The Scottish Independence Referendum Discussion

Canadian here so I don't have all that much investment in what happens. I was wondering what Scotland would do in regards to the monarchy if they do split. Would they just ditch the royal family all together, find some distant ancestor to be the new King/Queen, or just still consider Queen Elizabeth as their Queen?

I haven't looked into the debate that much so far but the literal costs for Scotland to become its own country do seem pretty damn high to me. As I said before I have very little knowledge or investment in the debate but I do hear a lot of similar talk living in Canada (in regards to Quebec splitting). Most of the support for separation is mostly just passion and cultural stuff, which frankly makes no sense as Quebec is 1000X times more stereo typically Canadian than BC, while most of the opposition is grounded in the costs and logistics for separating.

why do thay want independence???????????????????

Because they want to live out Jeff's fantasy of witnessing the end of the world first hand.

Why does any country want independence ? To he in control of it's own future

Pretty simple for me living in Scotland and the thought of possibly being the first country to reject it's own independence terrifys me . Right now Scotland's votes don't matter all of Scotland can vote for one party to get in and only a percentage of England needs to vote for another for it to lose .

Anyone who doesn't believe in it is quite ignorant I tend to find as all you hear from the no campaign is scare story's nothing positive

Personally I find it weird with familial ties to all of Great Britain, that suddenly a contingent of those people will technically be in a "foreign" (I can't really define the change in that except what was static seems to be a dynamic). Although having central Irish heritage I really can't lean either way.

I do think that the 3 year rule for voting seems odd, on a cultural standing, I know a few people who are Scottish through and through and went to university with Mr. Salmond but aren't considered Scottish enough to vote but anyone who's lived in Scotland for over 3 years is.

@andymc1888: Sure, but whichever choice post referendum you'll see countries governments under the U.K. banner gaining greater autonomy (or the opportunity for it) from Westminster thanks to the problems highlighted by this campaign. The Yes campaign hasn't been afraid of using some pretty shameful tactics, especially smear tactics and sensationalism, that hardly puts them in a different league than the No campaign.

I believe, and I could be corrected, that the Queen is actually the legitimate "Queen of Scots" from before the union of the countries since James IV (King of Scots) became King of England by the normal (and not warlike) passing of the Crown in the family. This was in about 1600 so about 200 hours before the United Kingdom came into being (though I think James IV tried to make it a United Kingdom in his own time).

@peakborn: I've lived here for 6 months and I can vote.

@kung_fu_viking: Hmm, looking it up seems that any British/EU resident in Scotland has a vote, regardless of time spent. I've not really kept up considering I can't vote, I hold my stance on the cultural standpoint though even if it gets messy when if comes to identification.

I don't watch TV any more so without Giant Bomb I wouldn't know about the hot topics going on outside my own country. I had no idea such a vote was about to be going down. It is an amazing world we live in! Praying how ever it turns out , that it's for the best.

Yeah that is why I bring the question up. It would be kind of strange for Scotland to separate wanting independence from England but then still have the monarchy. Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Scotland as well as England so it would make some sense to keep her but at the same time I thought the movement was about getting away from English control, which is kind of hard to do when one of your governing bodies is the same as England. I know the royal family doesn't actually hold a ton of political power but still it would be weird.

Nah, I dont think anyone actually cares about that. Its just a funny tourist attraction.

Scottish here, and in agreement with some of the earlier posters - I like the idea of independence in principle but there just hasn't been anywhere near enough factual information on how it would work or be paid for for me to feel comfortable with it at the moment.

I also think it's great that the most reasoned discussion I've seen on the subject is on Giantbomb :-)

@wlleiotl said:

I'm Welsh and have to agree about the No campaign becoming increasingly desperate in recent weeks. The level of scaremongering in the mainstream media is disgusting, you'd think the world would come to an end if Scotland voted Yes.

For my own part, I'd be very pleased to see an independent Scotland as a knock against Westminster and the monarchy.

As an American, I think "Yes" voters need to consider the needs of their friends in America. What will happen to our Union Jack throw pillows, t-shirts and boxers if they remove the Cross of Saint Andrew? I mean, without the Scottish flag, the Union Jack is nothing but a misshaped Red Hot Chili Peppers logo! Pure tragedy.

In all seriousness, I am really impressed with how civil this discussion has been. Well done, guys! It's a welcome refreshment from the constant vitriol of recent weeks.

Newfoundland did that in 1949 when it chose to join Canada rather than stay an independent nation or rejoin Britain. Now we have 7 of 308 seats of the Canadian Parliament. We did vote as a block a couple elections ago, but our voice is so unimportant and small that it changed nothing. One of the losing candidates, whose party formed the government, was appointed a senator just to piss us off even more.

