Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy

[Al_bina]

i am so sorry for you.

It would be incorrect to feel sorry for me. The world map tends to undergo changes in the course of time. So the UK map may change this time. I guess that is all.

 

[PetticoatLane]

judging by the responses so far, I regret opening up on this forum. Thats sad.

Me too, cepe. I didn't expect to be belittled for having fears for the future of our country and ALL its people. Silly me.

 

[cepe]

It would be incorrect to feel sorry for me. The world map tends to undergo changes in the course of time. So the UK map may change this time. I guess that is all.

Foxtrot! This is sad and why there are problems in Eastern Europe today.

i wrote about my personal view as a. Brit. you show no respect for that which does not impact on my position. I care about GB and I care about Scotland. both are my homelands. I care. Thats the difference.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Imagine if 3-4 major states decided to secede from the Union? The impact on your country? On other states? On the Federal system? On where you can travel and wheee you cant???

Would you feel anything? Would you care? Would you be concerned about the end of the United States as ypu know it?

i hurt because my country is under threat And I have no recourse.

judging by the responses so far, I regret opening up on this forum. Thats sad.

The united states is one country not 3 of 4 countries put together some by force some by inheritance. If Puerto Rico wanted to go off on their own I would feel the same way. If London wanted to suede from the rest of England I would get your point, but that is not the case. This is a separate country that has become joined with other countries 4 centuries ago, now it wants to unjoin and apparently become like Australia u til they formally decide to 86 the monarchy. This situation reminds me of East Europ3an countries being forced to stay under the SV, not the comminusn but the reluctance to allow a group of people their independence.
England and Scotland aren't the Eastern European states, I don't see the situation of an independent Scotland becoming that volatile.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It would be incorrect to feel sorry for me. The world map tends to undergo changes in the course of time. So the UK map may change this time. I guess that is all.

I assumed Australia was going to be the first to officially jump ship. How old is the Scottish independence movement? It really floors me that in 2014 a country wanting it's independence is viewed as a bad thing.

 

[COUNTESS]

The united states is one country not 3 of 4 countries put together some by force some by inheritance. If Puerto Rico wanted to go off on their own I would feel the same way. If London wanted to suede from the rest of England I would get your point, but that is not the case. This is a separate country that has become joined with other countries 4 centuries ago, now it wants to unjoin and apparently become like Australia u til they formally decide to 86 the monarchy. This situation reminds me of East Europ3an countries being forced to stay under the SV, not the comminusn but the reluctance to allow a group of people their independence.
England and Scotland aren't the Eastern European states, I don't see the situation of an independent Scotland becoming that volatile.

Xenia you are correct. The states are not separate nations. But that being said Puerto Rico is a country to itself and has held votes to separate from the U.S. and if that happens, so be it. Scotland is Scotland and should have the right to determine how they will be governed.
It is not an English state colony. It was overrun centuries ago and, if they wish separation, it is not for me or anyone who is not a Scot to say.

 

[Roslyn]

This is an issue that is bound to tug at the heartstrings of some people and be met with a totally objective response by others. I fully understand that anyone for whom Scotland is or was home and/or has close relatives living there, and who has affectionate feelings about England and the rest of the UK and doesn't want their country torn apart, and/or feels the Queen will be hurt if the vote is in favour of independence, will be hoping the union remains.

I don't have that close connection though, and I take the view that what is most important is what the people who have the right to a vote on the issue decide is best for them. As Al Bina observed: the world map tends to undergo changes in the course of time, and the UK map may change this time. The fact that the Queen's feelings might be hurt is totally irrelevant to me.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem to me is that many people who will be affected by the breakup of the country aren't even allowed a say.

The country is the UK of GB and NI - ONE country but only a fraction of that nation is allowed to have a say in its breakup.

In the US when some states wanted to break free they were forced back into the union at the point of a gun - hardly a democratic way to go about things.

