Do You Support Scottish Independence?

The efficient management of UK state interests just seems to be consistently incompatible with Scottish interests - which is why I support seperation.

This surely only holds while the union is still in place though, for afterwards resources are apportioned on a geographical basis according to the international laws of the seabed?

Out of interest, what's different about Scottish interests compared to UK interests? What do Scottish people want that's so fundamentally different to the rest of the UK?

But the problem is the level of spending itself; it is detrimental to the economy. And the fact that the SNP's planned source of funding is unsustainable is another problem; they aren't going to cut spending when the oil runs dry. On a related note, the SNP is also planning to shut down all of Scotland's nuclear plants, because "nuclear" is a scary word they don't understand. Why would I want those people to have even more power over me?

Yes, I have no doubt you can find such examples, just as you could for South Wales, South Yorkshire, Cornwall and Merseyside have no doubt been subject to similar instances as what you outlined. The reality is, the union has benefited Scotland, if you want to break up this island like you do then fine, but you simply cannot argue that the United Kingdom has brought a huge amount of prosperity to Scotland - we went from being one of the poorest nations in Western Europe, to being a very active participant in the world's largest ever empire, and reaped huge rewards from this. An awful lot of Glasgow is built on the profits of Scottish merchants, some of whom who were heavily in involved in such enterprises as the slave and tobacco trades, in which us Scots played a disproportionately high role. The great commercial palaces of Edinburgh and Glasgow were built on the back of the colonial trade.

I am afraid your view of the European Union is beyond belief given the events last few years. In four years Greece will be a total shambles with potentially disastrous results for the EU. We can only be thankful that compared to Germany it is a small country on the edge of Europe rather than a new equivalent of post WW I Germany. When push came to shove, the citizens and taxpayers of Germany, the one EU country that matters, see themselves as German first and European second. They have no interest in bailing out Greece, but European elites can't allow the Euro to fail. So we have a state of permanent crisis, with one inadequate bailout after another, and with Greek/Italian/Irish economic policy governed from the ECB. The people who suffer as a result of this, are the poor in countries like Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal. Who have to make sacrifice, after sacrifice, with no end to the pain and no hope for a solution to the crisis. At end of the day we can't all be Germany, we can't all run massive trade surpluses. A number of European countries are being destroyed in order to save the Euro currency - namely Greece, but a similar story is playing out in the rest of the failing economies of Europe. I think you are utterly deluded to believe that this community of nations exists, the current tragedy highlights this.

If the EU is shattered it will be tragedy for those of us who thought that the concept of a single market was a very good idea. But had that ruined by people who placed ideology ahead of economic common sense. What Europe needed was more treaties and intereuropean agreements but leaving every single country its own FULL sovereignity (without tricks). This would have avoided many issues we are seeing today (Like the compulsory need to force southern countries to comply with northern budgets knowing that is impossible in short time, as well as in longer ones in many cases. This issues showed with Southern Europe, and probably even more European countries sooner or later. A fiscal union would be theoretically possible, but again, it would become a blackmailing tool, as is adopting a unified EU legislation. What EU wants is deprive single countries of their legitimity to rule and shift full powers to the EU to then rule the whole continent according to their own standards. Let's make it clear, even if Greece stays in the EU now what is its weight, politically and economically? It's becoming a puppet of those running Europe. Scotland is better off, not swimming as a relatively insignificant state towards this collapsing mess of a system.

Greece has had to accept quasi-colonial control in return for the £110bn rescue package. Ireland and Portugal have only avoided bankruptcy through massive eurozone/IMF loans on condition of devastating austerity measures. I don't want the people running this thing getting involved in Scotland. My mind boggles how you can still believe this stuff about the EU. Even Thatcher was an infinitely more compassionate and pragmatic figure than Olli Rehn and co. They are in the process of destroying an entire nation on the back of an economic dogma. The crushing of Greece, and the bankruptcy of her citizens, is of little consequence if it serves the greater good of monetary union.

