Referendum in Scotland

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

How many people outside of the UK are aware of this year's independence referendum in Scotland (and its implications)?

[ronin]

removing the Scotland node from your tree does not remove the UK parent node.

It removes Great Britain.

And if Great Britain no longer exists then there can be no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The alternative is to argue that, absent Scotland, Great Britain means "England and Wales".

Which is absurd.

[londrum]

they could just call us Britain. forget about the Great bit.

Or just change "Great" to something else — like "Amazing Britain" or "Super Britain". "Brilliant Britain" has got a nice ring to it

[Lame_Wolf]

Why not get rid of the Welsh and Scottish borders, and have just one country. Job done.

[Samizdata]

Even The "Yes" campaign website admits that Scotland will need to negotiate

Less an admission, I'd say, more a "statement of the bleedin' obvious".

The problem is not that Scotland will be refused EU membership, but that the terms of that membership (continuing or new member) are unknown pending the negotiations.

I'm afraid your analysis is still wide of the mark.

Scotland has 5 million EU citizens, 6 MEPs, and is a single constituency of the European Parliament.

If, in the event of secession from the UK, it had to apply for new membership (as some are insisting it must, despite the lack of precedent) the application would be subject to potential veto by any of 28 other countries.

Malta, for example, with fewer than half a million people, could block entry, disenfranchise 5 million existing citizens and force the dissolution of an existing constituency against the will of the voters there.

This would be patently absurd and an affront to the democratic process.

The obvious and sensible solution would be to add a 29th name to the list and negotiate the paperwork.

This does not mean that I have confidence in politicians doing what is obvious and sensible.

I appreciate that legal and constitutional matters are confusing to many people, and I have tried in this thread to shed some light on the subject at hand. But I am not going to waste any more time on it.

And the wind cried Mary.

...

[engine]

@londrum
>Or just change "Great" to something else — like "Amazing Britain" or "Super Britain". "Brilliant Britain" has got a nice ring to it

That's excellent!

[Lame_Wolf]

Or, Benefits Britain.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Alba gu brath.

[graeme_p]

This would be patently absurd and an affront to the democratic process.

Which is not uncommon for either the UK or the EU!

[Old_Honky]

Why not go for a reverse take over - just extend the Scottish border down to the south coast and call the country "Scotland - previously known as Great Britain".

Then Scotland will be happy, the situation in England won't change much because there are already a fair amount of Scots running the Westminster Parliament. We would stay in the EU and keep the Pound. The English football players would all be eligible to play for the new Scottish team so they would move from being "appalling" to just "very poor" (they still wouldn't win anything), and as we would finally and unequivocally all be the same nationality we could cease all the unnecessary strife and just get on with life.

After a trial period of say 5 years if the Scots are making an even bigger Horlicks of the situation than the current mob (including the previous incumbents) then we could give the Welsh a go for 5 years.

[Lame_Wolf]

Why not go for a reverse take over - just extend the Scottish border down to the south coast and call the country "Scotland - previously known as Great Britain".

I'm not bothered either way, just get rid of the borders and have one country.

Many years ago, long before you and I were swimming around in our fathers' testes, the Welsh lived in Wales, The Scots in Scotland, and the English in England. (With very few outsiders.)

These days, we're all living together, inter-marrying, amd so forth.

The cockneys are still English, and because of where they were born, means they can call themselves as such. I am sure Scotland and Wales can do something similar.

[Samizdata]

just get rid of the borders and have one country

The United Kingdom has always been a unitary state comprised of separate countries.

There have been no physical borders on the island of Great Britain for at least 300 years.

There has also been freedom of movement within Europe for all EU citizens for many years.

The ones who want borders are those English people who are campaigning to leave the EU.

They want to take Scotland with them so are opposed to Scottish independence or recognition as an EU member.

They are one of the main reasons why possible Scottish secession from the UK is on the agenda in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if they campaigned for the return of their American colonies next.

Or demanded that people from other countries stop speaking English.

...

[londrum]

what people are forgetting is that we're all going to be dead in five billion years anyway, so it doesn't matter. the sun will expand and burn earth and we will probably be living somewhere else by then, on the other side of the galaxy.

[Samizdata]

Many years ago, long before you and I were swimming around in our fathers' testes, the Welsh lived in Wales, The Scots in Scotland, and the English in England. (With very few outsiders.)

The first recorded inhabitants of Great Britain were Celts.

Brythonic in the south, Pictish in the north.

The Belgae came from Belgium.

The Romans came from Italy.

The Scots came from Ireland.

The Anglo-Saxons came from Germany and Denmark.

The Vikings came from Scandinavia.

The Normans came from Normandy.

The Roma came from Eastern Europe.

The Huguenots came from France.

The Irish came whenever they felt like it.

Very few outsiders.

...

[Lame_Wolf]

The first recorded inhabitants of Great Britain were Celts.

I cannot find any evidence of that. Can you please show me?

The Picts redated the Celts.

And the most ancient footprints found outside Africa were found in Norfolk, (Endland) and are at least 800,000 years old, which predates the Picts.

Am I missing something?

[Samizdata]

Am I missing something?

Too many examples in the thread to list here.

The first recorded inhabitants of Great Britain were Celts.

Brythonic in the south, Pictish in the north.

Wikipedia:

The Picts were a group of Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Celtic people living in ancient eastern and northern Scotland.

...

[Samizdata]

800,000 years old

Neither Homo sapiens nor the island of Great Britain existed 800,000 years ago.

...

[Lame_Wolf]

The first recorded inhabitants of Great Britain were Celts.

I cannot find any evidence of that. Can you please show me?

Too many examples in the thread to list here.

You have something that predates the most ancient footprints found outside Africa? (800,000 years old) Wasn't Scotland still under ice then?