I also find it interesting to see a comment such as 'I assumed Australia was going to be the first to officially jump ship' coming into the equation. Australia became independent via stages starting in the 1820s with limited self-government to the colony of NSW and then full self-government over internal affairs for the colonies in the 1850s and then federation in 1901 and finally taking control of our foreign policy in 1942, backdated to 1939. We weren't the first though as Canada had gone through a similar process and South Africa actually took control of its foreign policy before either Canada, Australia or NZ or any other dominion.

As for dumping the monarchy - the Queen started her reign as Queen of 54 different nations and now has only 16 so neither Australia nor Scotland would be the first to dump her as she has seen it happen many times before.

The UK is breaking up and that is sad for the simple reason that a nation that has shared so much history it tearing itself apart.

I have family and friends in Scotland and they are very sad that friendships and even families are torn apart - one set of relatives have severed all connection to another over this issue and also have ceased all communication with their English relatives.

The Queen, it should also be remember, is half-Scottish as her mother was Scottish and her sister was even born there. Her daughter and grand-daughter chose to marry in Scotland and she is currently holidaying there - which is where she has spent her summer holidays pretty well all her life with the possible exception of the war years - not for her the glamour of the Caribbean or the south of France but Scotland. Her husband, sons and even some of her grandchildren were educated there (Peter and Zara at Gordonstoun and William and Kate at St Andrews - Kate is of course a granddaughter in law), her family hold Scottish titles along with English, Irish and Welsh ones.

I don't see a winner in the short term for this referendum as the vitriol is so deep and so vicious that regardless of the result the wounds will be very deep and take a long time to heal - if they ever do.

 

[Roslyn]

I assumed Australia was going to be the first to officially jump ship. How old is the Scottish independence movement? It really floors me that in 2014 a country wanting it's independence is viewed as a bad thing.

We started out as a British Colony - as part of Britain - and our move towards independence has been gradual and more a case of a child growing up and reaching adulthood and wanting to leave the nest. And, to some extent, being kicked out of the nest. Scotland was an independent country forced into a union with another country. There have been some rebellions during Australia's history but not years and years of bloody battles.

Even now our republican movement is motivated primarily by a desire to have an Australian Head of State rather than any disdain for England/the UK or with to be free of it, and this only becomes significant when something happens that draws our attention to the fact that our theoretical Head of State is a foreigner who doesn't give priority to Australia and Australians. Like cheering for our opponents in sporting events. Our Constitution provides that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative, and a number of scholars argue that our Governor-General is in fact our Head of State. For all practical purposes our Governor-General is our Head of State and we muddle along very nicely with input/interference from the British Monarch. "Independence" as such is really not an issue that burns deeply within most Australians.

 

[Ish]

Imagine if 3-4 major states decided to secede from the Union? The impact on your country? On other states? On the Federal system? On where you can travel and wheee you cant???



Would you feel anything? Would you care? Would you be concerned about the end of the United States as ypu know it?



i hurt because my country is under threat And I have no recourse.



judging by the responses so far, I regret opening up on this forum. Thats sad.

Cepe, I appreciate that you've shared your opinions here.

Coming from a country that has its own history of separatist issues I know what it feels like to watch as movements try to tear a country that I care dearly apart. I'm not old enough to have been aware of events when the last Quebec referendum occurred, but I do know my Canadian history and I do follow politics, so I realize that the issue is far from resolved here (and I know that Quebec is just the tip of the iceberg of Canadian unity). It would break my heart to see the country that I live in and the country that my ancestors built torn apart. Especially if it happened without my having a vote in the matter.

I don't necessarily buy into the idea that an independent Scotland is what's best for Scotland and the Scots, although I can understand where that feeling can originate - as much as I'm in support of continued Canadian confederation there have been many times when I've realized that what is best for my province is not what is happening on a federal level, and I imagine that the Scots feel that way too, combined with a long history of troubles between the Scots and the British and English governments. I read somewhere once that the problem with the Scots is they have long memories, while the problem with the English is they have short ones. This move for Scottish independence seems to me to be more the Scots remembering issues of the past and blaming them for the issues of the present rather than looking for an actual viable solution to these problems.

