Snp First-Ever Majority

[VinnieK]

Barry, are you sure you're not confusing Land Annuities with what you're calling 'Imperial Assets'? On the founding of the free state, Crown estates were transferred to the free state government. However, before then the UK had made government loans to allow Irish tenant farmers to buy the land they tended from (private) landlords.

 

This isn't really the same situation as you're portraying: after dominion status the UK government still owned that debt which had to be paid back (although the Irish did end the payments, and after a resulting trade war a settlement was achieved). What you suggest as having to 'buy back the farm' after independence was in fact a matter of paying off pre-independence debts. The situation in Scotland is considerably different.

[Barrie Stevens]

Barry, are you sure you're not confusing Land Annuities with what you're calling 'Imperial Assets'? On the founding of the free state, Crown estates were transferred to the free state government. However, before then the UK had made government loans to allow Irish tenant farmers to buy the land they tended from (private) landlords.

 

This isn't really the same situation as you're portraying: after dominion status the UK government still owned that debt which had to be paid back (although the Irish did end the payments, and after a resulting trade war a settlement was achieved). What you suggest as having to 'buy back the farm' after independence was in fact a matter of paying off pre-independence debts. The situation in Scotland is considerably different.

 

I do not think I am confusing issues. I am going on partly what I know (or think I know!) and what the Irish have told me when I lived on the Isle of Man.

 

I think I muddied the waters by referring to "buy back the farm"...this is actually nothing to do with Ireland. I borrowed the phrase from former Australian PM Bob Hawke from the 1970s who once campaigned in this vein on the issue of buying out residual former imperial connections but mainly natural resources then owned by overseas corporations.

 

I did not mean it as a reference to the UK owning the debt of Irish tenant farmers who had received soft loans from the UK to buy their farms.

 

I have always believed that the two issues were separate. And the Irish told me that the Irish Annuities was a feudal matter settled by the Free State ie a form of ground rent...and which the Free State paid to the UK and then went on to charge their own people for some years anyway...but you may well be right it might be one and the same with the loans to buy farms. I was under the impression that Irish Annuities related to a sort of "feu" and that the Landlords lived in UK/England and had to be bought out.

 

As regards Crown Estate. This may not necessarily mean the "Imperial Assets"...not quite appropriate as Ireland was not colonial but a UK member...Crown Estate usually means the Estate owned by the Monarch and which since the 1760s has been effectively surrendered in return for what was the Civil List and Privy Purse (Now about to change again to a new arrangement)The Crown Estate produces a surplus for the UK Treasury.

 

Crown Estate was also transferred to the Isle of Man at least in the form of the sea bed and it puzzles me why the Island does not license the seabed for windfarms and let someoen else make an investment which the Island can tap into. The others outside of IOM waters have to get a licence from the Crown Estate to build windfarms offshore.

 

Back on topic. I still say that the UK input will have to be paid for by Scotland, albeit with a formula taking into account how much Scots taxpayers invested, before any Independence. (And in the case of Ireland and India at a bargain basement rate)

 

India had to pay something for the Imperial input and some of this went to part-pay the USA for funds borrowed by the UK during World War Two.

[manshimajin]

Given that Scottish Independence woud require a breaking of the Act of Union would it also require a referendum in England and Wales to agree to the same?

 

Wales would most likley be supportive of Scottish Independence. An opinion poll quoted in The Economist two years ago indicated that a much higher percentage of people polled in England were in favour of breaking ties with Scotland than people in Scotland who were in favour of independence from England. IMO it would be a good thing to run a referendum north and south of the 'border' to legitimise Scottish independence if they wanted it.

 

Wasn't the break up of Czechoslovakia arrived at through including both Czechs and Slovaks in a referendum which made the outcome acceptable to both ethnicities.

[Barrie Stevens]

Barry, are you sure you're not confusing Land Annuities with what you're calling 'Imperial Assets'? On the founding of the free state, Crown estates were transferred to the free state government. However, before then the UK had made government loans to allow Irish tenant farmers to buy the land they tended from (private) landlords.

 

This isn't really the same situation as you're portraying: after dominion status the UK government still owned that debt which had to be paid back (although the Irish did end the payments, and after a resulting trade war a settlement was achieved). What you suggest as having to 'buy back the farm' after independence was in fact a matter of paying off pre-independence debts. The situation in Scotland is considerably different.

 

OK This oughta be right.