Texas is different in that it has the largest border with Mexico. Secession won't suddenly make it so they can build this wall they've always wanted, because their state is a federal burden; it spends more than it makes back. Succession would mean their plans for a wall would double in scale and the funding for it would be non-existant. Its just a rebel mindset, nobody's all that serious about it if you ever go to Texas. The combination of a black president and Rick Perry running the state makes it seem like they're serious, but both of those things will change in 2 years and they'll be all-American hoorah patriotic again. Scottland, though, a legitimate case can be made and I doubt they talk of succession in a joking mannor. Most of the world has already divorced the UK and for good reason, Scottland's been on the hook simply because it shares the same landmass. Its small enough ultimately that the impact one way or another would be minimal, England is saying "you need us" because that's what they always say before this happens.

@mariachimacabre: On that subject, vexillologists (clever flag people) started playing with some ideas last year. Nothing quite like a union jack though.

You really can't compare the Scottish succession movement to crazy people. While there are disagreements over whether Scotland should become an independent nation, it's a well-organized movement that hash plenty of support (and plenty of detractors, of course). The people that usually call for succession in Texas or other U.S. states are most commonly, judging by the news, nutcases that consider their trailers sovereign land and thus not subject to U.S. tax laws. There are occasional calls from other U.S. states for succession (I remember watching something in the news about a small movement in Vermont of all states a number of years ago that obviously hasn't gone anywhere), but in general, such movements in the U.S. are fringe minority movements with no serious political backing or organization.

I'm mostly amused by how much certain segments of England are freaking out about this. Especially the Guardian's hyperbolic editorial. I've never seen something so biased from them before.

Anywho, don't see it happening, and would be fascinated if it did --- especially with what would happen to English politics with a lot less members of Labour round.

I have finally found a horse in this race - I want a dragon on my flag! That'd be cool.

@viking_funeral: I've no idea why a liberal leaning paper would freak out when right wing numbers would increase, none at all. They're probably having prophetic nightmares of (let's drop the UK political conversation's equivalent of nitroglycerin into this well mannered thread) a reanimated Thatcher.

@hailinel: I wasn't comparing it to crazy people. I was empathizing with the difficult nature of their vote and giving my best wishes.

I'm not sure why this comment was found offensive.

I didn't find it offensive. I'm sorry if my response came off that way.

As an American with bloodlines tracing back to Scotland AND Ireland, I have to say I'm all for Scottish independence if they can bare the weight of that decision.

Does anyone really like England? It seems like even Englishmen hate England.

That would be pretty cool, but I'd rather see them come take over Canada. I think a giant Scotland above America would be way cooler than friggin Canada.

@hailinel: Ah, no problem. I keep getting responses to what I said, what seems like to correct me, and I wasn't sure what I said to invoke that. haha

All I meant to say was the people talking about that (in TX) aren't really taken seriously, but with it being brought up you do think about what it would be like if that did happen so I can empathize with them having to go through actually having to make a choice on that and what a burden that must be.

One of the reason is this:

For years now the Scottish vote in the General Election has been like shouting in to the wind.

See this is where people seem to be getting confused. A Yes vote is a yes for independence, it's not a yes vote for Salmond. If Scotland does get independance then there would be another election to see who would lead that government, The SNP don't automatically get it just because they are in power now.

I have relatives in Scotland so I'm hoping for a yes vote in the hopes that it makes it more difficult for them to get into England.

On a serious note I agree with others who have said the arguments on either side have been fairly weak up to this point with no side really giving any hard facts. Either way they go it could lead to some interesting conversations about the future of UK and could lead to counties having more of a say in how they're run, or everything could still just be about London and Westminster.

No the plan is to keep the monarchy as it is. But interestingly enough if they wanted to reinstate the true descendants of the last king of Scotland it would be Franz, Duke of Bavaria.

I have to pay a small bridge toll to go to Wales (from where I live in England) of about £6.40, about US $10.40, on the way there every time (but not back). It seems a fair price to travel about one mile (1.6km), since travelling upstream of the river Severn to avoid that would involve a lot of time and fuel. I don't need a passport to do that, and I've only done it once in almost 20 years because it was necessary.

There would obviously be a contingency put in place for the immediate future in the event of a Yes vote i.e. honouring existing passports and there is an emergency system in place, but looking at current costs, the minimum price for a UK passport is £72.50, almost US $118 and needs to be renewed every 10 years. That's a "no emergency" option which might be sent back to you for resubmission if you screw up. To get the pre-checked version is US $132. If Scotland does become independent I'm wary of the idea that "fixes" put in place won't evaporate and a charge or requirement for a passport or a Scottish passport will be mandated. This probably sounds a bit odd, but one in ten people (currently including Scots) who have a passport will have it expire next year. As a UK citizen (currently without a passport, no need) I could go to Scotland today and do many things, visit a town or drive on any road that I wanted to, these are important things for me and UK business. A passport would be required at some point in the future to deliver Tunnock's (BITCHES) chocolate cakes to me which might make them more expensive. This must not happen.

