Should Scotland be independent?

[Saracen]

I'm offering three basic options :-

- yes, it should
- no way
- if the Scottish people vote yes in a referendum.

However, I'd like to get a feel, at least among our members, for how our Scottish members feel, and about how non-Scottish Brits do.

So can I ask, please, if you're not British, don't vote.

If you are, pick one of the three alternatives according to whether you're Scottish or not.


It's not a public vote - how people voted isn't visible.

[pollaxe]

My vote: I'm NOT Scottish, and yes, if a referendum gets a yes vote.

I have some good friends up in Jockistan and I would rather the Union stays together. I feel better as Britain, I think we punch above our weight. I also think independence is probably going to happen though.

If it's the will of the people then you can't really argue with that, I think it'd be a shame though.

I'm not a big fan of the SNP, rightly or wrongly it feels something like the BNP running England. I've met a few and their agenda seemed actively anti-English as much as it did pro-Scotland.

Being of an historical bent I've often tangled with nationalists (Welsh, Scots, English and Cornish) and I've found a lot of their arguments to be extremely unsound, particularly when looking back to a feudal past when concepts of nationalism are at best notional... anyway, if they vote to go, so be it. I hope they don't expect us to keep paying for their education and medicine once they're gone though...

[Saracen]

Personally, I'm not Scottish, and I don't want to see the Union split up. But .... I think it's about time this argument was had in Scotland, and put to the people in a referendum. Independence, or not? If that returns a yes, then for pities sake get on with it. If it votes no, then the SNP ought to shut up about it, and get on with governing Scotland as a nation in the Union.

But I also think, either way, the so-called "West Lothian Question" needs to be dealt with, because the current state of affairs is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Scotland needs to be either in or out, and if in, then there ought to be a clear demarcation of responsibilities between the two governments, and Westminster MPs from constituencies in Scotland did not ought to be voting, or able to vote, on issues that don't affect their constituents. If an issue is one over which the Scottish assembly have authority, then the Scottish assembly gets to determine policy in their jurisdiction, and ONLY Westminster MP's for non-Scottish constituencies get to vote on policy in the rest of the country. And if we happen to have a PM that represents a Scottish constituency, then he also can't vote on matters where it doesn't affect his constituents.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the Scottish people as a whole would vote for independence, but hey, isn't it about time they were asked and put this issue to bed for at least the forseeable future?

[Saracen]

As you can see, pollaxe, my view and yours are much the same.

I'm not so sure about who is paying for what, though. It's a complex issue and both the yes and no camp will make it look like they're financially hard done by.

One reason it's complicated is whether independence will result in job losses. For instance, one commentator recently said that an SNP assemblyman (or woman, I don't remember) had recently said that even after independence, the then-non-Scottish military bases (like sub bases) could continue to operate. But I wonder, if Scotland were an independent nation, why would the rest of us want those bases there? Surely, there'd be a rigorous campaign to get them moved south of the border, and I'm sure traditional Naval areas in England, Wales or NI would love the extra employment. Especially for nuclear assets, why would the Westminster government want to base them in an independent foreign state? From a military perspective, let alone an employment one, I can see them moving south. But maybe an independent Scotland would prefer to see nuclear subs (assuming we keep them at all after the Trident decision) out of their territory. I'm itching to see them sell that to those whose livelihoods depend on them though.

[malfunction]

I'm not in favour of splitting up the union and I'm not convinced that any referendum would produce a well thought out result instead of simply an emotive one. In theory I support the idea of a referendum and I'm probably being too cynical but I think both sides of the union would suffer if it were split.

I also have the feeling that the whole thing is something of a pointless discussion - surely at some point in our lifetimes we'll all be incorporated into some god foresaken EU Federation anyway?

[Moby-Dick]

much as it annoys me to link to a Sun article - would an independant scotland be able to tackle problems such as this?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-East-End.html

I'm not scottish , and feel free the scottish people should have the right to choose , but it does pose the question can scotland sustain themselves as a country?

[shaithis]

I don't really care but if they do become independant, I hope none of my tax goes towards them.

I can see them becoming a very poor country, very fast.

[Zak33]

they're not bothered about being independant really... they're just bothered about children smoking at 3 years old, kids drinking excessively instead of going to school at 11 years old and Off Licenses having to have two licenses to sell booze , one for the shop, and one for the member of staff.

[Lowe]

Quite honestly - ask the people what they want. If they say out - let em.

[MadduckUK]

Quite honestly - ask the people what they want. If they say ooot - let em.

fixed

[Dingo]

I don't really care but if they do become independant, I hope none of my tax goes towards them.

I can see them becoming a very poor country, very fast.

Interesting comments given that a vast tranch of the "English" wealth in the last thirty years has come from oilfields that, were Scotland independent, would have made them a very Rich country......but I see your point.....now that England has exhausted most of the reserves, who needs them!!

[emzallan]

I'm Scottish, and voted No! Britain is a great nation, and the union makes everyone stronger. Issues need to be dealt with on both sides, and it will be inetersting to see what happens if Cameron wins the election- as a tiny minority up here will have voted for him, and it will give Salmond something to play with.

Personally I can't stand the anti- English sentiment that exists in some sections of the population up here. And I still don't undertstand why at the same time as wanting out of the union most SNP supporters want to be further associated with Europe, surely Scotland has much more in common with England than most of Europe.

It is all built on unfounded prejudice and it makes me so annoyed.

[neonplanet40]

Well im NOT from Scotland but from Northern Ireland and i know I would jump at the chance to become a part of the Republic of Ireland. SO I voted

'I'm NOT Scottish, and yes, if a referendum gets a yes vote'

Whether they are stronger or not for it is insubstantial. What does matter is what the majority of people in the country think and want.

[malfunction]

Well im NOT from Scotland but from Northern Ireland and i know I would jump at the chance to become a part of the Republic of Ireland. SO I voted

'I'm NOT Scottish, and yes, if a referendum gets a yes vote'

Whether they are stronger or not for it is insubstantial. What does matter is what the majority of people in the country think and want.

It's off topic but I wonder how the majority of the republic feel about that - I'm not at all saying it's the same but I believe sections of western germany did not like the idea of unification. Were there any such referendum in Northern Ireland should there be the same in the republic? Not just "do you want to join" but "do you want to let them"?

[neonplanet40]

I see what you mean and no doubt that could well happen. But IF IT DID come up I know what i'd vote.

Think i was just saying that the Scottish people should be given the option. Then let them decide their own fate. Seems fairest.

[Saracen]

.....

Whether they are stronger or not for it is insubstantial. What does matter is what the majority of people in the country think and want.

I agree .... but I wonder if people would vote for what they want, or what they think they want?

Like the argument over a referendum on Lisbon, if people don't understand the implications of what they're voting for, is it sensible to give them a direct vote, as opposed to electing people who (hopefully) make a career of understanding the implications of these things before deciding how to vote?

In my view, yes it is, and that's merely a reason for a frank and open discussion over the issues, educate people about the implications and then let them decide. But unless a proper debate occurs, and people pay attention, would a referendum give an informed decision or an emotive one?