Scottish Independence

[MoogleViper]

Surprised there hasn't been a thread on this. Anyway I'll copypasta the BBC article for reference:

 

A deal setting out terms for a Scottish independence referendum has been signed by Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond.

 

The agreement, struck in Edinburgh, has paved the way for a vote in autumn 2014, with a single Yes/No question on Scotland leaving the UK.

 

It will also allow 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the ballot.

 

The SNP secured a mandate to hold the referendum after its landslide Scottish election win last year.

 

The UK government, which has responsibility over constitutional issues, will grant limited powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a legal referendum, under a mechanism called Section 30.

 

 

The deal will also commit both governments to working together constructively in the best interests of the people of Scotland, whatever the outcome of the referendum.

 

Mr Salmond said the agreement would mean a referendum "made in Scotland", while the prime minister said keeping the United Kingdom together was his number one priority.

 

The deal will provide for:

 

A statutory order to be legislated at Westminster, granting Holyrood powers to hold a single-question independence referendum by the end of 2014 and covering other issues like campaign broadcasts.

A "memorandum of agreement" to be signed by political leaders confirming the details of the referendum will be settled at Holyrood.

A significant role for the Electoral Commission watchdog in advising on the wording of the question, the running of the referendum and areas including campaign finance.

A possible second question on greater powers has been dropped.

 

Speaking after the deal was signed at the headquarters of the Scottish government, St Andrew's House, the prime minister told BBC News: "This is the right decision for Scotland.

 

Real arguments

But it's also right for the United Kingdom that there is going to be one, simple, straightforward question about whether Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom or separate itself from the United Kingdom, and that referendum has to be held before the end of 2014.

 

Mr Cameron added: "Now we've dealt with the process, we should get on with the real arguments, and I passionately believe Scotland will be better off in the United Kingdom but also, crucially, the United Kingdom will be better off with Scotland."

 

Mr Salmond said the deal, which he described as the "Edinburgh Agreement", paved the way for the most important political decision Scotland had made in several hundred years.

 

He added: "It is in that sense a historic day for Scotland and I think a major step forward in Scotland's home rule journey.

 

"The Edinburgh Agreement means that we will have a referendum in two years' time which will be built and made in the Scottish Parliament on behalf of the Scottish people. I think that is a substantial and important step forward."

 

Mr Salmond said the respective campaigns could now move on from discussion over process and "get on with the substantive arguments".

 

He went on: "Do I believe that independence will win this campaign? Yes I do. And I believe we will win it by setting out a positive vision for a better future for our country, both economically and, crucially, also socially.

 

"It is that vision of a prosperous and compassionate society, a confident society moving forward in Scotland, which will carry the day."

 

When asked whether he had an exact date in mind for the referendum, and whether he would share it, Mr Salmond replied: "Yes, and no".

 

 

First Minister Alex Salmond says the agreement on a referendum on Scottish independence is 'a historic day for Scotland'

He said the Scottish government had still to publish the results of its consultation on the referendum, which would happen in the "near future".

 

The deal was negotiated between Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, a Liberal Democrat MP, and Scotland's deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

 

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said she was pleased a deal had been reached, adding: "Alex Salmond has the right to ask the question and now people have right to answer it.

 

"But we cannot allow this debate to distract from some of the real problems being faced by families in Scotland, things the SNP could act on now."

 

"Alex Salmond offers people only one solution to Scotland's problems - a referendum on independence - but his timetable makes us wait another two years to have our say."

 

What happens now?

October 2012

Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond sign the referendum agreement

A Section 30 order transferring the rights to hold a referendum to Holyrood

The findings of the Scottish government's Your Scotland, Your Referendum consultation will be published

Autumn/winter 2012

Electoral Commission begins the practical preparations, including testing the fairness and clarity of the question

February 2013

The Section 30 Order will be agreed by the Privy Council

Spring 2013

The Referendum Bill comes before Holyrood

October 2013

MSPs take part in the crucial Stage 3 vote at the Scottish Parliament

November 2013

Royal Assent is given to the bill

The Scottish government will publish a White Paper - what it calls its "prospectus for independence". Other parties will also put forward their vision for the future of Scotland

Summer 2014

The pro-independence and anti-independence campaigns intensify

Autumn 2014

The Scottish independence referendum takes place

 

Source

 

 

So what do people think? Do our fellow Scots want independence? Do the rest of the UK want to get rid of them? Should we be allowing 16 year olds to vote?