I ultimately have no say whatsoever in this decision, and I shouldn't as I'm not Scottish or British in any way other than ethnicity. But I do hope independence loses because I don't think this is good for Scotland or Great Britain.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Once again.!!!!! The American Civil war was states that were a part of a larger country trying g to break up thr country. This situation is a former independent country that has become a part of a larger country wanting to be independent again. The reason the Welsh and Irish have no say is obvious, it may affect you but it is not a question of your independence, when your time comes you will vote for yourselves what is best for you, Scotland is going to decide what is best for them and their country not how the Queen feels or the PM etc.
And about Australia jumping ship I was not talking about the first to leave England EVER, I al talking about the modern countries who are still united and are discussing leaving. I have always heard Australia as part of these convos not Scotland.

 

[Ish]

The problem to me is that many people who will be affected by the breakup of the country aren't even allowed a say.

The country is the UK of GB and NI - ONE country but only a fraction of that nation is allowed to have a say in its breakup.

In the US when some states wanted to break free they were forced back into the union at the point of a gun - hardly a democratic way to go about things.

I also find it interesting to see a comment such as 'I assumed Australia was going to be the first to officially jump ship' coming into the equation. Australia became independent via stages starting in the 1820s with limited self-government to the colony of NSW and then full self-government over internal affairs for the colonies in the 1850s and then federation in 1901 and finally taking control of our foreign policy in 1942, backdated to 1939. We weren't the first though as Canada had gone through a similar process and South Africa actually took control of its foreign policy before either Canada, Australia or NZ or any other dominion.

As for dumping the monarchy - the Queen started her reign as Queen of 54 different nations and now has only 16 so neither Australia nor Scotland would be the first to dump her as she has seen it happen many times before.

The UK is breaking up and that is sad for the simple reason that a nation that has shared so much history it tearing itself apart.

I have family and friends in Scotland and they are very sad that friendships and even families are torn apart - one set of relatives have severed all connection to another over this issue and also have ceased all communication with their English relatives.

The Queen, it should also be remember, is half-Scottish as her mother was Scottish and her sister was even born there. Her daughter and grand-daughter chose to marry in Scotland and she is currently holidaying there - which is where she has spent her summer holidays pretty well all her life with the possible exception of the war years - not for her the glamour of the Caribbean or the south of France but Scotland. Her husband, sons and even some of her grandchildren were educated there (Peter and Zara at Gordonstoun and William and Kate at St Andrews - Kate is of course a granddaughter in law), her family hold Scottish titles along with English, Irish and Welsh ones.

I don't see a winner in the short term for this referendum as the vitriol is so deep and so vicious that regardless of the result the wounds will be very deep and take a long time to heal - if they ever do.

As usual, beautifully put Bertie. I didn't realize that South Africa took control of their foreign relations before the rest of us.

Just to comment on your first sentence: in an issue like this it's tricky. When Quebec had their referendums only those who lived in Quebec had a vote, even though such a separation would have a drastic effect on the rest of the country, and could have even sparked further separatist referendums (I was recently informed that if/when Quebec separates it's only a matter of time before Newfoundland does as well, as they're still not sure that confederation was the right move).

The problem with allowing those who don't live in Scotland to vote is that the English vastly outnumber the Scots. If I did the math right (which I may not have, I'm a history person not a math one) there are about 10 English for every 1 Scot. Even if you add in the Northern Irish and Welsh, they're all still outnumbered at something like 1:5. Allowing the English to have a vote would negate the Scottish one.

 

[Roslyn]

The problem to me is that many people who will be affected by the breakup of the country aren't even allowed a say.

The country is the UK of GB and NI - ONE country but only a fraction of that nation is allowed to have a say in its breakup.

Interesting to read different points of view on this. In my opinion the Scottish are the only people who should have a say. They would be outnumbered and bound to fail if everyone in the UK were allowed a vote on the issue.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

We started out as a British Colony - as part of Britain - and our move towards independence has been gradual and more a case of a child growing up and reaching adulthood and wanting to leave the nest. And, to some extent, being kicked out of the nest. Scotland was an independent country forced into a union with another country. There have been some rebellions during Australia's history but not years and years of bloody battles.

