Go, Scotland, go!

[Sauron]

Wow.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...cotland12.html

Data shows many Scots want independence

By Tom Hundley

EDINBURGH, Scotland — After 299 years of marriage, Scotland is thinking about a divorce.

Perhaps it's just a passing midlife crisis, but two new polls found that for the first time a majority of Scots say they would prefer independence to remaining part of Britain.

In an ICM poll published this month by The Scotsman newspaper, 51 percent of Scots said they favored independence and 39 percent said they preferred keeping things as they are. Ten percent were undecided.

Another poll, conducted for The Sunday Times newspaper by YouGov, found that 44 percent of Scots favored independence and 42 percent were against. The number favoring independence has nearly doubled since 2000, when YouGov asked the same question.

"This is hugely significant," said Angus Nicholson, a member of the Scottish National Party, which is dedicated to Scottish independence.

Nicholson, a local councilor from a rural district in the Outer Hebrides, attributed the surge in separatist sentiment to a combination of disenchantment with Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor government and a yearning for independence.

"We'd like to see a Scotland that stands on its own two feet, not blaming anybody else when things go wrong," he said.

What is officially known today as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland first came into being in 1707, with the Act of Union between England and Scotland. Since 1999, however, Scotland has enjoyed a kind of quasi-independent status after it was granted a parliament of its own and control over most of its internal affairs under a process called devolution.

Many politicians and analysts thought devolution would put an end to calls for full independence. Instead, a taste of self-governance seems to have left the Scots hungry for more.

Although they number only 5 million, Scots have long had a powerful sense of national identity, something the English, who represent 83 percent of Britain's 60 million citizens, have generally lacked.

[erimir]

I've occasionally argued with people over the idea of changing national borders.

Self-determination is an idea that has been supported at times, but it doesn't seem to be recognized in very many cases, although it does sometimes, the break-up of Czechoslovakia and Serbia and Montenegro being a couple that come to mind.

The question being of course, what is the balance between every ethnic group with nationalist feelings getting its own country (and what should be the basis of a country anyway?) and avoiding the fragmentation of political and economic power?

I have mixed feelings but tend towards the idea of self-determination (for example, I think if most of the population of the Kurdish regions of Iraq, Turkey and Iran want to have their own state, then maybe they should be allowed to), balancing the rights of the minorities in those areas (so Southern US self-determination in the Civil War would be overruled by the fact that they practiced slavery). But then in cases like Basque country, the Basques don't really have the majority needed.

But there's also the issue of countries with large populations trying to prevent a majority in a region from wanting independence by settling people in the region (e.g. what China has been doing in Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang to suppress nationalist claims in those regions). I am a little torn about how that should affect a region's attempts at secession, if such settlement policies have already been in place for a little while.

At any rate, Scotland would, to me, have the right to secede if the majority of the country wanted it (although I think it would be best if they could achieve a strong majority before doing it, rather than going through on a 51% majority or some such).

[Raven]

Originally Posted by erimir

I think if most of the population of the Kurdish regions of Iraq, Turkey and Iran want to have their own state, then maybe they should be allowed to), balancing the rights of the minorities in those areas (so Southern US self-determination in the Civil War would be overruled by the fact that they practiced slavery). But then in cases like Basque country, the Basques don't really have the majority needed.

But there's also the issue of countries with large populations trying to prevent a majority in a region from wanting independence by settling people in the region (e.g. what China has been doing in Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang to suppress nationalist claims in those regions). .

It`s easy to sell ideas but hard to buy them.It`s like your president`s brilliant idea to export democracy by forcing or even better , killing people until they accept it.You are not offering a part of your own country to those minorities to found their own state.It`s much easier to help and pressure countries to treat their people better.Noone will give up their land without spilling blood , that`s the way it is. Just because dividing Iraq suits USA`s current plans does not mean it`s good for Iraqis. It will lead to decades of sectarian hate and bloodshed.Iran will be much more powerful , now there is easy to influence weak groups instead of united Afghanistan or Iraq.Kurds will increase their terrorist activities to grab more land from other neighbouring countries.Many people will die because of short sighted US foreign policy.And all you will see or choose to see will be some arabs killing other arabs or some minorities fighting bravely for independence.I am sure americans would be very supportive if mexicans decided to kill people and force the government to give parts of texas because they lived there before usa founded and they are treated bad.

[slimshady2357]

It makes me wonder if the people who are for seperation have really though about the level of subsidies that they receive from the British government. because all that money would be gone.

