4 ms·

> As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around Not judging, I'm honestly curious why you didn't want them to be independent and thoug

> As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around Not judging, I'm honestly curious why you didn't want them to be independent and thought that, "as a Brit" it was your position to have an opinion on Scotland's independence other than "whatever they want"? Me, Australian living in England.

carnitine 4y ago
Because fracturing your country and making it poorer and smaller probably isn’t desirable?
- eyko 4y ago
  Smaller is desireable (leaner government, and fairer representation). Poorer is a matter of opinion -- Scotland has a healthy economy.
  - carnitine 4y ago
    I’m talking from the perspective of a non-Scottish citizen. The UK - a healthy economy = poorer. Smaller vs larger has arguments on either side. I think when you’re talking about major world powers there’s an appeal to not downsizing.
- ggm 4y ago
  A non Yugoslavian, I regret the breakup of Yugoslavia immensely but I do wonder if any of the former constituent states would agree with you regarding Scotland or me regarding Yugoslavia? Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    From former Czechoslovakia, our disintegration was a mixed parcel. The best thing is that Slovaks had to stand on their own feet and their nationalists slowly had stop blaming everything on Prague. This kind of whiny nationalism embodied by then-prime minister of Slovakia Vladimir Meciar is somewhat disgusting and I can see its softer version in Scotland right now. The worst thing is that yes, our international weight has gone down significantly. But there was customs union between CZ and SK even after the split. I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be.
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      > I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be. It doesn't have to be, even if Scotland was part of EU and not England. UK and Spain/EU negociated maintaining some of the Schengen rules for the Gibraltar/Spain border despite its status still being disputed by Spain and a bumpy history. There is no reason Scotland and rest of UK cannot have a treaty allowing soft border.
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        Looking at the Irish situation right now, I am skeptical about any such treaty with regard to Scotland.
  - xoac 4y ago
    IMO the collapse of Yugoslavia has mostly made the newly-independent states doomed to be forever at the periphery of capital.
  - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
    > "Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition" "Remain" is doing a lot of work here. Scotland runs a sizeable deficit with the rest of the union and with the decline of North Sea oil revenues that will only increase. Of course that might not "remain", but leaving the UK and then joining the EU is going to create a 5-10 year period of turbulence as well. Still, there's more important things than GDP.
- dgb23 4y ago
  Decentralization is a key to robustness. I can't speak for this particular case. But generally I think it is desirable to have. Real sustainable progress often happens in the small and builds bottom up. People in different regions have different needs and ways of doing things. Distributed power leads to less exploitation.
  - niyaven 4y ago
    You obviously haven't been to Belgium, which has 6 governments (and prime ministers) for a country that has the size of 1/10th of Italy. Decentralization has benefits, yes, but as for everything there are limits to it.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      So what's the negatives Belgium is suffering from, because of their 6 governments? Comparing them to the rest of the EU, Belgium seems quite successful at whatever they are doing.
    - dgb23 4y ago
      There's a cost, and it is often annoying and widely discussed, even joked about in highly federal countries. But there's benefits that are quite apparent I think.
afavour 4y ago
I believed that the UK is better off as a united country. Not all that different from the logic for the UK staying in the EU: larger economic markets help everyone. A union of likeminded nations is better then isolation. I also have both English and Scottish relatives (one reason I consider myself a “Brit”) so you could say the concept plays into my self image. > it was your position to have an opinion I suppose I could have pretended that I didn’t have an opinion on it, but I did. The important part is that I didn’t have a vote so my opinion wasn’t anything other than my opinion.
- eyko 4y ago
  Scotland can be independent _and_ be in the same economic market (ignoring UK and Spain willing to veto Scotland reentering EU out of spite / own political motives).
  - ggm 4y ago
    Spain would have a different perspective post brexit: one in the eye for Gibraltar.
  - happy_path 4y ago
    Spain will only veto Scotland if the independence is not agreed between the UK and Scotland (in the same spirit of Spain's opinion of Kosovo independence). Spain parliament is against unilateral declarations of independence.
    - netsharc 4y ago
      > Spain parliament is against unilateral declarations of independence. For background, it's because the Spanish government is afraid that recognizing independence movements legitimizes the Catalonian independence movement in their own country.
      - happy_path 4y ago
        It's not only that. After the Civil War and Franco's regime, Spain's political tradition is to avoid conflict and wars at all cost.
implements 4y ago
As a Brit, Scotland is part of Britain - and independence would be (in a sense) losing a part of a birthright (to live and work in Scotland). But it’s always been a separate country, and people are sovereign over history so it’s their choice. Would be nice if there was a Common Travel Area with the UK afterwards, though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Angostura 4y ago
As another Brit, a Londoner, who didn't want Scotland to go. 1. Because I enjoy living in a country that has the Scots in it - without Scotland the country would be diminished, less interesting and more insular. 2. Generally, I think fracturing is a bad thing. I wanted to stay in the EU for similar reasons. This isn't to say that I don't think that Scots should have self determination, just that I would be sad if they went. I imagine some Australians would feel the sanme if - say - New South Wales decided to become an independent country
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  Well, I have always joked that Sydney should just succeed and become it's own city-state...
  - ggm 4y ago
    NZ was offered statehood and wisely declined. Our loss. Treaty now!
    - smcl 4y ago
      I think NZ still has a standing option to join Australia though, no?
    - tjpnz 4y ago
      It would go a long way towards reversing New Zealand's brain drain.
  - Cederfjard 4y ago
    You probably mean secede, but it’s nice of you to wish them well!
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      Thank you! I did try googling and I thought i got it right (against my better judgement), but obviously not.
Emma_Goldman 4y ago
Because Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom and their secession is therefore of great consequence for the rest of the union - how is that not obvious? I live in Scotland FYI. I am undecided on independence, but clearly part of the calculus is how it effects matters of concern to the rest of the UK. Consider what is to me, the following con and pro: (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government. (2) The UK's nuclear subs would have to be restationed, but there isn't a suitable harbour anywhere in the rest of the UK, creating an opportunity for it to be scrapped.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government. Scotland's voters cannot influence the vote in England, under any circumstances. If you want rid of the Tories, you have to teach England not to vote for the Tories.
  - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
    I have no idea what you are talking about. In the UK general election citizens of all realms of the UK vote, meaning that Scotland being more left-wing has led to comparatively more left-wing UK governments than would be the case in its absence. So 'if you want rid of the Tories', Scotland is a great asset.
    - DonaldFisk 4y ago
      The union worked well as long as voters in Scotland and England voted similarly, but that hasn't been the case since the 1970s. Scottish voters only rarely influence the outcome of elections to the Westminster parliament, because even thought they vote differently, they only make up about 10% of the GB population (Northern Ireland has different political parties). Almost always, whatever the English electorate votes for, Scotland gets, even when voters in Scotland vote differently. In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?

