Snp First-Ever Majority

[Manx_Mus]

Well looks like Alex Salmond has delivered the goods this time.

 

This is giant news for the region and the ball is now rolling.

 

Anyone dare to see 10 to 15 years into the future?

[Tempus Fugit]

have I got to reply to this one as well

[Evil Goblin]

It is a good result because it will enable the question of independence for the Scots to be done with - the SNP will have their referendum and independence will be rejected (the Scots will prefer to continue taking English Gold rather than revert to subsistence). The irrelevance of independence can then be forgotten about.

[gazza]

It is a good result because it will enable the question of independence for the Scots to be done with - the SNP will have their referendum and independence will be rejected (the Scots will prefer to continue taking English Gold rather than revert to subsistence). The irrelevance of independence can then be forgotten about.

 

im sure i read somewhere that sctoland pays more to england,

meaning that the amount of tax on the oil coming out of the ground up there more than pays for scotland.

would all depend on them figures

[Manx_Mus]

 

im sure i read somewhere that sctoland pays more to england,

meaning that the amount of tax on the oil coming out of the ground up there more than pays for scotland.

would all depend on them figures

 

 

England milks and milks..well what else is to expected from a nation of farmers?

[Manx_Mus]

And this from Shetland: A Real Chance for Shetland Home Rule

[pauld]

Scottish independence for scotland

 

I thought the oil was under the seabed, a seabed that belongs to the english still.

 

Rather decent of the english to let the jocks produce and process it imo, must be a big employer, and to give the jocks a cut of the revenue is extremely generous imo.

[VinnieK]

It is a good result because it will enable the question of independence for the Scots to be done with - the SNP will have their referendum and independence will be rejected (the Scots will prefer to continue taking English Gold rather than revert to subsistence). The irrelevance of independence can then be forgotten about.

 

im sure i read somewhere that sctoland pays more to england,

meaning that the amount of tax on the oil coming out of the ground up there more than pays for scotland.

would all depend on them figures

 

There's also the question of renewable sources of energy, with 85% of Great Brtiain's resources lying well within Scotland (it's no coincindence that one of the SNP's short term goals is to establish Scottish control over Crown Estate lands in Scotland).

 

Remember, Salmond was an Energy Economist before he went into politics, and I think a lot of the 'well they're just shooting themselves in the foot' and 'they're subsidised by England' arguments are a bit superficial. The latter case ignores the obvious counter argument that Scotland is held back by Westminster and might very well do better with more devolved authority; see, for instance, the SNP's other major short term goal for corporation taxes to come under Scottish control. It's also interesting that they seem to have gained a fair amount of support amongst Scotland's business community.

 

Generally I think the SNP's win is a good thing, if only because I think Westminster and the centralization of power in the UK doesn't have a terribly good track record on the regional level

[pongo]

SNP will revert to left vs right factional in - fighting and class politics ultimately since nationalism is not a complete political platform. Rather like the Sun newspaper, the SNP has been through various left - right periods over the past years.

 

Its current success is also evidence that is has essentially, for now, allowed itself to be co-opted by media and business interests very much like the UK Labour Party was during the mid 90s (using focus groups and other essentially psychoanalytical practices to develop language and politics designed specifically to target 'swing' voters and lifestyle groups).

[Barrie Stevens]

It is a good result because it will enable the question of independence for the Scots to be done with - the SNP will have their referendum and independence will be rejected (the Scots will prefer to continue taking English Gold rather than revert to subsistence). The irrelevance of independence can then be forgotten about.

 

im sure i read somewhere that sctoland pays more to england,

meaning that the amount of tax on the oil coming out of the ground up there more than pays for scotland.

would all depend on them figures

 

Britain is a union with a Union Parliament. There is no "England" as a state and no "Scotland" as a state. We (not you lot) are within the United Kingdom. England does not even have a parliament. (The only member of the UK without one!)Therefore Scotand cannot pay tax to England.

 

The confusion arises due to the separate existence of the Scottish legal jurisdiction and the other which broadly covers England and Wales (So called English law).