Even now our republican movement is motivated primarily by a desire to have an Australian Head of State rather than any disdain for England/the UK or with to be free of it, and this only becomes significant when something happens that draws our attention to the fact that our theoretical Head of State is a foreigner who doesn't give priority to Australia and Australians. Like cheering for our opponents in sporting events. Our Constitution provides that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative, and a number of scholars argue that our Governor-General is in fact our Head of State. For all practical purposes our Governor-General is our Head of State and we muddle along very nicely with input/interference from the British Monarch. "Independence" as such is really not an issue that burns deeply within most Australians.

I wouldn't assume it's disdain for the monarchy why Australia is moving towards independence, I guess I shouldn't have brought another country into this despite people comparing a nation wanting it's independence back to statest wanting to leave their govt. I don't know the history of Australia or its independence movement, I just brought up that I heard they would be first because that is what I have always heard.

 

[Ish]

Interesting to read different points of view on this. In my opinion the Scottish are the only people who should have a say. They would be outnumbered and bound to fail if everyone in the UK were allowed a vote on the issue.

There's two sides to it.

On the one hand, the vote would fail if everyone in the UK voted because the majority of the population is English.

On the other hand, the whole of the UK is going to be affected by Scotland leaving. While you can argue that the whole of the UK shouldn't have a vote because it should be the Scots' decision, it still remains a decision that affects all I the UK.

 

[Roslyn]

And this is where point of view comes into it. I see the UK as a group of diverse countries that still all have independent identity, united politically but still separate and capable of peeling off again, and entitled to do so if they choose.

I wouldn't assume it's disdain for the monarchy why Australia is moving towards independence, I guess I shouldn't have brought another country into this despite people comparing a nation wanting it's independence back to statest wanting to leave their govt. I don't know the history of Australia or its independence movement, I just brought up that I heard they would be first because that is what I have always heard.

No problem.

You had a valid comment and I just wanted to draw a distinction based on my own knowledge, which is nowhere near as extensive as that of a lot of other people here but that doesn't stop me saying what I think. I have learned a lot by participating in discussions here and have often changed my views as a result.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

There's two sides to it.

On the one hand, the vote would fail if everyone in the UK voted because the majority of the population is English.

On the other hand, the whole of the UK is going to be affected by Scotland leaving. While you can argue that the whole of the UK shouldn't have a vote because it should be the Scots' decision, it still remains a decision that affects all I the UK.

Just because it affects you doesn't mean you should get equal say in what a country does. There is a balance to these kinds of things. A vote I. California can affect my state of Texas, but that doesn't mean we should be allowed to vote as well. The country of Scotland is choosing what is best for them, it is harsh but how itimpacts the lives of the English should be the last thing they should be worried about.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Imagine if 3-4 major states decided to secede from the Union? The impact on your country? On other states? On the Federal system? On where you can travel and wheee you cant???

Would you feel anything? Would you care? Would you be concerned about the end of the United States as ypu know it?

i hurt because my country is under threat And I have no recourse.

judging by the responses so far, I regret opening up on this forum. Thats sad.

Given the political turmoil in this country in the last few years, this might be the wrong analogy...some states are threatening to secede and others are begging them[to secede.

But I see your point. I know the vote is next week, but is independence a real possibility?

My feeling is that people who want to break away from some other group should be careful what they wish for. The logistics and ensuing chaos - financial mostly - give me a migraine just thinking about it. I live in an area of a very large county where a large percentage in our area are just dying to break off and form their own county. Be careful what you wish for, I say. They think it will save tax dollars - I think it will increase it as we will need our own new court system, school system, and then there's the tricky issue of governmental facilities and infrastructure recently built in our area - who continues the payments on it?

I really have no idea, but what benefit is there to independence? What con? Does Scotland have the economic base to raise an army, etc, etc?

 

[Ish]

Just because it affects you doesn't mean you should get equal say in what a country does. There is a balance to these kinds of things. A vote I. California can affect my state of Texas, but that doesn't mean we should be allowed to vote as well. The country of Scotland is choosing what is best for them, it is harsh but how itimpacts the lives of the English should be the last thing they should be worried about.