carnitine 4y ago

Because fracturing your country and making it poorer and smaller probably isn’t desirable?

eyko 4y ago
Smaller is desireable (leaner government, and fairer representation). Poorer is a matter of opinion -- Scotland has a healthy economy.
- carnitine 4y ago
  I’m talking from the perspective of a non-Scottish citizen. The UK - a healthy economy = poorer. Smaller vs larger has arguments on either side. I think when you’re talking about major world powers there’s an appeal to not downsizing.
ggm 4y ago
A non Yugoslavian, I regret the breakup of Yugoslavia immensely but I do wonder if any of the former constituent states would agree with you regarding Scotland or me regarding Yugoslavia? Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  From former Czechoslovakia, our disintegration was a mixed parcel. The best thing is that Slovaks had to stand on their own feet and their nationalists slowly had stop blaming everything on Prague. This kind of whiny nationalism embodied by then-prime minister of Slovakia Vladimir Meciar is somewhat disgusting and I can see its softer version in Scotland right now. The worst thing is that yes, our international weight has gone down significantly. But there was customs union between CZ and SK even after the split. I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    > I cannot imagine the economic pain if the former federation was suddenly divided by a hard border, as Scotland and England would be. It doesn't have to be, even if Scotland was part of EU and not England. UK and Spain/EU negociated maintaining some of the Schengen rules for the Gibraltar/Spain border despite its status still being disputed by Spain and a bumpy history. There is no reason Scotland and rest of UK cannot have a treaty allowing soft border.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Looking at the Irish situation right now, I am skeptical about any such treaty with regard to Scotland.
- xoac 4y ago
  IMO the collapse of Yugoslavia has mostly made the newly-independent states doomed to be forever at the periphery of capital.
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  > "Note that it's an open question if the Scots economy would remain worse per capita, not disagreeing there is/was pain ahead in transition" "Remain" is doing a lot of work here. Scotland runs a sizeable deficit with the rest of the union and with the decline of North Sea oil revenues that will only increase. Of course that might not "remain", but leaving the UK and then joining the EU is going to create a 5-10 year period of turbulence as well. Still, there's more important things than GDP.
dgb23 4y ago
Decentralization is a key to robustness. I can't speak for this particular case. But generally I think it is desirable to have. Real sustainable progress often happens in the small and builds bottom up. People in different regions have different needs and ways of doing things. Distributed power leads to less exploitation.
- niyaven 4y ago
  You obviously haven't been to Belgium, which has 6 governments (and prime ministers) for a country that has the size of 1/10th of Italy. Decentralization has benefits, yes, but as for everything there are limits to it.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    So what's the negatives Belgium is suffering from, because of their 6 governments? Comparing them to the rest of the EU, Belgium seems quite successful at whatever they are doing.
  - dgb23 4y ago
    There's a cost, and it is often annoying and widely discussed, even joked about in highly federal countries. But there's benefits that are quite apparent I think.