 

 

Personally I don't want to get rid of Scotland. Ignoring the whole "we should all stick together" kind of arguments, selfishly, we would lose a lot of the north sea oil, and we would have far more right wing governments. Though I do think the current system needs to be looked at. I think there is a lot of nationalism influencing the Scottish parliament (and the Welsh assembly). Take the university fees example. Why should we have to pay 9k, and they pay nothing, when a lot of their governments money comes from us? I'm not saying we shouldn't be financially supporting them, I just find it a bit of a kick in the teeth. I think all universities should be the same price throughout the country. Or at least, Scottish universities can be free, but they are also free to English students studying there. The EU dictates that we can't discriminate between member states, yet somehow we're allowed to discriminate within our own country? Although from this, it would seem that if Scotland gained independence, we would also get it free.

 

I also don't think 16 year olds should be voting. There are plenty who do read up on politics and are knowledgeable about it, but the majority aren't. The same can be said for 18 year olds and above. But when you've been to university and had a job and various other life experiences, at least you've got something to base your decisions on other than what your mates say and what the papers say (although that's the case with a lot of adults, as The Sun has previously gloated about).

[Mr-Paul]

Allowing 16 and 17 years to vote is a clear attempt to skew the result of the vote in the way of Scottish Independence. They've surely done their research to see which groups will be most open to the idea, and young people are clearly one of them, otherwise they would not be allowing them to vote on this issue. If you let 16 year olds vote in this, you have to let them vote in general elections too. In my opinion, voting age should be 18 or even 21, although I do think there should be a uniform age for all adult things (voting, drinking, driving, sex, marriage, etc.), but that's a separate issue altogether and a very tricky thing to sort out.

 

I don't think Scottish Independence would be a good thing, and I don't think the people really want it, SNP got so many votes in the last elections basically because they aren't Labour.

[MoogleViper]

If they voted (overwhelmingly) no to independence, what would that do to SNP's popularity? Surely they're based almost entirely around independence?

[Ganepark32]

Allowing 16 and 17 years to vote is a clear attempt to skew the result of the vote in the way of Scottish Independence. They've surely done their research to see which groups will be most open to the idea, and young people are clearly one of them, otherwise they would not be allowing them to vote on this issue. If you let 16 year olds vote in this, you have to let them vote in general elections too. In my opinion, voting age should be 18 or even 21, although I do think there should be a uniform age for all adult things (voting, drinking, driving, sex, marriage, etc.), but that's a separate issue altogether and a very tricky thing to sort out.

 

Agree with the bolded part. Think that that is the main reason that the SNP want their votes mainly due to the majority of Scots eligible to vote preferring to stay in the union.

 

My opinion is that I think Scotland should stay in the union. Don't want independence, especially with Alex Salmond plugging it, as I don't see any benefit to us getting it. Would rather he f**ked off as I think he's an utter tosser. Certainly not the party or person I voted for in Scotland.

 

Luckily, most of the Scots I've spoken to properly on the subject don't want to be independent and voted them in for other reasons beyond that particular policy, which they've been plugging for all the wrong reasons (or that's how it appears to me). I sincerely hope that come 2014, that we vote 'No' with a high majority so that Salmond can shut the hell up.

[Cube]

I don't really know the whole political side of it, but I do have some questions about what would happen.

 

- What happens to it in regards to the EU? If it gains independence then Scotland and breaks off from the UK then presumable it will also lose it's EU status.

 

I think I read somewhere that the EU will accept Scotland into the EU quickly (or perhaps immediately), but don't new EU states have to adopt the Euro. I've done a quick Google and it looks like nobody has any idea. Surely they need to sort out stuff like this before they can start the vote? Surely votes would be very different if (hypothetically) they knew they would have to adopt the Euro if they chose "yes"?