 

When all these assets such as North Sea oil etc were divied up the bulk of the goodies (90%)lay within Scottish legal jurisdiction...but being part of a Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland's maritime borders and limits, whilse delineated and defined appropos Scotland, are not its own as they in turn are subsumed into the UK's collective limits and delineation.

 

It is the UK as an entity, not England nor Scotland, that signs up to treaties.

 

Taxes and revenues, other than any that as may be some time be raised in Scotland under local devolution, are paid into the UK "common purse" as it were.

 

The "Barnett Forumula" allows a large and generous redistribution of UK revenue from the "common purse" to Scotland...more so than in England proportionately.

 

If Scotland were to be independent there is the UN principle, as recently quoted by Peter Karran, about so arranging seaward economic limits of newly independent countries such that most of the UK oil etc would then be within an independent Scotland.

 

On the other hand, the UK has signed up to agreements and treaties relating to offshore resources, and on the basis that might is right, one sees Scotland as being quasi-independent, probably having a good deal out of it....but it will never be "Scotland's Oil".

 

As I understand it, Alex Salmon wants independence but he also wants the "Barnett Formula" to remain in some form advantageous to Scotland. Possibly he has been reading the Manx papers over the VAT?

 

You can't have your cake and eat it....or bannock and eat it!

 

Anyway, it'll be five years until a referendum and by the time anything gets organised ten years after that most of the oil and gas will most probably have gone.

 

One thing is already under way, the slow withdrawal of UK Crown Forces from Scotland and the development of an alternative submarine base in England's south-west region.

[VinnieK]

As I understand it, Alex Salmon wants independence but he also wants the "Barnett Formula" to remain in some form advantageous to Scotland. Possibly he has been reading the Manx papers over the VAT?

 

I'm not sure that's true. The SNP are much more interested in financial autonomy than the Barnett Formula. Scrapping the Barnett formula would, if anything, strengthen the SNP's hand because it removes one of the main political obstacles, both in Westminster and amongst the Scottish public standing in the way of greater autonomy. Whilst in place, however, it can be used to provide greater leverage for the devolution/independence aim. In fact, Salmond's already on record as saying that a solution to the Barnett Formula controversy would be to grant Scotland full economic independence from England: a cynic might think that the SNP were gladly dipping into England's purse to make an independent or at least more autonomous Scotland more attractive. In this sense, the main benefit the SNP reap from Barnett is that it winds up English people, or at least the Mail brigade sufficiently to obscure the unionist argument with an economic argument in favour of greater devolution.

 

Also, you have to remember that opinion is not united amongst nationalists: Some view it as economically damaging to Scotland to be reliant on income from England, others view it as corrupting national identity, and still others view getting as much out of it whilst it lasts as justified by the lack of direct oil revenues and historical exploitation of Scotland within the Union.

[Barrie Stevens]

As I understand it, Alex Salmon wants independence but he also wants the "Barnett Formula" to remain in some form advantageous to Scotland. Possibly he has been reading the Manx papers over the VAT?

 

I'm not sure that's true. The SNP are much more interested in financial autonomy than the Barnett Formula. Scrapping the Barnett formula would, if anything, strengthen the SNP's hand because it removes one of the main political obstacles, both in Westminster and amongst the Scottish public standing in the way of greater autonomy. Whilst in place, however, it can be used to provide greater leverage for the devolution/independence aim. In fact, Salmond's already on record as saying that a solution to the Barnett Formula controversy would be to grant Scotland full economic independence from England: a cynic might think that the SNP were gladly dipping into England's purse to make an independent or at least more autonomous Scotland more attractive. In this sense, the main benefit the SNP reap from Barnett is that it winds up English people, or at least the Mail brigade sufficiently to obscure the unionist argument with an economic argument in favour of greater devolution.

 

Also, you have to remember that opinion is not united amongst nationalists: Some view it as economically damaging to Scotland to be reliant on income from England, others view it as corrupting national identity, and still others view getting as much out of it whilst it lasts as justified by the lack of direct oil revenues and historical exploitation of Scotland within the Union.

