Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Jul 23, 2014.
The vote is 8 weeks away. Are you pro or anti?
Thought they had already gone through this?
Ahhh. It wasn't total independence.
It all may be a moot point as it's generally thought that British Parliament won't go for it.
There was a "devolution," under which Scotland got its own Parliament, but Scotland remained part of Great Britain. However, the party most in favor of complete independence, the Scottish National Party, dominates that Parliament now.
I'm not for it. I hear a lot about it because I know someone over there (in Scotland) who is very pro-Independence. I think they'll have a hard time financially if this goes through.
Tom, it's not up to Brits this time.
That's kinda all up in the air, and will most likely be decided in their court system (provided it passes).
Not if they get their hands on all that North Sea oil
Been keeping an eye on the referendum returns. Right now it is 53.4% for NO and 46% for YES. They think it's in the bag for NO. Phew! I'm relieved. Common sense rules over romanticism. I do understand the appeal of independence, but the leaders of that movement didn't have anything planned for the aftermath. It was all a pipe dream.
Looks like 55% is the final NO.
Still, that's a huge percentage of voters (presuming the 95% of eligible voter turnout in correct). Gotta be kind of tough to keep things running smoothly with such a gigantic bloc of folks who want nothing to do with the UK.
Here's a summary of things as they now stand:
Scotland votes No: what happens now? – Telegraph Blogs
I read somewhere else last night that Glasgow was a solid "YES" vote. Not surprising. I don't know the exact current demographics of that city, but it has had a significant influx of Highland Scots and Irish over the years.
The UK has endured for a long time in spite of problems between England and Scotland. It survived the Jacobite Risings of 1715 and 1745, although the last one was followed by defeat at Culloden in 1746 and the Highland Clearances of the late 1700s into the mid-1800s. The latter is the reason I was born in Cape Breton instead of Scotland.
I'm just so relieved that Scotland didn't break away this time. You just can't do that without some sort of infrastructure in place.
Don't be surprised to see this issue come up again within 10 years or less. The minimum voting age in Scotland is 16 and the younger portion of the population, (no not just the high school crowd, were more weighted in favor of independence), as were the independently wealthy--especially those whose source of wealth came from outside of the country.
Scottish economy seemed to drive the no vote more than any other specific issue. Look at the vote breakdown of the coastal cities for instance versus the inner cities. Glasgow v Edinburgh were as one example polar opposites.
The Muslim population in Scotland is 1.4 percent. If that number grows and the unrest in the Muslim world especially in the ME continues to escalate look for Scottish internal problems and for Scotland to blame England.
Also, as Northern Ireland's catholic population grows at a much faster rate than the protestant one can reasonably expect Northern Ireland to vote to leave in the future--again in ten years or possibly less and that would certainly have an impact upon Scotland if it happens.
The longer Scotland stays part of the UK, the less likely they will vote for independence. Reason being that the greatest factor in being able to go independent is North Sea oil, take oil out of the equation and very few would want to go it alone.
North Sea oil production has been in decline since 1999, and there is an estimated 2.5 billion barrels left, compared to the 27.5 that has already been extracted, and the remaining oil gets more and more expensive to produce
You are right that North Sea oil in in decline, but it is also in the middle of the North Sea, not in Scotland. I think most of the companies operating on Scottish soil are British, not Scottish, so that makes for a sticky situation if Scotland leaves the UK. Really, I understand very well emotionally what has attracted some of the people to separation, but it's not something you can successfully carry out without careful planning, which didn't happen. If you know something I don't know about who actually owns the company or companies that are involved in North Sea oil production, please do let me know. I haven't delved into it much.
I believe Scotland would have ended up with about 80% of the North Sea oil that currently belongs to the UK. How they would have handled the take over remains unknown, they could have just kept the terms of the leases the same, or they could have jacked up the royalties. In an extreme case they could have set up their own National Oil Company and nationalized the fields, but they would have had to compensate the current operators, and I'm sure that would have dragged on for many years in International Arbitration if they felt the compensation wasn't fair.
Thanks. Yes, they were going to have endless red tape for a lot of things, and the banks were going to pull out of Scotland, they'd have to give up the pound, and the EU wasn't too gung-ho about dealing with them either.