[edited by: lawman at 11:11 pm (utc) on Feb 22, 2014]

[Lame_Wolf]

Neither Homo sapiens nor the island of Great Britain existed 800,000 years ago.

I never mentioned Homo sapiens.

Yes, I do know Great Britain didn't exist as such then. I took common sense into the equation.

[edited by: lawman at 12:20 am (utc) on Feb 23, 2014]

[Samizdata]

I don't see how any of this is relevant to the Scottish Referendum.

I think I will go and shoot fish in a barrel instead.

....

[lawman]

We about through here?

[ronin]

We've not mentioned Braveheart yet.

[Old_Honky]

I don't believe the problem is the Scots albeit their urge for independence seems based on emotion rather than a logical analysis of the situation.

I believe the problem is that the engine of the United Kingdom is centralised in London and the income of the whole country is reliant on this small area. In fact I'm surprised that London and the South East don't campaign for independence because they would (allegedly) be so much better off without the rest of us dragging them down.

The London-centric nature of our country is perpetuated by the media, including the BBC, to such an extent that most foreign visitors don't want to go anywhere else.

The best exhibition centre we have is the Birmingham NEC, for several years I was involved in organising stands at many different exhibitions there for a number of companies. All the overseas visitors expressed disappointment that the NEC was so far from London and many insisted on staying in London and coming to Birmingham by train every day.

Until we start relocating business and creating jobs outside of London and the South East there will always be resentment in the other regions of the UK which fosters a misguided (in my opinion) view that things would be so much better if we were on our own.

[graeme_p]

I agree more things need to be relocated out of London (I think it would benefit London as well), but what?

Foreign visitors, and the things they to London for are the least moveable. You cannot relocate Buckingham Palace or St Pauls.

London also has an image: it is a strong brand. You cannot easily replicate that. It is not something perpetuated by the British media: it is something that is deeply ground into the image the rest of the world has of Britain. In my experience it is strongest among people who do not watch.listen to/read the British media.

It is also a bid odd to accuse the BBC of being London-centric when they have moved a lot of people to Manchester. A lot of businesses set up where the people they want to recruit are. Neither will move unless the other does.

This is why there are clusters of high tech companies around university towns (.e.g ARM is in Cambridge, there are biotech companies near Oxford etc.)

You could relocate the museums and art galleries, but unless you moved them all to the same city you would lose the appeal of having them in one place - people will not travel from city to city for them.

Large company headquarters, banks etc. are not going to move. They want the airports, the large workforce, etc. Lots of businesses have moved TO London in recent years, as have lots of people. If the high costs of London do not put them off, what will?

What you could move are more government offices. If the passport office, the DVLA, and Companies House can work from outside London, I do not see why more of the government cannot.

There is also a good case for moving universities out of London. There may be a problem with foreign students - especially rich foreign students (of course, people willing to pay UK prices for education are usually rich) who are particular important when budgets are being cut. I know of a Russian who refuse to consider universities in the north of England because they were "too far away".

A huge difficulty in moving anything anywhere is that many/most couples will not move unless BOTH can find satisfactory new jobs.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I don't believe the problem is the Scots albeit their urge for independence seems based on emotion rather than a logical analysis of the situation.

emotion plays a small part but I can assure you that most people in Scotland deserve a bit more credit than that. We are being bombarded with stories, figures and statistics on a daily basis and believe it or not, many of us have the nous to make up our minds based on deduction rather than emotion. ;)

Actually almost all of the stuff that comes from the MSM is negative towards independence. This is not having the effect that is intended because it leads to a close examination of their claims and when their lies are exposed, a greater determination to vote YES.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

London also has an image: it is a strong brand.

Scotland also has a strong brand.

[graeme_p]

Scotland has a strong brand in the UK and possibly some other countries, but not globally. See my answer to the original question. The average person outside the UK knows MUCH less about Scotland than they do about London.

Scotch whisky has an amazingly good global reputation, but that is a perception of the product, not the place.

I actually think emotion is the right way to make this decision. It is primarily a matter of identities and loyalties. Also, given conflicting claims that most people are completely unable to assess, most will just believe what they want to (that, of course, is a general problem of democracy). Did you see that survey a few months ago that showed the British public's perception of the facts of every political hot issue was completely wrong?

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

The average person outside the UK knows MUCH less about Scotland than they do about London.

And that is as good a reason to consider voting yes as any other.

Even before the vote many "average" people outside of the UK are learning more about Scotland's position as a result of this referendum.

[graeme_p]

How will independence help? A little bit of one-off extra coverage in the news is not going to suddenly give Scotland a strong image. As I said before, most people have either not heard about the referendum at all, or have heard an occasional and unmemorable mention in the news.

Try searching major news sites outside the UK. I tried the websites of The Hindu, the Washington Post, The Sydney Morning Herald and USA Today and there was not very much coverage. Much of the coverage was not the sort of publicity you want either - see the piece on currency union on the USA today site.

Then there is the loss of all the positive perceptions of the UK - stability, fair and effective courts (at least as far as commercial disputes go), and a lot of organisations with global reputations of their own (media, businesses, financial exchanges, universities).

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Then there is the loss of all the positive perceptions of the UK - stability, fair and effective courts (at least as far as commercial disputes go), and a lot of organisations with global reputations of their own (media, businesses, financial exchanges, universities).

How on earth would a vote for independence affect any of these? Scotland has the infrastructure already in place to effectively govern itself. Doing so would only increase the positive perceptions that most people already have of our country. We are not "too wee", "too poor" or "too feart". You seem to have been reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

Perhaps you can tell us something positive that would come out of a no vote Graeme? No one else has been able to.

[Lame_Wolf]

Perhaps you can tell us something positive that would come out of a no vote Graeme? No one else has been able to.

Eurovision. :)