 

I agree that it is odd (keeping Barnett) but it is something I have heard on occasional political broadcasts/comments and so I threw it in anyway.

 

The two concepts do not seem to agree but then who knows what formula or transitional stage might be necessary?

 

Look how long it took for southern Ireland to move on...from their independence as a Free State (1922?) proceeding to a Republic (1948?)was not exactly overnight as there was some sort of nebulous dominion status with the British king still for a while (1937?) constitutionally a "King in Ireland" but not apparently "of Ireland"....

 

Likewise, remember that the Irish Free State had to pay what was for them then an enormous sum to acquire Crown and Government property such as barracks, post offices and other public works related to having once been a member of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1921-22. ie things the UK taxpayer/State paid for had to be bought from the old State by the new State.

 

The same applied to Imperial property on Indian independence. They had to buy it.

 

Then in the case of Ireland there was the issue of what I will call ground rents/feudal dues. Many people, farmers in particular, paid some sort of "Feu". It was not much maybe £5-20 annually or so (More then of course in value) and it went to Landlords largely in the UK...probably a lot went to the UK Treasury also?

 

Anyway, they had the Irish Annuity Act whereby the Free State bought up all the "Feu" for a lumpsum and this was paid over to the UK/UK entities as a once and for all settlement. (Then the Irish State carried on collecting the "Feu" to itself for quite some time!)

 

I know Tony Blair abolished the "Feu" in Scotland but you get my drift that being independent can mean "buying back the farm" and not getting it for nothing simply because the Union Flag comes down at midnight over Edinburgh castle. It is not that simple.

 

Ireland is the nearest example we have of a country leaving the union of the United Kingdom and though politically sovereign within the Republic of Ireland is still entangled financially, economically and socially with the UK. (I mean most of us have an Irishman in the family tree!)

 

Then there is the question of partitioning Scotland. Which is how I think they (the Unionists)will try and divide and rule to generate fear and insecurity.

 

Like Ireland, not all of Scotland may want to be independent outside of the UK. We could try a Scottish Free State variation but Scotland is already in two parts, the Highlands and Lowlands. Past struggles involved Lowland Scots, content with the more prosperous status quo of being in the UK under Hanoverian monarchs, and the Highland rebels who wanted a different order under the old Stuart dynasty.

 

To this day many Highland Scots do not even regard Lowland Scots as being Scots!

 

In the days of the Irish struggle, there was briefly a United Ireland but Ulster now Northern Ireland was given about a month to pull out of the Free State. This was known as the "Ulster Month" (I am dragging this out of my early 1960s school lessons)...and as we know they soon chose to stay with the UK and are with us to this day.

 

You may thus see divergent opinion in Scotland. Those that stay with the UK may have a self-governing provincial status like Northern Ireland and retain the Barnett System and full EU membership courtesy of staying with the UK. A fully independent Scotland or region of Scotland going independent will probably have to join the EU and re-apply as an independent entity as has been stated by some academics on the subject. The transition will be most painful.

 

It is very costly to join the EU and members have to be more or less "Acquis Communitaire" ie be able to join in and take over certain responsibilities. Breaking from the UK and negotiating with the EU and unravelling all that has gone before will be some task after all these years....and what can Scotland offer? ....they certainly will not be allowed the oil and gas assets.....or maybe they will have to buy them from what is left of the union of the United Kingdom?

 

I think it will be a very long time indeed before we see a Scottish version of the Fourth of July ....the more so as reportedly they plan to stay with the Pound Sterling .....although whether it will be Scottish Pound pegged to Sterling or akin to the Isle of Man whereby Bank of England money is the natural currency ....and the "Manx Pound" is floated upon assets held by the Island in London in the form of UK Government securities. (A process known as Seignorage .....which if it sounds vaguely Norman and feudal....well it is!)

 

Some independence that!

[VinnieK]

The creation of the republic of Ireland was very messy indeed. Going from partition (1921), Self Goverining Dominion (the Free State 1922), to Sovereign State separate from the UK (1937), to finally removing the last vestiges of the Crown's role (1949).