You don't seem to get it.

While Scotland is a country, it's not an independent one. It's a country within a country. There are ways in which it is autonomous and ways in which it isn't. It has been a part of the UK for 300 years - it has been within this country for longer than the US has existed.

Scottish independence comes with huge political, economic, social implications, many of which will affect the rest of Britain. Much like the Confederate States leaving the Union in the 19th century this will greatly affect the Britain that remains.

I'm not saying that the rest of Britain should have a vote. I'm saying that there is no right solution here. It would make sense to have all of Britain vote on this issue. It is a huge issue that affects all of the state. It also makes sense to only have the Scots vote, as it's an issue that deals with them and their voice will be lost in a larger vote.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Once again.!!!!! The American Civil war was states that were a part of a larger country trying g to break up thr country. This situation is a former independent country that has become a part of a larger country wanting to be independent again. The reason the Welsh and Irish have no say is obvious, it may affect you but it is not a question of your independence, when your time comes you will vote for yourselves what is best for you, Scotland is going to decide what is best for them and their country not how the Queen feels or the PM etc.
And about Australia jumping ship I was not talking about the first to leave England EVER, I al talking about the modern countries who are still united and are discussing leaving. I have always heard Australia as part of these convos not Scotland.

Living in the South for years, I can tell you that Southerners only kinda, sorta see themselves as part of the Union - they'd like to be independent. They've always firmly believed in "state's rights" before the union - they're a bit more like a "Scotland" than people realize.

That said, on the other hand, the legality of forcing the South back into the Union has always been an open question - I think it's perfectly legal for a state to jump ship - although I would NOT want to see it.

 

[COUNTESS]

When Puerto Rico votes for Independence, just Puerto Ricans vote. The rest of the U.S. doesn't vote, because they are a nation unto themselves, but by virtue of treaties long ago, are American protectorate. Should they wish to leave with a proper vote they are free to do so. And rightly, so. States cannot secede, as that is treason. Yorkshire cannot secede from England, but Scotland can remove themselves, as they are not England. Xenia is correct, just because it affects you doesn't mean another nation should have the right to vote. One would assume that they have figured out how to run their own nation and have communal treaties to protect one another is doable. Obviously, Scotland cannot stand back if some nation were to try and invade England.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

You don't seem to get it.

While Scotland is a country, it's not an independent one. It's a country within a country. There are ways in which it is autonomous and ways in which it isn't. It has been a part of the UK for 300 years - it has been within this country for longer than the US has existed.

Scottish independence comes with huge political, economic, social implications, many of which will affect the rest of Britain. Much like the Confederate States leaving the Union in the 19th century this will greatly affect the Britain that remains.

I'm not saying that the rest of Britain should have a vote. I'm saying that there is no right solution here. It would make sense to have all of Britain vote on this issue. It is a huge issue that affects all of the state. It also makes sense to only have the Scots vote, as it's an issue that deals with them and their voice will be lost in a larger vote.

I am done trying to explain to you the difference between the Civil War and Scotland wanting independence, when Manchester, Derbyshire, London want to separate from England then we can talk.
It was once an independent country and if they decide it is best for them to go back to that thenthat is their decision ane shoukd be respected; because quite frankly what's best for you isn't necessarily best for the people of Scotland. It has been part of Great Britain for 300 years and before that it wasnt, if the most centuries determine what should occur then the over 300yrs Scotland was independent win.You can slice history however you want but it's quite possible the Scottish people have decided 300yrs is enough.
The country entered into an agreement to join into GB, now times have changed and they will decide if it is best to stay or go.
This entire thing just reminds me of the battles in the past of big countries like Spain etc. Not wanting to let the little countries that have become attached to them go because it will be an inconvenience and some losses, and no respecting people's right to determine their own fate.

Living in the South for years, I can tell you that Southerners only kinda, sorta see themselves as part of the Union - they'd like to be independent. They've always firmly believed in "state's rights" before the union - they're a bit more like a "Scotland" than people realize.

That said, on the other hand, the legality of forcing the South back into the Union has always been an open question - I think it's perfectly legal for a state to jump ship - although I would NOT want to see it.