 

- Then there's VAT. I would presume that if governments were different, then people in Scotland would have to pay VAT to their own government. Wouldn't this mean that people from Scotland would be responsible for their own VAT (and vice-versa).

 

- And what about government-owned things like the BBC, NHS and Royal Mail? Would Scotland pay the British government for these, or would they simply stop for Scotland? And can Scotland create their own versions? On top of this, what would happen to all their jobs in Scotland that are part of these services?

 

- Further to Royal Mail, what about post? Will companies in the UK need to start filling in customs forms for orders from Scotland? Will people in Scotland have to pay increased postage fees (probably the same is the ROI and western Europe) simply because it's no longer the "same country"?

 

Again, I've had a quick look at these and it seems that not much is really known about it. These questions - as well as plans on what to do with these things - need to be answered in the next few years.

[Ramar]

I saw a bit about this on the lunch time news, I couldn't help but laugh at the 16-17 year old school kid who said some bollocks about being old enough to form opinions that won't change.

 

Too young to vote in my opinion, you know bugger all about the world at the age however much you think you've grown up.

[jayseven]

@Cube it's something I noticed - this is a one-question referendum in 2 years time. There's no mention of the timescale of what would happen if yes was the vast majority - potentially couldn't there even be a 2nd referendum if the majority isn't seen to be high enough? In any case, working all the economic/budget stuff out would probably take a couple of years, then there'd need to be a transition phase... so nothing will happen 'til 2020 - when Sean Connery will be 90, and finally set foot again on his home soil.

[bob]

Well i don't live in Scotland, and so have no idea how it's going to affect most of them, but the bit that worries me most about the whole thing it that the UK (or whatever it'll be called once they leave; as if it wasn't confusing enough) will suddenly become overwhelmingly Conservative, and there's nothing we can do about it, other than move to Scotland i suppose...

[Rummy]

I don't want to lose Scotland really, but I think it should be up to them. If they want to give 16 year olds the vote too, well, so be it. Personally I think 17 is more suitable, I knew more politcally at 17 than at 16 and would have probably voted for any old basic crap at 16, whereas at 17 I still would have voted for crap but felt a bit more knowledgeable/confident about it - plus so many people don't use their votes already I think it would be good if more people could vote. I think it should all be up to Scotland though, I see no reason for us to have a say in their affairs.

[Charlie]

Right now, I can't vote anything other than 'No' because there are so many unanswered questions (and tbh even after they're answered I'll still be more than likely voting No).

 

-Do Scotland enter the EU?

-If we do, we would have to adopt the Euro as all new nations must.

-What happens to the military?

-What happens to national debt?

-What happens to nationalised banks?

-Why are foreign students studying in Scotland allowed to vote but Scottish students studying abroad not allowed to when they will need to get a new passport?

-What happens with Royal Mail and posting to the UK?

 

People seem to be bringing up North Sea oil a lot. It's a pretty moot point as by 2020 oil production will fall to less than 1/3 of its peak and by 2030 almost be gone completely. Scotland won't even own all the oil either, last I heard Salmond was trying to go for a 90/10 split.

 

Another point people are bringing up is Scotland's vast renewable energy potential. Potential is the key word, can you bank a country's future on an industry that barely even exists?

[Mokong]

As Jayseven said there's been nothing said about what the timescale of events would be if a yes vote won.

 

I'd imagine if Yes won Scotland wouldn't be cut off the instant the result is announced. They'd have to gradually do a transition or a few years... prolly something similar to when Hong Kong was given back to China but China can't go in fully for 50 years I think it was..... though likely with Scotland the transition would be a lot shorter than 50 years.

 

Having the vote in 2014 is also likely to give them (the "Yes" side) to put together proposals for how the things @Cube mentioned would be addressed/changed.

They certainly couldn't expect to get people to vote without giving them such info beforehand, so likely the closer we get to 2014 the more that info will be provided.