afavour 4y ago

I believed that the UK is better off as a united country. Not all that different from the logic for the UK staying in the EU: larger economic markets help everyone. A union of likeminded nations is better then isolation. I also have both English and Scottish relatives (one reason I consider myself a “Brit”) so you could say the concept plays into my self image. > it was your position to have an opinion I suppose I could have pretended that I didn’t have an opinion on it, but I did. The important part is that I didn’t have a vote so my opinion wasn’t anything other than my opinion.

eyko 4y ago
Scotland can be independent _and_ be in the same economic market (ignoring UK and Spain willing to veto Scotland reentering EU out of spite / own political motives).
- ggm 4y ago
  Spain would have a different perspective post brexit: one in the eye for Gibraltar.
- happy_path 4y ago
  Spain will only veto Scotland if the independence is not agreed between the UK and Scotland (in the same spirit of Spain's opinion of Kosovo independence). Spain parliament is against unilateral declarations of independence.
  - netsharc 4y ago
    > Spain parliament is against unilateral declarations of independence. For background, it's because the Spanish government is afraid that recognizing independence movements legitimizes the Catalonian independence movement in their own country.
    - happy_path 4y ago
      It's not only that. After the Civil War and Franco's regime, Spain's political tradition is to avoid conflict and wars at all cost.

implements 4y ago

As a Brit, Scotland is part of Britain - and independence would be (in a sense) losing a part of a birthright (to live and work in Scotland). But it’s always been a separate country, and people are sovereign over history so it’s their choice. Would be nice if there was a Common Travel Area with the UK afterwards, though.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Angostura 4y ago

As another Brit, a Londoner, who didn't want Scotland to go. 1. Because I enjoy living in a country that has the Scots in it - without Scotland the country would be diminished, less interesting and more insular. 2. Generally, I think fracturing is a bad thing. I wanted to stay in the EU for similar reasons. This isn't to say that I don't think that Scots should have self determination, just that I would be sad if they went. I imagine some Australians would feel the sanme if - say - New South Wales decided to become an independent country

madeofpalk 4y ago
Well, I have always joked that Sydney should just succeed and become it's own city-state...
- ggm 4y ago
  NZ was offered statehood and wisely declined. Our loss. Treaty now!
  - smcl 4y ago
    I think NZ still has a standing option to join Australia though, no?
  - tjpnz 4y ago
    It would go a long way towards reversing New Zealand's brain drain.
- Cederfjard 4y ago
  You probably mean secede, but it’s nice of you to wish them well!
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Thank you! I did try googling and I thought i got it right (against my better judgement), but obviously not.

Emma_Goldman 4y ago

Because Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom and their secession is therefore of great consequence for the rest of the union - how is that not obvious? I live in Scotland FYI. I am undecided on independence, but clearly part of the calculus is how it effects matters of concern to the rest of the UK. Consider what is to me, the following con and pro: (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government. (2) The UK's nuclear subs would have to be restationed, but there isn't a suitable harbour anywhere in the rest of the UK, creating an opportunity for it to be scrapped.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
> (1) Scotland is more left-wing than the rest of the UK and its secession would condemn the rest of the union to indefinite right-wing government. Scotland's voters cannot influence the vote in England, under any circumstances. If you want rid of the Tories, you have to teach England not to vote for the Tories.
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  I have no idea what you are talking about. In the UK general election citizens of all realms of the UK vote, meaning that Scotland being more left-wing has led to comparatively more left-wing UK governments than would be the case in its absence. So 'if you want rid of the Tories', Scotland is a great asset.
  - DonaldFisk 4y ago
    The union worked well as long as voters in Scotland and England voted similarly, but that hasn't been the case since the 1970s. Scottish voters only rarely influence the outcome of elections to the Westminster parliament, because even thought they vote differently, they only make up about 10% of the GB population (Northern Ireland has different political parties). Almost always, whatever the English electorate votes for, Scotland gets, even when voters in Scotland vote differently. In the few exceptions where England voted Tory but got Labour because of Scottish votes, how was that fair on England?