Quote:
Originally Posted by
DannyInvincible
Support for an independent Scotland has apparently risen to over 30 per cent now. And still two years to go 'til a vote
During which two years it might well fall back towards the 20% recorded in the 2010 general election. The latter tend to show higher nationalist votes than the Holyrood equivalent. Basically because at the latter SNP supporters can have it both ways, criticising the broader British government and state while remaining within it.
Quote:
How would the unionist psyche be affected in a Scottish independence vote with a very realistic chance of success?
Hypothetically- I don't think it has a realistic chance, as above. But if that changed I imagine there'd be short-time wab-waving by NI nationalists, matched by exaggerated Unionist angst. Then abnormal politics would continue.
Quote:
The establishment clearly feels that this issue is very much their business - a Westminster/UK-wide issue and not one for the Scottish electorate alone - whereas external impediment is something that the Good Friday Agreement forbids with regard to any future referendum on Irish unity in NI. I think it tells us about the nature of the union and the perception of Scotland as being integral to its fabric, whilst NI is seen as dispensable
There's something in that, most obviously a long-term history of paramilitary violence in NI. Which needs to be treated with kid gloves.
But you overstate both Scotland's importance to England (9% and 3% are both insignificant compared with 83%, the relevant population shares). And also the GFA's influence. It's not like Magna Carta nor even your 1937 constitution. but rather a deal which doesn't automatically bind its successors. NI won't leave Britain unless Unionists want it to.
Quote:
Bit nauseating listening Cameron getting haughty in Westminster yesterday with his cringe-worthy "never-endum" jibes. This talk of "delay" is simply falsehood. The referendum should take place when it's mandated to take place
I hope you don't feel nauseous every time a foreign party breaks a manifesto pledge. Because that's just what the SNP will try if they see an advantage in delaying, hurrying forward, procrastination or whatever else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eminence Grise
It could also be a residual perception from the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty to the subsequent establishment of the Boundary Commission that NI was probably only destined to be separated from the south temporarily
That might have been a perception in 1932. Not in 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peadar1987
I think if the Scottish people vote for independence, no amount of posturing from south of the border will be able to stop it...the international community would almost certainly recognise Scotland as an independent state
You call it posturing, but there would be plenty to be argued about. What would be Scotland's share of the national debt, or the oil? (I'd say about 9% for both).
If any referendum is relatively close (ie the pro-independence vote between about 45 and 55%), then opposition within Scotland would be more significant than either English posturing or wider rubber-stamp outside.
Quote:
Plenty of ignorant little-Englanders from the Daily Mail counties saying Scotland would soon come crawling back to the Union, because they wouldn't be able to afford things like aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons! What possible reason could Scotland have for capital warships and a nuclear deterrant?! It was shocking enough that one person would think this, but I saw it at least three times. Some people are so disconnected from reality it is scary!
You do realise that, unpopular as heavy weaponry may be to most Scots, its industry provides a lot of jobs. Simply abandoning them might prove difficult. There must also be a theoretical possibility that Britain (or America, or NATO) might pay Scotland to hire bases, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
culloty82
when most Scots are definitely anti-Tory by instinct, Cameron's intervention will only bolster both the Yes campaign and Salmond's efforts to organise the vote on his own terms
2010- and most previous general election results- suggest they're just as definitely anti-SNP: the party has never managed more than 23% of the Scottish vote in one.
Cameron may look cack-handed in Scotland, largely because it isn't a priority for him. And don't rule out gaffes by the SNP- linking any vote to the Battle of Bannockburn, and extending the vote to 16 year olds, are just stunts. The first particularly is just childish.
Quote:
as we saw with UCUNF, the PM is a committed unionist who views every part of the UK as "being as British as Finchley". Most of the English would be happy to see them leave, as they dislike the Scottish MPs voting on questions only concerning England
Cameron has to pay lip service to flag-waving unionism, but it's no more than that. His party is one of London and Suburban England (ie excluding the old heavy industry belts around Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc. If the Scots really wanted to go he's let them, I think.
The Finchley (Thatch's old seat, so maybe it should be Witney now) thing is a bit silly. There's no equivalent to the SNP, Plaid or the Bon Jovies in England. Their fringe parties are nationalistic, but don't want to separate from er, England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horton
Your forgetting that Scotland has a decent economy and is a money earner, Northern Ireland costs London more than they get back in taxes
Not so, Scotland- although currently the third-richest of Britain's 12 regions, after London and SE England- has a lower output per head than Britain and also in deficit to London. Also, many claims of Scottish economic strength are based on
a) the oil remaining available and accessible for the foreseeable future- some geologists suggest otherwise, and anyway
b) there's some dispute as to how much of it they own. The British state, economy etc. has invested in the oil indsutry and infrastructure, after all.
And don't forget Scotland has three times the population to be subsidised (as per your theory) as NI does.