As a black woman I am a huge fan and defender of the civil war, I will leave it at that so as not to cause even more controversy.

 

[SElizabeth]

I seriously hope that Scotland does not break away......given the hundreds of years of history I think it will have a huge negative effect on the people. I am of Irish and Scottish heritage and wish that all 3 would be together under the commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth as the head. Yet I can accept that things can't always be what I or anyone else wants them to be.

Now for the states breaking away from the union, OH please let Texas go away or give it back to Mexico so they can deal with the idiots in that state. I lived in that state for 9 years, drinking while driving is okay/women lose everything in the eyes of the law/mistresses come before wives and children/shotguns and 45 everywhere in sight...........these people are barbarians ,sorry if I hurt someone's feelings, it is just my opinion and lots of experience living there....
Sorry if I got off topic and ranted about Texas....

 

[Nice Nofret]

The country of Scotland is choosing what is best for them,...

You are harping on about 'what's best for them' ... and that is, what I very much doubt!

You are rocking a boat, without knowing the outcome:
- it is neither a gradual easing in independence (what ever that means in our global connected world with so many dependencies from one to another country)
- nor is their an overall concept of what should happen and how to solve in so many areas like: borders, currencys, EU, pensions, NHS, all types of govermentinstitutions really etc. they are laking the institutions - and you cannot create from one day to another all these (and many more) of the things, we take for granted in our modern world.

My fear is, that the politicians who campagne for independence, only look for their personal gain, and/or are very shortsighted. If they would use this thread to gain more independenc INSIDE GB, I would understand that - but what they do is very dangerous indeed.

And I very much feel, that we have much more real problems in our world, than the Scottish independence (like ISIS, all the arab countries, the conflict Russia/Ukraine etc pp.)

Appart from that, you could tear appart EVERY country in Europe, Arabia, Asia, America under these asumption 'to do what's best for them' ... and where would we end?

Have you ever looked how Europe looked like for example in the 17th / 18th centuries? Everybody warring with everybody else ... To the very great disadvantage of the 'normal' people ..

I do not wish these times back - they where very dangerouse times for most people living then.

If 'everybody does, what is best for them' - their is only greed and war to be found - where does that leave solidarity, brotherhood of men and freedom?


If some countries would take the political organisation of Switzerland with it's very much selfregulated canton, four languages and highly selfregulated communities as a copyplate, where we vote constantly for / agains somekind of thing or another, where people have acctualy a say in dayly politics, and not only when they vote who will govern them... I think this would help very much against the unrest.

 

[Nice Nofret]

P.S: not for nothing goes the roman saying: dived and rule! DIVIDE ET IMPERA!

 

[Roslyn]

You are harping on about 'what's best for them' ... and that is, what I very much doubt!

You are rocking a boat, without knowing the outcome:
- it is neither a gradual easing in independence (what ever that means in our global connected world with so many dependencies from one to another country)
- nor is their an overall concept of what should happen and how to solve in so many areas like: borders, currencys, EU, pensions, NHS, all types of govermentinstitutions really etc. they are laking the institutions - and you cannot create from one day to another all these (and many more) of the things, we take for granted in our modern world.

My fear is, that the politicians who campagne for independence, only look for their personal gain, and/or are very shortsighted. If they would use this thread to gain more independenc INSIDE GB, I would understand that - but what they do is very dangerous indeed.

It seems to me that the independence movement has done its homework and considered and addressed all the important issues:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf
Yes Scotland | Say Yes to an independent Scotland

 

[Sunnystar]

Wow... Reading this thread is certainly an interesting experience. Some people really don't understand their US history and are making some inaccurate comparisons between any secession movements that have existed within the US and other nations (say Scotland or Quebec).

The US is a FEDERAL Republic. Geographic areas have, historically, asked to become a part of that nation. Just because there is no mechanism within the US Constitution for LEAVING the USA doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. As GracieGiraffe pointed out, there are many within the South who question the legality of forcing the Confederated States of America back into the Union. And there is a very strong "states-rights" movement, similar in many respects to devolution, both in the southern and western parts of the US.