 

However, there are some very important differences between Ireland and Scotland:

 

Firstly, the free state and republic was ultimately born out of violence, and within the movement towards independece there were different factions who were violently opposed to one another (the provisional government and the more hardline republicans) which led to civil war.

 

Secondly, the plantations resulted in a large minority in Ulster with a cultural identity founded ultimately in a kind of permanent siege mentality who were equally violently opposed to severing links with the UK: to the point where there were open declarations of rebellion and even the prospect of British Army regiments engaging in mutiny if 'Ulster' was surrendered to an independent Ireland (the Ulster Covenant and the original Ulster Volunteer Force)

 

Thirdly, what became the Republic of Ireland was impoverished, and primarily an agricultural economy for many many years.

 

Fourthly, the United Kingdom at that time was stronger and in much more of a position to defend what it saw as its dominion by violent, economic and political means, and did so, which in part contributed to the long, drawn out nature of Ireland's transition.

 

Scotland on the other hand is a modern economy enjoying what is already a distinct position and social/political identity within the union from having its own code of law, education system and latterly parliament, enjoying already a kind of quasi social autonomy for many years. Whatever the schism between highlanders and lowlanders, it's not nearly as pronounced as the divisions within Irish society at the time of the rebellion and the founding of the Free State, and finally the UK is in little position these days to forcefully impose its will on Scotland and any move towards independence would come as a result of democratic processes.

 

Not that I'm saying that independence is an inevitability: apart from anything else, the Scottish public don't currently seem wholly enthused with the idea of independence. All I'm really saying is that I think independence could be achieved easier,quicker, and 'cleanly' in the case of modern day Scotland that ever could have been the case for Ireland in the 20's and 30's, and that the example of Ireland is perhaps a bit of a red herring.

 

 

 

 

[Barrie Stevens]

The creation of the republic of Ireland was very messy indeed. Going from partition (1921), Self Goverining Dominion (the Free State 1922), to Sovereign State separate from the UK (1937), to finally removing the last vestiges of the Crown's role (1949).

 

However, there are some very important differences between Ireland and Scotland:

 

Firstly, the free state and republic was ultimately born out of violence, and within the movement towards independece there were different factions who were violently opposed to one another (the provisional government and the more hardline republicans) which led to civil war.

 

Secondly, the plantations resulted in a large minority in Ulster with a cultural identity founded ultimately in a kind of permanent siege mentality who were equally violently opposed to severing links with the UK: to the point where there were open declarations of rebellion and even the prospect of British Army regiments engaging in mutiny if 'Ulster' was surrendered to an independent Ireland (the Ulster Covenant and the original Ulster Volunteer Force)

 

Thirdly, what became the Republic of Ireland was impoverished, and primarily an agricultural economy for many many years.

 

Fourthly, the United Kingdom at that time was stronger and in much more of a position to defend what it saw as its dominion by violent, economic and political means, and did so, which in part contributed to the long, drawn out nature of Ireland's transition.

 

Scotland on the other hand is a modern economy enjoying what is already a distinct position and social/political identity within the union from having its own code of law, education system and latterly parliament, enjoying already a kind of quasi social autonomy for many years. Whatever the schism between highlanders and lowlanders, it's not nearly as pronounced as the divisions within Irish society at the time of the rebellion and the founding of the Free State, and finally the UK is in little position these days to forcefully impose its will on Scotland and any move towards independence would come as a result of democratic processes.

 

Not that I'm saying that independence is an inevitability: apart from anything else, the Scottish public don't currently seem wholly enthused with the idea of independence. All I'm really saying is that I think independence could be achieved easier,quicker, and 'cleanly' in the case of modern day Scotland that ever could have been the case for Ireland in the 20's and 30's, and that the example of Ireland is perhaps a bit of a red herring.

 

I think that you have completely misunderstood me. I was not using the Irish experience as a reason why Scottish independence would not work or would face insurmountable difficulties.