 

I got Irish chap in Onchan to help and he called lawyer pal in Dublin. Ireland had to pay £5 million as token payment for UK input (Worth a lot more then in terms of purchasing power and US$ equivalent back then).ie buy the UK public assets ie barracks, post offices, public works etc.

 

In 1925 Free State was freed from all public debt and they promised to pay £250,000 a year for the Land Annuities to cover loans made by UK to tenant farmers to buy their land. This was to be for the next 60 years. In 1932 Devalera decided that the Annuities were part of the public debt they were absolved from and refused to pay etc etc...

 

I think the "feu" is in their somewhere. Maybe part of the £5 million?

 

Either way, both Ireland and India set precedent for having to buy the UK out to some extent.

 

Scotland I am sure will pay!

[Barrie Stevens]

Given that Scottish Independence woud require a breaking of the Act of Union would it also require a referendum in England and Wales to agree to the same?

 

Wales would most likley be supportive of Scottish Independence. An opinion poll quoted in The Economist two years ago indicated that a much higher percentage of people polled in England were in favour of breaking ties with Scotland than people in Scotland who were in favour of independence from England. IMO it would be a good thing to run a referendum north and south of the 'border' to legitimise Scottish independence if they wanted it.

 

Wasn't the break up of Czechoslovakia arrived at through including both Czechs and Slovaks in a referendum which made the outcome acceptable to both ethnicities.

 

Whatever is done will have to be done within a UK constitutional context. Listening in to the great, the good and the occasional university Don via Radio 4 and the BBC World Service it appears that any Scottish referendum organised by the Scottish Government will currently have no legal effect whatsoever.

 

Such a referendum will not be opposed from London but will be seen as merely indicative. The outcome will not be binding on the UK as Westminster (the Union Parliament) has majority powers reserved unto itself under Devolution.

 

Scotland cannot just decide to be independent and then that's it. Their administration north of the border is, like Isle of Man Government, a mere courtesy title. Constitutionally the Scottish Government remains an Executive, "The Scottish Executive."

 

The Union Parliament will not seek to oppose independence but subject to a definition of what "independence" really means these days when hardly any European country is independent.

 

The main problem is that Scotland is not some British colony seeking independence. It is part of a Union of Kingdoms and a principality along with a province in Ireland. Over the years many tangled webs have been spun.

 

The equivalent would be a State of the union of the USA seeking to secede...which many did and they had a civil war over it. Big complications what with all the financial ties etc.

 

Then there is the issue of nationality/citizenship. The term "British subject" has been abolished now save for certain people born in Ireland on/after a certain and that was left in so that they can in effect retain their British status as at birth if they choose. Once the last Irish "British" subject dies the term itself will die (This is not from me its from an immigration website UK.Gov)

 

What to do if if the vote is 55 :45 for and/or against? Where do you draw the line as true independence will mean people losing any rights or status gained from being long within the Union? Are we entitled to deprive people of their British and UK status on such a narrow vote? Or on any vote?

 

The Isle of Man looked at independence over ten years ago and I did read the report in Tynwald Library.

 

There were then 11,700 Manxmen who were defined as such by Protocol 3 ie self and all four Grandparents, born, naturalised, regisered or adopted on the Island. These had a stamp in their (British) passports denying them right of Establishment in what is now the EU save for the UK where they had full Establishment.

 

The report stated that upon independence these 11,700 would have to become Manx Citizens only and be denied full rights in the UK and the EU and might even need visas to travel "across"!

 

Those who were fully British and fully able to access the EU would have the option of switching to being Manx with Manx passports. As most people in the Island are fully British and fully able to access the EU one would have a bizarre so called Manx Independence with most of its people still very much in the UK camp!

 

The same question over status would apply to Scotland unless it joined the EU immediately so as to benefit from free movement and that would take time and money and not be automatic for the costly need to become "acquis Communitaire".

 

I mean, you see an independent Scotland but they all hang on to their UK passports as of birth-right!

 

The only truly binding referendum would be the one organised by the Union Parliament itself as it would then be as it were an "offer"...But I bet many people in Scotland, which has a well entrenched Establishment plus the Anglo-Scots now totalling about 400,000, would be in any case opposed to breaking from the Union.

 

Alex Salmond has asked for rights to vary the Corporation Tax. So far the UK favours an equal or unitary corporation tax overall. On the other hand, talks are well advanced in N. Ireland to let them have their own Corporation Tax (Presumably as an antidote to the low taxes in their neighbour the Republic?)