Good thing on the BBC website about Greece today actually http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17202274

Out of interest, what's different about Scottish interests compared to UK interests? What do Scottish people want that's so fundamentally different to the rest of the UK?

But the problem is the level of spending itself; it is detrimental to the economy. And the fact that the SNP's planned source of funding is unsustainable is another problem; they aren't going to cut spending when the oil runs dry. On a related note, the SNP is also planning to shut down all of Scotland's nuclear plants, because "nuclear" is a scary word they don't understand. Why would I want those people to have even more power over me?

I would say that the working class of Glasgow have more in common with their economic counterparts in Liverpool, Manchester or Southampton, it is a shame that nationalism makes ThePhilosoraptor oblivious to this obvious fact. Just as Scottish farmers will almost always find more political common ground with a farmer in Wales or Southern England than they would with a nurse just down the road.

Quite. Out of interest, have the SNP explained our proposed constitutional structure? Do they want a unicameralism legislature. The problem is, they seem to have no long term plan on anything - currency, europe and so on. They have published no clear documents afaik about anything of relevance. I doubt we will see any more coherence by 2014.

There are a number of aspirations which are incompatible with current UK policy;

*A working welfare state
*Representation in Europe
*Renewable Energy Provision
*A nuclear free country
*An economy based on business (as mentioned previously it is UK policy to maintain a high public sector balance in the economy as compensation for directing private enterprise elsewhere)

I wouldn't say they were necessarily incompatible with UK interests (for example, the last one isn't) but even where the interests align it is incompatible with policy direction from London - which is the problem.

So do you not think there are also a lot of people in the rest of the UK who share those aspirations? There are probably regions of England that also have political opinions that also differ from the average UK opinions. What makes Scotland so different? I mean a lot of those are fairly uncontroversial but you make it sound like everyone outside of Scotland is almost unanimously against them.

As for "nuclear free country", are most Scottish people against the concept of having nuclear weapons (is it just about nuclear weapons, or is it about nuclear power too?), or is it a case of "not in our backyard"? Would Scottish people be against the UK having nuclear weapons if they weren't stored in Scotland? If not, then I'm sure their opinion on that is probably not much different to most other parts of the UK. Most people wouldn't like them being stored in their part of the country.

There are a number of aspirations which are incompatible with current UK policy;

*A working welfare state
*Representation in Europe
*Renewable Energy Provision
*A nuclear free country
*An economy based on business (as mentioned previously it is UK policy to maintain a high public sector balance in the economy as compensation for directing private enterprise elsewhere)

I wouldn't say they were necessarily incompatible with UK interests (for example, the last one isn't) but even where the interests align it is incompatible with policy direction from London - which is the problem.

I was under the impression it was because nuclear energy was expensive (projections suggest 1 KW/hr of nuclear energy will cost consumers 5.3p by 2020, compared to the projected 1.7p for renewables generation), imported, difficult to dispose of (somewhere in the region of half the UK's nuclear waste is still in "temporary storage"), of indeterminate supply (.i.e. it will run out too someday) and because occasionally it blows up and kills everyone. I have a fair deal of sympathy with that line if I'm being honest.

I know my stance on the EU thing is highly ideological; I reserve pragmatism for actually making decisions (where's the fun in having ideals if they all have to be utilitarian?). I accept what you say and if I had to make any real world decision on the matter I would be pursuing the course you advocate - which is by far the most sensible one.

I was not oblivious to this "obvious fact" when I was young and radical. Perhaps it is because I am older that I now think differently? Identity is much more fragmented than ideology allows for.