It reminds me of Quebec wanting to seperate from the rest of Canada. They would lose all of the federal funding they now enjoy. Financially, I think it would be a nightmare for either Scotland or Quebec.

[Watser?]

I don't think it would be that bad for the Scots, they would still be inside the EU. In fact the Scots are more enthusiastic about the EU than the English.
The same goes for the Basque Countries and Catalonia, they might want to leave Spain, but not the EU. The Basque Countries and Catalonia are almost independent as it is btw. They have their own parliament, their own police force, the local languages are official languages alongside Spanish, etc..

[godfry n. glad]

I think the EU does change things, but still, being part of the United Kingdom has been a profitable venture for the Scots. The thing is, I don't know as it will continue to be, were they to remain within the UK.

I think that devolving as much governance back to closer to those it is supposed to serve is better. It is probably naive upon my part, but I would see the separation of Scotland as a positive on that basis.

Nation states are a rather recent invention. The national boundaries of the Middle East, like those of Africa, are modern impositions on the part of European powers. Often, the purpose of combining multiple contending ethnic and linguistic groups was to play them off against each other, within the confines of the arbitrarily drawn "national" boundaries. What we see today in terms of borders is a product of the post Great War Versailles Treaty, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. By then, of course, oil was of such strategic importance that control of the region is critical. To several different powers.

Quebec would lose, if it were to separate. I'd bet that the Atlantic provinces would go it on their own and Canada would become four or five smaller nations.

Of course, as a Cascadian, I look favorably upon the separation of the Pacific Northwest, to join with the sucessionist British Columbia to form the new entity of Cascadia. I think that the United States would be a far, far better neighbor, in the global sense, if it weren't so big and bellicose. I could see the US devolving to five to seven "nations".

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Raven

Just because dividing Iraq suits USA`s current plans does not mean it`s good for Iraqis. It will lead to decades of sectarian hate and bloodshed.Iran will be much more powerful , now there is easy to influence weak groups instead of united Afghanistan or Iraq.Kurds will increase their terrorist activities to grab more land from other neighbouring countries.

I was not talking about Iraqi Kurds getting their own state. I am well aware that that would be a bad idea because of the hostility it would get from Iran and especially Turkey. I was supposing that such a state would include parts of Iran and Turkey and be created without violent opposition from those countries. In which case, Kurdistan would be a somewhat large country (larger than Iraq currently is in size or population, for example) which would also be more pro-USA than others in the region.

As for it leading to decades of sectarian hate and violence, I would suggest that the original borders being drawn the way they are has led to this. I don't see how it would be any worse than it is now if the Kurds got their own state (in the manner I'm suggesting).

[Ariadne]

Originally Posted by slimshady2357

It makes me wonder if the people who are for seperation have really though about the level of subsidies that they receive from the British government. because all that money would be gone.

It reminds me of Quebec wanting to seperate from the rest of Canada. They would lose all of the federal funding they now enjoy. Financially, I think it would be a nightmare for either Scotland or Quebec.

I don't think most of my fellow Scots have a clue about the level of subsidies they receive. I would guess that the poll result is partly due to the success of having a separate Scottish parliament and partly due to the sour grapes, insularity and xenophobia that characterise too many of us.

[Watser?]

Most borders in Africa or the Middle East may have been drawn arbitrarily, redrawing them could lead to a lot of trouble along the lines of the wars in former Yugoslavia. Best to leave things alone. Like in Yugoslavia it is not as if it is possible to draw any borders without ethnic cleansing on a large scale, different groups live in the same areas and the presence of oil makes certain areas very volatile.
Still, some neocons are ready to redraw the maps

Armed Forces Journal
Divide and rule I guess. But there is no way the Iranians are giving up Tabriz, it has been Persian territory for 4000 years. The Iranians are already outraged at Google for situating Tabriz in 'Southern Azerbaijan' (The Guardian).
This map and the plans that go with it are a recipe for endless warfare in the Middle East.

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I think that the United States would be a far, far better neighbor, in the global sense, if it weren't so big and bellicose. I could see the US devolving to five to seven "nations".

I'd like to see you go into this in more detail in its' own thread.


On a semi-related note, I've always wondered what North America would be like today if the South was allowed to secede.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by JackDog

I'd like to see you go into this in more detail in its' own thread.


On a semi-related note, I've always wondered what North America would be like today if the South was allowed to secede.

Saw this map the other day:


And this one:



(Both found on Strange Maps

[godfry n. glad]

This is more what I had imagined. Where the borders of the political entity coincide with the watersheds.