Besides which I think Alex Salmond is only in this for himself:

a) make a name for himself in Scottish history, succeed or fail

b) increase his own earnings

c) GTFO very quickly when things go wrong

That was funny, I wonder which creed the protestors(? I'd like to be cheered on for something by that Imperial tune) registered themselves as on the most recent census, not that it's something that will impact the result hopefully. Unfortunately I have the same level of cynicism for both sides at the moment. I don't have a vote so I'll be dragging out the deckchair (lawnchair) and popcorn after the results are in to watch the aftermath. Referendum/election results are a lot of dead air time in the media.

Actually, the implications for the 2015 general election would be interesting. Labour would miss those Scottish seats (although I'd put my hat, house and right arm on it being a hung parliament.) and then Scotland would need its own set of elections which the SNP would probably walk.

I would like to think as an independent nation, Scotland would take baby steps and keep a close tie with the Union but with Scotland having the greater option to say no to Westminster on a number of things such as welfare reforms, tuition fees, foreign policy, defence, etc. They'll have a genuine chance to bargain.

@patman99: I was being facetious, yes. I don't know much about Scotland's politics and you're right about Quebec separatism not being a big thing anymore. I doubt it'll ever happen. I won't say much more than that :).

Im voting yes as we will be in total control of our own country.

People saying about Alex Salmond, Its nothing to do with him !!

The question on the ballot paper is "Should Scotland be an independent country"

If we get independence we will then choose who runs our country it might be SNP and Alex Salmond it might be someone else that we will decide to run our country.

Just pasting a part of a post from facebook that shows we are more than able to run our own country.

Scotland represents just 8.3% of the UK population.... Remember that number 8.3%..

We have the following share of UK resources..

32% Land area

61% Sea area

90% Surface fresh water

65% North Sea natural gas production

96.5% North Sea crude oil production

47% Open cast coal production

81% Coal reserves at sites not yet in production

62% Timber production (green tonnes)

46% Total forest area (hectares)

92% Hydro electric production

40% Wind, wave, solar production

60% Fish Landings (total by Scottish vessels)

55% Fish Landings (total from Scottish waters)

30% Beef herd (breeding stock)

20% Sheep herd (breeding flock)

9% Dairy herd

10% Pig herd

15% Cereal holdings (hectares)

20% potato holdings (hectares)

[edit: 100% of the UK's PANDAS]

Also 100% of Scottish whiskey.

Go for it, I wish states would start Seceding from the U.S., this country would be a much better place.

@bollard: Plato was one of the first political scientists; the entirety of The Republic is Plato engaging in politics...

I think they should get their independence. Then I think we should invade and claim the land as part of England. ;)

It's pretty saddening we're getting the opportunity to govern our own nation, yet we're declining it. I'm voting yes, and obviously lots of others are too, but it's going to be a No vote that wins the referendum.

@horseman6: What evidence can you cite that would suggest that would be good for the union?

Correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding of this is mainly that the Conservative party keeps being so heavy handed in England that it is becoming largely insulting for the Scots.

That is a part of the argument and for some people almost the entire argument but its a really complicated issue going back hundreds of years but largely, yes.

Voting No!

I hate the nationalist attitude with these things. Unity, not division, please.

I only visited Scotland and England once, but while I was there I met a successionist. We had drinks for several hours and he was very entertaining and very passionate. I'm not versed enough to make an opinion one way or the other. Obviously, the romantic part of me would like to see the Scots take back their independence, freeeddooooommm! But that's Hollywood and stuff that happened 300+ years ago doesn't quite matter in today's global community.

People making the vote based on their "heart" are very short sighted. They should get all the facts, weigh the major economic difficulties that could come from this, really reflect on what they want to accomplish other than the momentary feeling of winning, and vote for the best future for their children. It would be a very hard thing to do. They could potentially do better on their own, but at the same time, they could be crushed by economic depression very easily. Best wishes to those across the pond having to make this tough choice!

Scotland is uniting, to remove itself from an entity it no longer wants to associate with. "Unity not division please" sounds like something a tyrant would say in the face of a people desiring independence.

No tyrant found here. No need for hyperbole.

@subyman: Either way, if unity is not in the best interest of the people of Scotland, as far as they perceive it, then it's hard to fault the Scottish for voting Yes. As it stands, there seems to be a great deal of animosity toward the UK parliament that has been building for years due to the perception that the government simply isn't giving the voices and concerns of Scotland their proper dues. Now that lack of attention is threatening to bite Parliament and David Cameron in the ass. Even if unity us maintained, Parliament needs to visibly treat Scotland better than some redheaded stepchild.