*An independent Scottish government won't be any more capable of running a "working welfare state" than the UK government is. Even if we accept that a big welfare state is desirable the Labour party already advocates that at Westminster.
*The countries which have the most influence in Europe are Britain, France and Germany, another small country won't have substantial influence over EU policy.
*Renewable energy provision isn't incompatible with UK interests at all; it is an objective of the UK government.
*A nuclear free country with regard to nuclear power is pointless; nuclear energy is safe and nuclear fuel is not difficult to get a hold of. With regard to nuclear weapons, the SNP's policy seems to be to hide behind America, England and France when it comes to nuclear deterrence.
*A large welfare state isn't very compatible with a business based economy.

The first three and the last one do align with policy direction from London (even the welfare state isn't shrinking under the Conservatives). The other one isn't in our interest.

Projections for nuclear power are based on current policy and technology; if the government actually embraced new nuclear technology they could make it cheaper than renewable energy. It's also more reliable than nuclear energy; the countries in Europe which rely on renewable energy frequently have to import nuclear energy from France when the weather turns bad. Nuclear waste isn't hard to dispose of either given how little of it is actually produced and how much of it can be recycled (90%). The Uranium in our waste would be enough to power the UK for decades.

And nuclear plants don't occasionally blow up and kill everyone; Chernobyl blew up because the Soviet government tried to perform an experiment on it and Fukushima was damaged by one of the worst earthquakes and tsunamis in history (and still killed/poisoned very few people).

Eh? You support independence, and our slide towards the Eurozone?

Maybe, but as somebody who lives in the borders region, even identity is an unusual thing. The culture of Northumberland, as with the north east of England in general, has much more in common with Scottish Lowland and Northern English culture than with that of Southern England. Linguistic links between the two regions, the lands just north or south of the border have long shared certain aspects of history (namely the Kingdom of Northumbria) and heritage and thus in my opinion the Anglo-Scottish border is largely political rather than cultural. Northumberland also has its own tartan or check, it even has it's own bagpipes. It is really quite indistinguishable, it would be sad to leave it behind, we have been united for longer than 300 years with regions like that.

yes...

I accept your point - but is the shared culture you feel not exactly that - cultural, rather than political? (Salmond-o would refer to it as the "social union" - I hate that phrase though)

I see no reason for it to change simply because the political state changes; as you point out your cultural connections precede your political ones.

*Orkney has over 25% of Europes tidal energy. OREF recieves roughly a £45 million budget to support research. France - the whole of France - has roughly 12% of Europes tidal energy, and yet recieves roughly £405 million towards research. If we don't invest in renewables we will not maintain a lead in a market where we currently have several world leading companies. Instead of supporting those companies we are importing nuclear energy from abroad. Plus the UK government has something like a 20% target by 2020 whereas the Scottish government is looking for at least 50%

*I would have to disagree - the Labour party does not advocate the cradle to grave care it once did. The introduction of an internal market in the NHS, prescription charges, university tuition fees, third party "agencies" to get the long term unemployed off the books, slashing personal care for the elderly*, selling off council houses, mortgaging schools so that pupils can't have access to them in the evenings, charging mothers for nursery places* and, of course, the massive failure that is the methodone programme. Labour might be more pro-welfare statre than the conservatives, but there's a reason they have been getting soundly drubbed at every election in Scotland where there's an alternative.

(*I think these ones might only have been in Scotland)

*Even a small influence is better than none at all - which is currently the position in things like the Copanhagen climate summit or the EU fisheries talks.

*Orkney has over 25% of Europes tidal energy. OREF recieves roughly a £45 million budget to support research. France - the whole of France - has roughly 12% of Europes tidal energy, and yet recieves roughly £405 million towards research. If we don't invest in renewables we will not maintain a lead in a market where we currently have several world leading companies. Instead of supporting those companies we are importing nuclear energy from abroad. Plus the UK government has something like a 20% target by 2020 whereas the Scottish government is looking for at least 50%

*With regard to Nuclear weapons it's ridiculous to have them and then demand that we are somehow special and nobody else can. And the SNPs policy isnt to hide behind anybody or any killing machine - it's to engage in foreign affairs with the idea that perhaps we are not special and we should treat other countries as equals and with a bit of respect. If you do that precious few states will want to nuke you to begin with.

