polje, told with such verve and detail that you would imagine it took place during the civil wars of the 1990's.

It took place in _1389_

Quebec separatists cling to events dating from the 1500's to the 1700's as the source of their grievances, causing no end of headaches for the Rest of Canada for decades.

So "Ancient History" can come back to bite you. (OTOH I'm not sure the idea that most North Americans are "Ahistorical" and rarely consider events from longer ago than last week to be much of an improvement; there must be some sense of perspective and understanding of "how" and "why" things got to this point to effectively plan and carry out effective actions).


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2014)

Salmond picked 2014 as the year for his vote because it was 700 years since the last time the Scots beat the English at Bannockburn.  (A few odd minor skirmishes notwithstanding).

And most Scots will be able to tell you the Declaration of Arbroath was proclaimed in 1320.  Just like the English remember (or used to remember) 1066, 1215, 1689 and 1805.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2014)

I don't know if anyone else heard Jean Charest, former Premier of Quebec and "Captain Canada" during the 1995 referendum, speaking over the past day or two but he predicted this and more, including another referendum within 10 years. In predicting the nationalist propaganda he was, of course, speaking from experience because that is, of course, exactly what Jacques Parizeau _et al_ said: "we were robbed, tricked, lied to, and, and, and ..."


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Sep 2014)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/pick-six-apalooza-your-picks-in-the-battle-for-the-senate/article/feed/2166201

WITH YOUR SECOND CUP OF COFFEE...

The Scots said “nay, laddie” to the proposed split with the United Kingdom Thursday, evoking memories of several attempts by the Francophone province of Quebec to secede from Canada and the resulting “non” votes. The closest approach for le Québécois came on June 12, 1995 when the split was defeated by a single percentage point, in what has been called “The night Canada stood still.” Canadian historians believe the critical moment came a bit earlier. “With the lead favouring the Yes side, two weeks before the vote, the Federalist swung into action and held rallies and Prime Minister [Jean Chretien] made several speeches in support of Canada. Then the single biggest event of the campaign took place on October 27th, just a few days before the vote, when about 100,000 Canadians from all across the country gather in Montreal for a massive Unity Rally which appealed to French Canadians to vote for Canada. The crowd was addressed by Prime Minister Chretien, the leaders of the Federal opposition, Jean Charest, and the leader of the Provincial opposition, Daniel Johnson.”


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2014)

Aye, and Salmond's created the next generation of foot-soldiers with that cadre of 16 and 17 year olds that will likely take the fight forwards.

Quebec may have "Je me souviens" but Scotland has got "The Flowers of the Forest", "Scots Wha Hae wi Wallace Bled", and "O, Flower of Scotland".  They give the melody to an ever-changing story that can be exploited to mobilize any group with a grievance.

10 years may be too short but I don't doubt the fight will flare up again.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Nov 2014)

Kirkhill, isn't it rather late for this?

Reuters



> *A majority of Scots would vote for independence now: poll*
> Sat Nov 1, 2014 9:28am EDT
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - A majority of Scots would back independence if another referendum were held today, according to a poll published on Saturday, just six weeks after Scotland voted against leaving the United Kingdom.
> ...


----------



## Scott (1 Nov 2014)

Many of the Scots I call friends, who were going to vote in favour of independence, claimed that this would happen. I suppose that they would have a 50/50 shot at nailing that, but the fact is still that the polls have shifted, and membership in the SNP has swelled since the referendum. Add in new oil discoveries thought to have been kept quiet until after the vote, and you have a lot of pissed off No voters.

Just my guess.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2014)

There's an element of cowardice at play here.  It is easy to be the big man when there is nothing at stake.  It is harder when there are consequences.

They had their chance, and in their own terms, they bottled it.  Now they have to live with it.  But like many another before them they will continue their whining and ranting and being obnoxious.


----------



## Scott (1 Nov 2014)

And likely not representative of the actual numbers, either. Just like there's "third man on the balcony" in many pubs, I am sure everyone was now a Yes vote among their friends. Matters little, I guess. Like you said, they had their chance and blew it.


----------



## CougarKing (2 Nov 2014)

Let's see if Salmond gets his wish within 20 years...

Reuters



> *Scotland to become independent 'within 20 years', says defeated nationalist leader*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Nov 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Let's see if Salmond gets his wish within 20 years...
> 
> Reuters



I am sure that the 47 registered voters left in Scotland, who are British citizens, at that time will make the right decision

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20long-term%20international%20migration%20flows%20Scotland_0.pdf


----------



## CougarKing (24 Jun 2016)

A notable update in the wake of the shocking Brexit referendum result:

BBC



> *Brexit: Nicola Sturgeon says second Scottish independence vote 'highly likely'*
> 
> 49 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jun 2016)

A similar move is afoot with Ireland and Northern Ireland.Although there is little chance IMO.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jun 2016)

It didn't take long for her to start her moaning again.


----------



## dimsum (24 Jun 2016)

Wonder how that will affect EX Joint Warrior (and the bases in Scotland).


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jun 2016)

http://survation.com/a-tale-of-two-referendums-fear-of-leaving-eu-has-little-effect-on-pro-independence-scots-2/

This from just before the Scottish Referendum.

If there was a referendum held tomorrow on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union, how would you be most likely to vote?







And based on 55% voting to stay in the UK and 45% voting to leave I come up with this:

25% of Scots wanted the status quo - Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU
24% of Scots wanted Scotland in an independent UK
24% of Scots wanted an independent Scotland in the EU
15% of Scots wanted Scotland out of both the EU and the UK
11% of Scots didn't know and probably didn't care

Given that the status quo is now off the table good luck to any politician predicting how my ex-countrymen might break now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2016)

As I speculated in the other thread, the future of an independent Scotland in the EU is probably as a de facto colony of North Africa.


----------



## cavalryman (25 Jun 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> As I speculated in the other thread, the future of an independent Scotland in the EU is probably as a de facto colony of North Africa.


Hence the need for a new, much higher Hadrian's wall.... A job for Donald Trump, which would make his reception by the Scots the other day rather ironic  >


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jun 2016)

I admire the Scots as warriors throughout its long history.However,at the same time at critical points in history they made some bad decisions.In the 21st cntury they seem to be hell bent to leave the UK.I hope in time that people will stop and rethink their path.


----------



## cupper (25 Jun 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I admire the Scots as warriors throughout its long history.However,at the same time at critical points in history they made some bad decisions.In the 21st cntury they seem to be hell bent to leave the UK.I hope in time that people will stop and rethink their path.



Two things explain this: Scotch and Haggis.

Just saying.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jun 2016)

There is nothing wrong with Scotch Whiskey...


----------



## cupper (25 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with Scotch Whiskey...



Not saying there is.

Just saying that it is the reason Scots are such great warriors, but also why they have a history of making bad decisions. 

God knows I've made my fair share after consuming Haggis. Which, come to think of it, I've only consumed after consuming Scotch. Hmmm.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jun 2016)

True enough,  I've made many a bad decision after some Whiskey.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2016)

Seeing the large scale rumblings of many other European nations starting to consider leaving the EU (and the possible dissolution of the EU into up to 5 "zones"), Scotland's wish to separate from the United Kingdom and join the EU may resemble a salmon swimming upstream against the current.


----------



## cavalryman (30 Jun 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Seeing the large scale rumblings of many other European nations starting to consider leaving the EU (and the possible dissolution of the EU into up to 5 "zones"), Scotland's wish to separate from the United Kingdom and join the EU may resemble a salmon Salmond swimming upstream against the current.


FIFY


----------