Of course, the small to tiny watersheds at the interstices of the large, readily identifiable ones will probably end up being a source of conflict between the postulated new political entities.

[erimir]

In reply to the redrawn Middle East map, some Turkish guy posted a site with redrawings of the US... of course, while the Middle East map may have had a number of problems with it concerning culture/language/etc., the maps the Turks drew mostly reveal total ignorance concerning American cultural regions.

Unless it was meant as irony that the Northeast was labelled as "Bushistan" in one of them. But given the seeming lack of pattern in the names, I don't think it was.

Which sorta limits the usefulness of them as a parody, since say what you will about that ME map, the borders and names were not drawn and given out randomly.

[Watser?]

Hmmm, I would say a more important difference is that the map of the US was a parody, a joke and will never be more than that. The map of the Middle East is more of a tragedy than a comedy and might be taken as a model to work with.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm sorry, Watser?. I just don't see what about the postulated states would be such a "tragedy"? It's already a tragedy.

Would that the boundaries could now be as outlined in the "After" map. Or near it (as I don't think Afghanistan would stay together as shown). "Self-governance" would be much better served by such boundaries. The boundaries which exist now were indeed not drawn at random, but at the interests of powers other than the peoples living in those lands. They are basically colonial boundaries; they should be done away with and replaced with boundaries that reflect the realities who live there.

[Raven]

Such arrogance ! I guess Usa is going to do that eh ? Good old divide and rule ...

[Watser?]

And you think the neocons have the interests and realities of the people who live there at heart? Like they did when they attacked Iraq no doubt?
There are no boundaries there that would correspond neatly with how the different ethnic or sectarian groups are distributed. The only place where the division of Yugoslavia did not cause a tragedy was in Slovenia, which was the only ethnicly homogeneous federal state, and Macedonia which narrowly escaped an ethnic war by its constituent groups. There are many places like Krajina (with a local majority of a national minority) and Sarajevo (where different groups live in a single capital city) in the Middle East. Who gets Baghdad (which is not only the capital of Iraq but was a capital of the Caliphate too, so has double symbolic meaning), the Shi'ites or the Sunnis? Who gets Kirkuk, Kurds, Arabs or Turkmen. Where do the Turkmen stand in a situation like this anyway? It is one thing for them to live in a state that is an ethnic mix anyway, how do they manage in an ethnically cleansed state? Remember what happened to the ethnic minorities of Kosovo? The Gypsies, Muslim Serbs etc. got kicked out along with the Serbs. Iran may be a quilt of minorities, the regions that would be cut off (Arzebaijan, Khuzestan) still would have minorities inside them that would not accept being cut off from Iran, even if the Iranian central government would. It is just a can of worms that you do not want to open, it would make the wars in former Yugoslavia and Iraq pale by comparison and not solve anything (like neither war has really resolved anything. How would we create ethnically homogeneous states, if not by ethnic cleansing on a huge scale? And why the hell do we want to create ethnically homogeneous states in the Middle East when ethnically mixed states are popping up elsewhere (and even in the Middle East itself) all the time?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Raven

Such arrogance ! I guess Usa is going to do that eh ? Good old divide and rule ...

Cheeses...Don't you pay attention?

The current boundaries are tools of the "divide and rule" paradigm. In many cases, they were designed by the imperial power to lump certain mixtures of ethnic and religious groups together so that imperial rule became an imperative.

The USA is not going to do that. Nor is anyone other than the participants themselves. Ergo, I doubt if it will ever happen, as it is not the interests of present ruling powers within existing boundaries, nor is it in the interests of former imperial powers intent on playing off existing rivalries, internal and external.

I'm not suggesting that this should be done, or will be done, but it would be better had it been done in a manner which more closely approximated group boundaries and self-rule was made a comfortable and accessible option. Then, I suspect that the various groups would find that they have certain interests in common and ally or federate to address those interests.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Watser?

And you think the neocons have the interests and realities of the people who live there at heart? Like they did when they attacked Iraq no doubt?
There are no boundaries there that would correspond neatly with how the different ethnic or sectarian groups are distributed.

The neocons do not have the interests and realities of the people who live there at heart. Neither do the Russians, Brits, Dutch, French or Chinese. The current boundaries are the product of those nations.

Agreed that there are no boundaries which would correspond neatly. However, I suspect that there are boundaries which might serve better.

[Sorrel]

I am Scottish.

I am very surprised by the results of that poll and highly dubious of them.