 

The things I was thinking more about is if Scotland voted yes, what happens to the UK then? Could it still call itself "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

The "Great Britain part refers to all 3 of England, Scotland & Wales" so I'd assume they'd have to alter a whole bunch of official documents to something like "The UK of England, Wales & N. Ireland" How would a yes vote effect Wales and N. Ireland could it lead to simlar votes for them too? (Prolly not, but thought I'd toss it out there)

 

And in sport (I always think of how things effect sport ).... I'd assume Scotland would have it's own Olympic team is they got a Yes, would the "Great Britain" team have to change it's name to "United Kingdom" maybe as I'd assume as with above they couldn't really call themselves Great Britain without Scotland?

 

With the vote happening in 2014 could we actually see a Scotish Olympic team at Rio 2016 (if yes won)?

 

And how "independant" would Scotland actually be.... like in terms of the "Commonwealth" would Scotland still remain in the Commonwealth, similar to countries such as Canada and Australia (and many others) where they are independent but the Queen is still considered head of state? Will Scotland stay in that or is this referendum for a total going it alone independence?

Edited October 16, 2012 by Mokong

[Marcamillian]

I see a lot f parallels with the UK leaving Europe. Its a very emotive subject leaving something that is seen to control you.

 

All the ways that they stop you from doing stuff are publicised a lot cause they cause outrage. All the ways you benefit from the relation arn't as exciting so never get spoken about (specifically bug economic advantages that people don't understand vs. taking away straight bananas).

 

On the age of voting... all the people saying 16 year olds arn't aware enough to vote.... you are aware that the cast of The Only Way is Essex are legally allowed to vote?

 

Politicians periodically complain about personality politics but the reality is people are easier to manipulate with it and they've been encouraging it since the year dot. I can't believe that there isn't an independent body that exists solely to educate people about politics, but the reality is politicians don't want that cause ignorant people are easier to control.

[Cube]

I remember being told "You're old enough to move out of your parents house. You're old enough to own your own house. You're old enough for the responsibility of raising kids. But you're not trusted enough to vote."

[MoogleViper]

On the age of voting... all the people saying 16 year olds arn't aware enough to vote.... you are aware that the cast of The Only Way is Essex are legally allowed to vote?

 

So because some people over 18 are idiots, we should let 16 year olds vote? Hey fuck it, TOWIE can vote, why not 12 year olds? 10? 5? 2?

[Iun]

So because some people over 18 are idiots, we should let 16 year olds vote? Hey fuck it, TOWIE can vote, why not 12 year olds? 10? 5? 2?

 

The "More Candy Before Mealtimes" Party has my vote and always will.

[Marcamillian]

So because some people over 18 are idiots, we should let 16 year olds vote? Hey fuck it, TOWIE can vote, why not 12 year olds? 10? 5? 2?

 

I was just saying that the argument that 16 year olds don't know enough isn't as cut and dry as the thread seems to have stated so far.

 

If we are questioning peoples knowledge of politics there is a much wider argument to be had about how we teach it. Schools don't cover it in any significant form yet its supposed to be the foundation of how our county operates.

 

So, fine, 16 year olds don't know enough. As they grow up what changes? Your hoping people pick it up by osmosis through living 2 years till they get to 18 and then they are all good to go?

[MoogleViper]

So, fine, 16 year olds don't know enough. As they grow up what changes? Your hoping people pick it up by osmosis through living 2 years till they get to 18 and then they are all good to go?

 

No. The majority still don't know what they're voting for. Even by [insert generic age] most people are either voting for what they've always voted for, or voting for that the media tells them to. How many of you guys read party manifestos for the last general election? Very few.

 

But the fact is, if we accept that voting is a right, then we have to set an age somewhere. At least at 18 they've left school, and had to either continue their education or get a job, so they will have some life experience to base their decision on. Saying, "people are still stupid at 18 so we may as well let 16 year olds vote" is an idiotic argument.

[Marcamillian]

If we are questioning peoples knowledge of politics there is a much wider argument to be had about how we teach it.

 

So rather than engage with the wider argument of how we make EVERYONE make better use of their right to vote, we're going to call each others argument idiotic?

 

"people are still stupid at 18 so we may as well let 16 year olds vote"

 

Was not my argument ... I was making a point that age as an indicator of knowledge just doesn't hold water.

 

But the fact is, if we accept that voting is a right, then we have to set an age somewhere.

