Will RoUK really give up some of its financial freedom to the independant Scots?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think most are far more interested in what's happening on their own doorsteps, homes and pockets to be overly worried about international influence the on the 'world stage' at the moment. Best to start there first probably...then worry about waging wars and telling Hollande and Merkle to get stuffed later on eh..;)

That's fine but if Scotland wants something from the EU or other international body it can be pushed through if she's part of the UK (assuming the UK Government wants the same thing). On her own Scotland has basically nil influence.

That may or may not matter but it is a fact.

zagubov wrote: »

That's fine. The whole point of the exercise is to increase control and influence over their own business rather than everybody else's.

Indeed. Independence for Scotland, in geopolitical terms, is pretty simple. Give up influence for autonomy.

It's hard to screw over the UK but an independent Scotland can get screwed by any large country that takes a fancy to something really.

zagubov wrote: »

What autonomy do the Australian states have compared with the UK's home nations? Do they wish for more central rule? Does their status stop the country from splitting?

There is a pretty clear split of powers between the States & Territories (we have 5 States and 2 Territories with Territories having fewer powers) and the Commonwealth, aka Federal Government.

There are some areas where there is a clash, for example each State has a police force and then there is the Australian Federal Police.

In addition, sometimes S&Ts will exceed their powers. A current example is that the ACT (Canberra basically) has passed a law allowing gay marriage. Marriage laws are the purview of the Commonwealth so in passing this law the ACT has (perhaps) overstepped the mark. The Federal Government is suing to get the law overturned.

I'm not aware of any movements or ever heard a person say that a state should go it alone. WA came to the Federation party last and supposedly there is a secessionist undercurrent in WA politics. I've never heard it voiced but then I've never been to WA.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/too-rich-too-weak-to-succeed-seceding-20100510-uoma.html

I learned something there. WA voted to leave Australia in the 1930s and Westminster said they couldn't. Shades of 1979 there!

Ultimately I think, people in NSW and QLD (the bits of Aus I would claim to know) feel Australian 362 days of the year and like they are from their state when the 3 State of Origin matches are on

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

The ACT has almost no identity of its own. The NT has almost no people. SA? No idea. VIC? Too busy with its effete European ways to think about leaving Aus. Tasmania? 3 large families with cousins making out all the time. If they left nobody would notice.

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I think you've missed my point (deliberately)?

The SNP moan that the Scots have a Conservative government 'forced' on them, even though they don't vote for them. Scotland represents between 4% and 8% of the UK population.

The Highlands and islands, by your account, represent 4.23% of Scotland, which is a similar enough percentage to make the comparison. If none of these vote for independence, they might have it forced on them by the weight of voters elsewhere in Scotland. It's no different to Scotland being forced to have a Conservative British government by the weight of voters elsewhere in Britain.

I've not missed your point, If (hypothetical at the moment as I have not heard that the Highlands our outer hebrides would wish independence from Scotland) these regions expressed a desire for their independence, I would have no problems with allowing them a referendum on it.

We can see other countries around the world (Vatican City, Monaco) etc which appear as effective towns within a larger country, but are actual countries in their own right.

We see similar, Catalonia seeking independence from Spain

What about the position of the Isle of Wight, who have as I understand seeked independance?

What about Guernsey, who also have previously expressed a desire to be independent?

Does the same apply to Jersey or the Isle of Man?

What about the overseas territories that the UK presides over: -
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar (status disputed by Spain)
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
British Antarctic Territory

What if they sought complete independence?

Scotland is a country. It formed a Union with England in 1707.
The question being raised is to whether it should retain the union with the Rest Of The UK, or we seek to be independent of the RoUK

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

It's hard to screw over the UK but an independent Scotland can get screwed by any large country that takes a fancy to something really.

Taking in context of similar sized nations with similar wealth (let alone all the countries with smaller / poorer wealth), can you please cite viable examples where countries have been "screwed over " by larger countries.

Initally, I'm thinking of Norway Finland & Denmark as similar, North Europe countries with similar population sizes.

I posted earlier on how these countries faired in the GNI table, with interesting results compared to the UK
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've not missed your point, If (hypothetical at the moment as I have not heard that the Highlands our outer hebrides would wish independence from Scotland) these regions expressed a desire for their independence, I would have no problems with allowing them a referendum on it.

Yes, you have missed my point, completely.