 

If they let N. Ireland have its own way on this tax then they can hardly refuse Scotland and this may hit both England and Wales and the Isle of Man???

 

It is all hypothetical but certainly Scotland's independence is not cut and dried. As regards an all UK referendum ....this is politically risky. As they say, do not pray too hard for what you want as you might just end up getting it!

 

Anyway, how much will Scotland have to pay as the price for taking over the Union's publicly funded input over the years? (And will the UK insist that they refund EU input if Scotland is not able to automatically become "there and then" a member on the stroke of "Independence Midnight"?

 

Ireland got off cheap paying £5 million as they wanted them away! India was rich enough to pay more. In these times the UK may want more of a pay off...and certainly Scotland will not get the oil.

 

As regards the Crown Estate (Property notionally surrendered by the Monarchy in the 1760s in return for an annual stipend) this is currently run in Scotland by a Commissioner but the UK plans to totally overhaul and revamp the way the Estate is managed in all parts of the UK and so this too is not a foregone conclusion (Salmond will not get his hands on it!)

 

NB Some authorities state that the Monarch still owns the Crown Estate but has long since given up the use and income derived from it but in theory can have it all back again if they give up the Stipend...personally I think there is more chance of Scottish independence ie No chance!

[Barrie Stevens]

Barry, are you sure you're not confusing Land Annuities with what you're calling 'Imperial Assets'? On the founding of the free state, Crown estates were transferred to the free state government. However, before then the UK had made government loans to allow Irish tenant farmers to buy the land they tended from (private) landlords.

 

This isn't really the same situation as you're portraying: after dominion status the UK government still owned that debt which had to be paid back (although the Irish did end the payments, and after a resulting trade war a settlement was achieved). What you suggest as having to 'buy back the farm' after independence was in fact a matter of paying off pre-independence debts. The situation in Scotland is considerably different.

 

Commentators are now saying that an independent Scotland would have to pay its share of the UK Government Debt of £1 trillion.

 

This would mean Scotland having to find £280 billion or £56,000 for each Scot who chose to stay north of the border rather than move to England.

 

They might be given time to pay but it would be a burden for a new country to raise this sort of money on the markets.

 

Then there is the question of buying part of the Union input in the form of public works etc.

 

Plus for all I know having to do the same in respect of EU input???

 

The Block Grant to Scotland has risen from £13 billion annually to now reportedly £30 billion a year in the twelve years since Holyrood opened its doors.

 

Scotland maintains that "its oil" pays the UK £6.50 billion a year but in reality this is a Union asset paying into the Union treasury. One doubts that any settlement would allow Scotland all of "its oil"!

 

I think that Scotland voted for the SNP because there was really no one else to vote for - all others being discredited - and not because they want 100% to secede from the Union.

 

Ireland (Free State) was relieved of its share of debt in 1925 but the UK's political motives were different in those days and by then more amenable to separation.

[woolley]

Thanks (mainly Barrie and Vinnie) for an extremely interesting thread (and nobody slagging anybody off!).

[SJR]

An independent Scotland - I don't think so.Any Scot with a brain jumped ship and emigrated years ago leaving the likes of Alex Salmond to claim two wages as a member of the Scottish and British Parliaments.Corruption - A fully independent Scotland would make The Republic Of Ireland look like a model country !!

[Pale Rider]

I'm not convinced (as a Scot), that independence would be right for Scotland. It was a surprise that SNP got the majority they did especially as a recent poll stated that about 46% of people are still against an independent Scotland. However Labour put up such a poor campaign here, which consisted of just slagging off the SNP instead of having some Scottish policies of their own it turned alot of traditional Labour voting areas against them.

 

The Scots who are in favour of independence really have to think hard of the implications and not just through "braveheart tinted specs" of independence instantly making Scotland better. What worries me is the SNP may now get out of their depth. Alex Salmond for years has said Scotland becoming an independent nation was a reality by comparing it to the Republic of Ireland. And given the recent financial crisis look at the state of Rep of Ireland now. Like many I don't dislike the SNP and I agree with some of their policies, just not sure on the independence one!

[pongo]

The union began with the Edinburgh court moving to London when the Scottish Crown inherited England and Wales. Therefore surely it should be for England and Wales to decide whether they still want to be part of the Scottish Kingdom.