 

I agree, we are kind of beholden to an age, so why not do something to ensure by whatever arbitrary age we choose people have had a reasonable exposure to politics beyond tabloids.

[Agent Gibbs]

There are far too many unanswered questions on what would happen if Scotland left and how both Scotland and the rest of the "union" would be effected

 

One thing i did find startling that i remember coming up the last time this subject was raised in the media, was that Alex Samond and the SNP want to get the RBS (obviously being a Scottish bank) but they don't want to take its debt or responsibility to deal with it, a clean slate so to speak. If true that isn't good and certainly makes me wonder what else would they want to pick and choose?

 

Personally i think if they left there is no point referring to anything as the United Kingdom or Great Britain, we should just dissolve the union.

Too many questions, too much uncertainty, they need to have a clear and defined plan of what would happen, otherwise people could vote "yes" and then find its unfeasible or at worst it happens and Scotland struggles and ends up like Greece in terrible financial and structural ruin.

 

 

as for 16/17 year olds voting, it is a simple ploy to appeal to the rebellious masses who are already disenfranchised with the government. The simple truth is they don't normally have the vote at those ages because the vast majority of them are too immature to realise the implications of their votes, Some maybe capable but we cannot pick and choose who can or cannot, there is a clearly defined boundry of 18 years after such point it is assumed people are mature enough.

Sure we can pick on the likes of TOWIE and say they shouldn't vote, but that is the down side to an age limit imposed to ensure a level of maturity is that some may not be mature enough to vote beyond the limit, however thankfully it should be a minority. And if we start down the lines of restricting votes based on intelligence/power then we are not in a democracy anymore

Edited October 16, 2012 by Agent Gibbs

[MoogleViper]

I agree, we are kind of beholden to an age, so why not do something to ensure by whatever arbitrary age we choose people have had a reasonable exposure to politics beyond tabloids.

 

But that's a separate issue. We're talking about 16 year olds being able to vote now (in two years), not whether we can improve the education system. Most 18 year olds are heavily influence by their peers and the media, but they are slightly less so than 16 year olds, who by their very nature are more impressionable, and have less life experience to base their decisions on.

 

Part of me would like to see a system where people have to earn the privilege of voting, possibly through some politics based test. Although this would most likely lead to elitism, where people from privileged backgrounds will get a better education compared to those from less privileged backgrounds, and therefore leading to the under privileged being proportionately less represented.

[Ramar]

At least at 18 they've left school, and had to either continue their education or get a job, so they will have some life experience to base their decision on.

 

I completely agree with this. It's not necessarily what they think they know about politics, but their lack of experience of life and the world that would trouble me.

[Marcamillian]

@MoogleViper - fair enough so I assume your arguments around life experience and political knowledge be different for any other instance of lowering the voting age?

 

@Ramar - Life experience could go both ways. It could give you a better idea of that goes on or make you more closed to opposing points of view. IMO working and the reality of how much tax you pay drives a lot of the mass vilification of people on benefits that has been a big political point since the coalition got in.

[MoogleViper]

@MoogleViper - fair enough so I assume your arguments around life experience and political knowledge be different for any other instance of lowering the voting age?

 

Pretty much. I may change that opinion if the education was changed, but as it is, I can't justify giving 16 year olds the vote.

[Iun]

To be honest guys, this "most 16 year olds are idiots" argument doesn't hold water: virtually everybody is a fuckwit to me, and if it was my decision, only certain people would be allowed to vote.

 

In fact, if I ever seize power in a bloody coup I will make sure that anybody black, white, rich, poor, stupid, really stupid, taller than a horse, shorter than a horse, about the same size as a horse, male, female, senile, possibly senile, randomly accused of being senile, horny, perpetually not horny, gay, straight, transgender or bi-curious would not be allowed to vote, ever.

[Marcamillian]

@MoogleViper

 

If education was better, your view on the 16/18 thing would change. Doesn't that mean it is part of the issue, all be it late for THIS instance but definitely part of the issue.

 

You accept peoples knowledge at any age may not be up to scratch, that "at least" 18 year olds have "some" knowledge. You agree that 18 is already a compromised and inadequate system.. yet the notion of 16 year olds voting is patently idiotic?