It also must be noted that there are US States which were once independent countries - Texas, California and Hawaii are the three that spring to mind most obviously. And, I know there have been some interesting discussions in the Hawaiian Royalty forum about just how voluntarily Hawaii became a part of the US. If only Native Hawaiians had been allowed to cast a vote, rather than all residents of Hawaii, it's likely that Hawaii never would have become a part of the US. Similarly, this upcoming Scottish vote is allowing all residents of Scotland to vote on the issue. Contrarily, many of the Puerto Rican votes on their status within the US allow Puerto Ricans who've migrated to the other parts of the US, to cast a vote. I'd wager a strong guess that if only Puerto Ricans still residing in Puerto Rico were allowed to vote the outcome would have been for independence long ago. I do wonder what the outcome of this upcoming Scottish vote would be if everyone who was born in Scotland but now resides elsewhere in the UK were allowed a vote. I bet it wouldn't be such a close vote as it's likely to be.

But, back to the notion that Scotland is somehow different than one or several US States voting to secede from the Union. How? Just because Scotland's history as a political entity is a thousand years older than most parts of the US? What about Hawaii or California or Texas then? They were once independent nations, albeit in the cases of California and Texas with much shorter lifespans than an independent Scotland. What would differentiate between a vote for California or Texas to become an independent nation and this vote for Scotland? Nothing if the argument is "country within a country".

Personally, I have always been fascinated by secessionist movements. My IB History paper (written nearly a quarter of a century ago) was about the Quebecois secessionist movement during the 1960s. I wrote at least one paper in college on the Scottish independence movement. I am always reading up on the Catalan, Basque and Belgian secessionist movements as well as similar issues within the US (the current point of interest is the California ballot measure to break that state into 6 separate states). I see a lot of similarities, and a lot of differences, between these various movements. The one thing I will say, and Al bina is correct in this regard, maps change, borders change, that is the way history goes. Certainly, some borders are natural geographic divides (rivers, mountain ranges, deserts), but many more are just lines that some people agreed to who knows how many years ago, with not necessarily much concern for the differences in lifestyle, history, language and culture of the population within said regions. And, even if there were enough similarities and common traits to bind a group of people together at one point in time, perhaps those no longer exist or the differences are greater and maybe it is time to consider a re-configuration of internal borders or even association as a nation.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the course of the next ten days with respect to Scotland.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Queen does not need to worry anyway. In case of a Yes or in case of a No, she remains the head of state. In case of a Yes, the Union of the two old kingdoms will be dissolved, the thrones however remain occupied by Her Majesty.

The Duke of Rothesay who is Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, will remain the Heir. And his eldest son Prince William, the Earl of Strathearn, will remain the Number Two in the line of succession.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

I really have no idea, but what benefit is there to independence? What con? Does Scotland have the economic base to raise an army, etc, etc?

[...]

You are making the same mistake as the NO-camp (the 'Better Together'-camp) in only looking to benefits (or the currency) etc. In essence the idea is that it are the Scots themselves who can best manage their own interests.

The examples of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands etc show that you can be a small(er) country with a monarch as well and belong to the most prosperous, most developed and most liberal countries in the world, with the highest possible standards of public services.



Now the Unionists, in all disarray, hastily promise more powers for the Scots if they remain in the Union. But then the question pops up: why be satisfied with half ("Vote NO, and we will do our best to give you more powers") while you can get the whole ("Vote YES, and you are your own boss in your own country").

 

[wyevale]

The prospect of the country into which I was born being split up and dismantled make me sick to the stomach...

Those seeking 'independence', will in reality be ruled by faceless bureaucrats from Brussels, since Scotland will apply to join the EU, and [according to the treaty of Maastricht] MUST use the Euro as its currency. Consequently the illusion of independence is just that... an ILLUSION.
Financial and economic decisions will be taken in Brussels, and if the Scots believe their Euro masters will look fondly on the Scots 'social model' [low tax. high benefits] they are simply WRONG.

Separatism is a backward step, and splintering into ever smaller units even more so... We are BETTER TOGETHER !