[Freggyragh]

The union began with the Edinburgh court moving to London when the Scottish Crown inherited England and Wales. Therefore surely it should be for England and Wales to decide whether they still want to be part of the Scottish Kingdom.

 

No. When James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603 the Scottish Court didn't move en masse to England. James did proclaim himself 'King of Great Britain' but this was not recognised by either parliament. The Act of Union happened much later, in 1707, as a result of massive public and private debt in Scotland - caused by the South Sea Bubble and English complicity in the failure of the Scottish colonial project in Darien, Panama. Even if what you wrote is true I don't understand what you are on about (any more than you do). If Scotland votes for independence then England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to let Scotland go. I'm looking forward to Scottish independence just to see orangemen having to decide if Ulster is Scottish or English and Welsh.

[pongo]

Yes the "act of union" was much later. When James 1 inherited England and Wales and the Scottish Court moved to London, that resulted in what was called the Union Of the Crowns. It was an earlier part of the evolution towards what became the UK. Scotland has often very much been lead passenger in that relationship.

 

People get far too hung up about countries and national pride. Iceland is a great example of why small countries are a bad idea.

[Cronky]

Thanks ladies & gents. Interesting and informative thread.

 

I would have thought that full Scottish independence would be neither popular or achievable. It strikes me that Alex Salmon is a very astute political operator - without equal in Scotland. What he is really after is further devolved powers as a realistic half way house. The debate about independence will be strong and well articulated but the settlement will be something in between. The real prize, it seems to me, is for Scotland to gain limited independence in tax raising powers.

 

That would be interesting because it would be the start of tax competition within the UK itself.

 

Whilst I think it good that parts of Britain legislate in locally different ways it gives me the shivers that orchestrating those differences may one day lead to tensions and conflicts. There's a balance to be struck between properly considering local issues without developing narrow and insular attitudes.

 

The Union has to come first.

[Freggyragh]

I'm quite sure that most Scottish nationalists do want full independence, just as some British nationalists wish Westminster, with its one Scottish Tory MP, had never agreed to devolution. However, the non SNP card carrying Scottish electorate probably voted SNP because they won't vote Tory and they know the threat of independence is the best ploy they have for preventing Cameron repeating what Thatcher did to Scotland. I don't think the SNP will win a referendum on independence any time soon, but I do think it will come eventually.

 

The unification of Germany was good because that is what the people wanted, but putting the union of Czechoslovakia before The Czech Republic and Slovakia would have been wrong, and trying to maintain the union of Yugoslavia in the 90s was horrific, as was trying to maintain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Nationalism is dangerous, but it is not the preserve of small nations. The history of Europe suggests to me that it is the nationalism of the biggest nations that has created the biggest problems. Nevertheless, we are talking about England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales - in which case I think we are talking about squabbles over shared embassy bills not a new Middle East. Of course the relationship between England and Ireland is still dangerously contentious (in pockets), but that is a legacy of putting the union first. It is British nationalism that gives me the shivers, and putting the union ahead of mutual respect makes you a British nationalist, and that's a quite a few degrees to the right of a democratic Scottish nationalist like Salmond.

 

As for the viability of an independent Scotland (pop.5,220,000), well both sides can draw analogies. Pongo chooses Iceland (pop. 320,000), a Scottish nationalist might cite Norway (pop. 5,000,000), or Denmark (pop.5,560,000) or Finland (5,375,000). I think the Republic of Ireland (pop.4,475,000) would be the fairest analogy - and, basket-case as the RoI is, the Scots will be comparing how the Irish are able to react to their circumstances compared to how Thatcher's government dealt with them in the 80s.

 

I think an independent Scotland would be good for the Scottish, and very good for the English, Welsh, Irish and Manx. Here's why:

 

1) There are too many politicians in the UK - taxpayers are paying for local councils, devolved parliaments, a national legislature and a European parliament.

2) Competition in good governance.

 

The downside might be a loss of international clout, but on recent evidence I don't see that the UK has much of an independent voice anyway.

[Cronky]

It is British nationalism that gives me the shivers, and putting the union ahead of mutual respect makes you a British nationalist, and that's a quite a few degrees to the right of a democratic Scottish nationalist like Salmond.

 

Complete cobblers. The United Kingdom is for all shades of the political spectrum. I would be worried that more fervent Scottish Nationalism might stoke tensions elsewhere and lead to, say, more fervent English Nationalism. Local government yes - local nationalism no.