Scotland has a devolved parliament(Holyrood) which legislate on a range of issues including health and taxation. I voted “Yes Yes” in 1997 to having a Scottish Parliament and to its having powers of taxation. More fool me.

While there are surveys which find that the Scottish public believe that there has been an improvement in public servies since devolution, I am quite sure that other surveys would find the same for the whole UK.

Our layers of Government are the European Parliament, Westminister, Holyrood, and Local Authorities. Devolution added another level of governement, another layer of bureaucracy, and a new pack of politicians and bureacrats to pay.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2455522005

“The soaring costs of MSP salaries and their expenses has joined the rising civil service bill and the £431 million cost of the new Scottish Parliament building to present a cumulative bill of £1.03 billion.“

Yes. £431 million for a building. This for a country whose GDP sat at around £78bn in 2003.The Scottish parliament operated out of an existing building from 1999-2004 at which time it moved into the purpose-built building – which had been scheduled to open in 2001 with an initial costing of between £10m and £40m.

This year’s parliament running costs are forecast to be in the region of £66billion. The costs of running the government are about the same again - since the government structure changed from the old Scottish Office to the Scottish executive at devolution they keep on spiraling up.

Some people talk about improved levels of public service? These people are forgetting that efficient government is a public good. And we sure don’t have that.

The majority of people to whom I’ve spoken with about devolution are with me – it’s a waste of time and money. We are hugely dissatisfied with the results.

“Many politicians and analysts thought devolution would put an end to calls for full independence. Instead, a taste of self-governance seems to have left the Scots hungry for more.”

Now, it’s possible that certain sections of the population had a rosy view of life in post devolution Scotland and having become disillionsed with it have decided that an Independent Scotland would be a better idea. I think it’d be another huge waste of time and money.

Originally Posted by erimir

At any rate, Scotland would, to me, have the right to secede if the majority of the country wanted it (although I think it would be best if they could achieve a strong majority before doing it, rather than going through on a 51% majority or some such).

There is a political party here which stands for independence, the SNP. http://www.snp.org/independence. If we want to secede, we vote for them in a general election.

Originally Posted by slimshady2357

It makes me wonder if the people who are for seperation have really though about the level of subsidies that they receive from the British government. because all that money would be gone.

On the SNP website you’ll find plenty of evidence that this isn’t the case.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Sorrel

There is a political party here which stands for independence, the SNP. http://www.snp.org/independence. If we want to secede, we vote for them in a general election.

Really? Because I didn't think that was implied when I said "if the majority of the country wanted it". Obviously it wouldn't happen because of a poll.

[godfry n. glad]

Oh, I understand, Sorrel.

Adding another layer of government will indeed proliferate things like politicians and bureaucracies. The trick is to get rid of one, or emasculating it, while creating a newer and "more efficient and responsive" government at a closer level. I suspect that that may be what is motivating the desire to dispose of the "Westminster" aspect of the multiple layers of government. It seems that rather than select the most recent "innovation" in government, the devolved state, to dispose of, Scots would rather do away with the imperious colonial government of the English. You, on the other hand, seem to support doing away with the innovation.

[Sorrel]

Sorry, Erimir. I don't know what you think I was trying to imply. That was me agreeing with you. I too think that Scotland would have the right to secede -if we want independence we vote for the SNP, and once in power they would hold a referendum on the issue.

I don't advocate reversing devolution (and not least because the Scottish Executive is paying for my education at the moment ). Doing so would be another waste of resources. I simply wouldn't choose it again, having seen it in action.

I don't think it's the way to go, but neither do I think that independance is. I'd imagine it would cause huge upheaval. Upheaval that I don't see any need for.

A clear indicator of the Scottish public wanting independence would be an SNP majority. The 2005 UK general election awarded them 6 of 59 Scottish seats. 2003 Scottish parliament election gave them 9/73.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, that sounds like although the Scots may like the idea of separation from the UK, it's unlikely that they'd give up a sure source of benefits.

My question is that if Scotland is such a drain on the UK economy (meaning that it doesn't 'pay its own way' and relies upon transfer payments from the central government to provide public services) why the English would be so keen on continuing the union. Can you tell me?

[Sorrel]

Scotland isn't a drain at all. We have flourishing tech and service industries and huge oil wealth. Scotland has a very different trade pattern the rest of the UK too. 10% of exports, 4% of imports.

Edit: Well, I was going to link to some report saying that Scotland isn't a net receiver of funds from Westminster... but the only places I can find figures are the sites of pro-independance groups. So... I guess we are a drain. Who knows, we might be eligible for EU funding after independence!