I can't be bothered now, others will have seen that I'm talking about how democracy works, and that if I vote Conservative, and the rest of the country vote Labour, I can't stamp my feet and moan that I've had a Labour government "forced on me". But then I'm not a Scottish Nationalist, and so I don't think the world should revolve around me.

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Yes, you have missed my point, completely.

.....

I don't think the world should revolve around me.

You can keep saying it each post, it doesn't mean it is true.

I understand your position (and that of the unionist parties). You are relating Scotland effectively as a county of the UK as opposed to a country in it's own right.

P.S. I don't think the world should revolve around me either, I just express that I would prefer that we stand or fall by the decisions that the Scottish Electorate vote for

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Care to extrapolate on that?
Is international influence based on a countries population?

One could point to a number of individuals from various parts of the world who have been influential worldwide, regardless of their nations

Sure.

As an example, the UK has a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council. As a result the British Government can block most military action undertaken in the name of the UN.

Other countries such as the USA also have a Permanent Seat. The USA has a similar blocking power.

The USSR used to have a seat. It split, for better or for worse, and as a result Russia has that seat. Ukraine and other parts of what was the USSR no long have that voice.

In that example it may well be that the loss of influence is positively offset by losing the Gulags etc. but in the Scottish example it simply isn't like that. If you want to walk through London waving a Saltire and playing bagpipes whilst eating a deep fried chocolate confection nobody will stop you. It seems to me like the vote is all on the losing side with very little to gain.

As I have maintained, the opinion polls suggest that Scots are bright enough to realise that there is little to gain from independence and much to lose so will vote No! rather than yes.

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Taking in context of similar sized nations with similar wealth (let alone all the countries with smaller / poorer wealth), can you please cite viable examples where countries have been "screwed over " by larger countries.

The first one that comes to mind is the way the UK used anti-terrorist laws against Iceland during the credit crunch to freeze their UK assets.

Looking at influence in the EU, Norway is not a member and both Finland and Denmark have 7 council votes and 13 Euro MPs.

Contrast this with France, Germany and the UK which have 29 council votes (the only three with this many) and 74, 99 and 73 Euro MPs respectively.

This isn't an issue if the Nationalists want an independent Scotland that in inward looking and has no interest in being on the 'world stage'. This is fine but is a backward step in an increasingly global world.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

P.S. I don't think the world should revolve around me either, I just express that I would prefer that we stand or fall by the decisions that the Scottish Electorate vote for

Surely you can micro-slice that in any way you like. What about Yorkshire, why should they put up with decisions made by Lancastrian MPs? Why should Surrey voters have Socialism imposed on them by Northern voters?

Why should Waverly voters put up with the oppressors in Kingston?

It all seems rather petty and I honestly don't see the benefit.

MFW_ASAP

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You can keep saying it each post, it doesn't mean it is true.

I understand your position (and that of the unionist parties). You are relating Scotland effectively as a county of the UK as opposed to a country in it's own right.

P.S. I don't think the world should revolve around me either, I just express that I would prefer that we stand or fall by the decisions that the Scottish Electorate vote for

No, I'm saying that the SNP position that Scotland has a government imposed on them is false. Scotland is part of the UK and the UK has a government that some component regions may not have voted for. That's democracy.

The same case can be put by Yorkshire. The same case can be put by Wales and NI. The same case can be put on an individual level. The SNP might take Scotland out of the Union with large tracts of that country not wanting to and not voting for it. That's Democracy.

IveSeenTheLight

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

No, I'm saying that the SNP position that Scotland has a government imposed on them is false. Scotland is part of the UK and the UK has a government that some component regions may not have voted for. That's democracy.

The same case can be put by Yorkshire. The same case can be put by Wales and NI. The same case can be put on an individual level. The SNP might take Scotland out of the Union with large tracts of that country not wanting to and not voting for it. That's Democracy.

Yes, it's democracy and democracy voted a majority government in Scotland that was able to put through the referendum proposal.

This was not meant to happen.
Westminster did not want this to happen.
The constituencies were drawn up with the thought that no party would be able to achieve an an overall majority in a proportional electoral system.

So here we are, a democratically voted party by the electorate of Scotland has allowed the question that many wish to prevail to actually occur.

Westminster was not interested in allowing the referendum to occur.

It's taken a long time to get where we are and I fear that ironically, the people of Scotland will be too conservative for change.