 

I did not mention the "Troubles" in Ireland and the armed struggle between UK/Cessesionists/Ulster Loylists/Army Mutiny etc because like you I do not see it as part of the Scottish situation.

 

However, there is a parallel in the speed of transition after having been joined for so long.

 

It took Ireland a long time to "mature" in many ways not just economically but also politically until they followed the UK into the then Common Market....and even now there are signs that the historical links between Ireland the UK are still very much there but cosmetically beneath the surface.

 

Witness Cameron's statement that Ireland is the country closest to us (the UK) and the only one with whom we have a land border. We even loaned them seven billion (not much!) ....but remember our banks are big players in the Republic of Ireland (ROI)and will also benefit...the wheel has turned and the underlying artificiality of Ireland's total independence from the UK's shadow in anything save sovereignty and fiscal autonomy has come to the fore.....Ireland is again relatively impoverished (As would be the North if it were not within the UK)

 

However, there are cultural and economic divisions in Scotland. I am not suggesting that Highlanders are the Ulstermen and the Lowlands the Southern Irish!

 

Nevertheless, Lowland Scotland is a richer more fertile land much closer attuned I believe to the benefits of being in the UK in the sense that they may not want to rock the boat as they have more to lose. The Highlands are culturally different and more sparse. Maybe both, will as you suggest ...and I agree...decide that they are better off with more quasi-independence and more local autonomy than breaking from the Union altogether.

 

I was merely illustrating that not even Scotland is one nation. And they do have a lot of Lairds even though some are being made to dispose some broad acres of land. The Scottish Establishment also has a seige mentality. Many of them are descended from "Planters" encouraged in the days of the Anglo-Normans.

 

But, let us not get bogged down in too much history.

 

My comparison with Ireland was simply because this is the only example of a country leaving the UK....but also not quite leaving the UK even unto this day!

 

You have not commented on the parallel of having to buy the "Imperial Assets" so to speak. One does not get to keep the farm simply because the union flag comes down over Edinburgh castle at midnight. This is the principle reason I chose Ireland as a parallel....not fear of insurrection and armed rebellion or the UK forcing Scotland to stay in the Union. (Other than by spreading economic fear and insecurity)

 

Leave the UK and precedent tells us that you have to buy the UK assets. I have dubbed them "Imperial Assets". This is not the same as privately owned assets and investments.

 

Scotland of course retained its laws and has enjoyed a great deal of autonomy for many generations....But how much of its economy is dependent upon the Barnett Formula and the benefits of not rocking the boat and staying in the UK? Remember, along with the UK comes money from the EU.

 

The transitional parallel between Ireland and Scotland will encompass not only the long links with the UK but also having to establish new links with the EU (Assuming that it does!).

 

In other words, I was merely using the Irish example of a long transition and adjustment which in the Scottish experience would more than likely encompass buying "Imperial Assets" from the UK, adjusting to a "No Barnett" world, certainly not getting the oil and gas as that has been signed up by the Union....and then having to create a costly relationship with the EU...otherwise the borders between England and Scotland will become very real indeed.

 

The question also is can Scotland become "Acquis Communitaire" without the resources of the UK behind it? How soon can Scotland join the EU once it leaves the UK as the UK accounts will need to be squared off first....and many laws likewise.

 

These issues, and not the armed struggle, I see as being the modern parallels with the long transition faced by Ireland which is why I chose the slow maturity of Ireland as an example.

 

Strange that no one else seems to mention the precedent of purchasing of UK assets as a price of leaving the union?

 

Finally, the way I see it the Scots had very little choice but to vote for the Scottish National Party ie Tories never! Labour useless! SDP turncoats!

[Cambon]

All areas of the UK except London are net takers from the system. Only London pays more in than it takes out. Manchester just about breaks even.

 

Scotland will break away, as will Wales eventually, and NI will eventually become part of ROI. The EU will disolve, as all unions eventually do.

 

Scotland can easily stand on it's own 2 feet, but it will have to make significant and unpopular changes. This will work against the SNP and may cause further changes on teh political front. However, all I can say is good luck to them.