*In what way? A large welfare state means a well provisioned workforce; the engine room of a business economy. The Scandinavian countries all seem to manage a good balance of the two.

Have you not followed the progress of Lansley's health bill?

Projections are always based on current or currently known technology, and unless I'm mistaken Nuclear would have to advance at a pretty rapid rate in order to be produced as cheaply as renewable would. (Realistically we're talking someone needs to discover fusion ASAP). Since those projections new windfarms have been designed which can be something ridiculous like up to 70% more efficient by rotating on a vertical rather than horizontal axis.

And whilst Integral Fast Reactors could theoretically recycle nuclear waste, not one of them actually exists yet. Hitachi estimate they could build a fast reactor (but not an IFR) within 5 years, and we don't have any estimates on how long it would take to build an IFR at all. The current policy of Mixed Oxide Processing is a scandalous waste; it only works for uranium, only extracts an extra 0.2% of the potential energy of the fuel rods, still leaves us with waste to manage in storage (because it cannot yet be recycled) and the other alternative is to stick it in a hole and line it with concrete, because we've run out of countries who are willing to let us export our waste to them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to using IFRs to recycle our nuclear waste - I'm opposed to the plants producing that waste in the first place and think we need a solution for when we have exhausted our existing stockpiles.

And don't forget three mile island on that list. A lot of things have to go wrong for a nuclear plant to become a nuclear disaster - but these things can and do go wrong; it's the real world. So far we've been quite lucky insofar as the disasters have been fairly well contained, but it smacks of optimisim to assume that such problems could never occur again or that they will always everywhere be containable.

Got any proof of this?

Yeah I have been to Surrey with their fancy mansions and expensive cars, maybe you should move there if it is so great..

Our Celtic/Scottish culture is more valuable than English gold.

We have oil, it will pay for any troubles (although I ultimately would want a Celtic Socialist state - and possibly an Irish/Welsh/Cornish/Breton/Scotland/Manx union).

*Even a small influence is better than none at all - which is currently the position in things like the Copanhagen climate summit or the EU fisheries talks.

*Orkney has over 25% of Europes tidal energy. OREF recieves roughly a £45 million budget to support research. France - the whole of France - has roughly 12% of Europes tidal energy, and yet recieves roughly £405 million towards research. If we don't invest in renewables we will not maintain a lead in a market where we currently have several world leading companies. Instead of supporting those companies we are importing nuclear energy from abroad. Plus the UK government has something like a 20% target by 2020 whereas the Scottish government is looking for at least 50%

*With regard to Nuclear weapons it's ridiculous to have them and then demand that we are somehow special and nobody else can. And the SNPs policy isnt to hide behind anybody or any killing machine - it's to engage in foreign affairs with the idea that perhaps we are not special and we should treat other countries as equals and with a bit of respect. If you do that precious few states will want to nuke you to begin with.

No, but the Treasury certainly does! The Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2011 have appropriate regional breakdowns of spending.

Tell that to a pensioner in Greenock who can't afford his heating bills. "Oh, just stick on a bit of Radio Scotland*, that'll see you through!". You're disconnected to the point of autism.

[*A BBC product, of course]

So, a racist state, basically? Lovely image for the future.

Yeah, but they spend more in Scotland because of the spread out population.

We would have more money with independence because of all the oil money could be spent in Scotland and invested for a rainy day.

Scotland could be richer alone, just look over the water at our Norwegian friends.

No mass poverty like in Dundee and Glasgow in Norway because they didn't have to give all the profits to Sweden and Denmark, like we have England and so on.

Is Sweden racist for being built around Swedes? Iran around Iranians? China the Chinese? Why not Scotland around Scots (of all colours and shapes and sizes).

See how the BBC treat Mr Salmond