Just "a good thing". The kind of thing you'd nod approvingly about, vote for, take up arms for, etc. Obviously any outcome is likely to be good for some people and bad for others.
I presume that border control would be just too difficult to make them as independent as, say, France - ie it would be useful if UK citizens could still enter and leave freely without passports or identity documents.
There's a part of me that would be sad too, seeing as I'm a complete British mongrel, to have part of that split away. But if it's what a majority of people want and *they* see great benefits in it I'm not sure my concerns should outweigh that.
I presume that border control would be just too difficult to make them as independent as, say, France - ie it would be useful if UK citizens could still enter and leave freely without passports or identity documents.
That's about a border-free zone rather than independence. The UK currently has one of these with the Republic of Ireland (and of course there's the Schengen area on the Continent).
I suspect so; Ireland is fully independent, but Irish and UK citizens have full access and residence rights to both states. No border control, no papers.
Disclaimer - I'm mostly in favour of a one-world state, where instead of the minor wealth distribution we get from the south to the north in England, we have actual responsibilities for the whole world and we can't feel smug about the minimum wage for us while people work in sweatshops elsewhere. Err, can't see it happening in my lifetime, but devolution seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
And of course, Scotland shares my political views more than England (if countries can be said to have political views at all) so independance would probably make English governments more right wing and ikky. Err, that comes dangerously close to saying 'I want to stuff ballot boxes in a non-democratic way so I get the government I like' though, which I don't really believe in.
Against that, I kind of believe that if a country overwhelmingly wants to be their own country, and not a bit of our country, they probably ought to be allowed. Independent Scotland and England in a more powerful EU could be OK...
Even in a world state, or even just an EU-sized state, you'd have to have elements of local government, so I think that the disintegration of countries like the UK and Belgium into their regions is mostly a separate question.
However, even if you favour a "one-world state", you do surely acknowledge that there are optimum levels for certain decisions to be taken at? So some form of intermediate government is required; and the boundaries of that government will always be open to debate.
Then there's the topic you obliquely touch upon - sovereignty, and whence it derives. Is it devolution to bestow powers, from the sovereign queen-in-parliament, or is it the sovereign Scots people reacquiring their previous powers that they handed upwards in the Act of Union? We have two, competing, theories within the one legal state...
we can't feel smug about the minimum wage for us while people work in sweatshops elsewhere
Does anyone feel smug about the minimum wage? I mean, I know people who are desperately grateful for it, and I know people who are angry that it's not higher, and people who are both (I am one of those). And of course there are people who want to remove it. But I don't think I've heard anyone express smugness about it.
I hope that your perspective doesn't mean that you think the UK minimum wage should go. Removing it would not help to gain a global minimum wage (which I totally agree we desperately need). I think that the UK has a huge responsibility (and power) to create a more equal society globally, but it's the richer, not the poorer members of the UK who should be making the sacrifices to achieve this. Also, inequality within the UK is at appalling levels, and should be massively decreased, not increased.
I'm currently largely in favor of a USE with a "country" level on a par with states in the USA; but within that I'm in favor of countries splitting up wherever the population wishes to do so (so Scotland, Basque country, Kosovo, Belgium etc. etc.). I don't think that *within the umbrella of the EU/USE* it makes as much sense to be a large country/state that it does outside of that umbrella. We can move best-done-as-a-large-entity things like "defense" and "currency" up the food chain to the European Parliament removing many of the downsides of being a small country; I think the remaining things that are best done at country/state level (rather than at county or town level) are best done in regions that are as happy to be one country/state as possible because I think is likely to make people overall more happy.
The far-off-pipe-dream of a one-world state would be another layer on the top of all this pie.
While I ticked "good thing", I'm worried that any particular implementation would leave someone unhappy, once details like the Commonwealth, monarchy, North Sea oil, choice of currency and Schengen had been thrashed out.
Also, I would like to declare a Machiavellian interest: without pro-EU Scotland to hinder us, we can leave the EU. (-8
How can 10% of the population (which is far from being a single block, anyway), with no veto power, be hindering anything if it's really a majority desire?
If ya'll do that I am so moving to Scotland. Now, how to ensure that I do so BEFORE I am forbidden from doing so but not too much before because Cambridge is great really...
Oh look, you tempted me to express political opinions! Although it's by no means universal, public opinion seems to favour independence. I don't see that England / the UK really has the right to keep forcing an unwilling population to be part of our country, based on what, military conquest in the 17 – 18th century? That doesn't seem to be the kind of reasoning that holds up in the modern world.
Based on the time I spent in Scotland (2001 to 2005), and following the news since then, I think that Scotland generally has more sensible politics than England. Although there is some degree of subsidy of the smaller, poorer country, this is much less important than it was due to Scotland having oil and a somewhat functioning economy (see: more sensible politics). I think Scotland could survive as a member of the EU, and not the poorest or least stable by any means. If I'm right about that, the main reason against independence is all but faded away. Hence, I think it's likely.
I think there might be some negative consequences for a devolved England, such as a higher chance of a true majority Conservative government, and less reason to argue against some of our more regressive policies (university tuition fees, making people pay for personal care etc) on the basis that it's not fair if Scottish people, who are part of the same country, get a much better deal. I don't think that in itself is a reason to keep the Union together, though.
What military conquest? The English army had left, before the restoration, at the end of the Commonwealth.
The Scottish government and parliament entered into a negotiated, legal, union, expressed in and governed by, the founding Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707. It probably wasn't a union favoured by the Scottish populace as a whole, and it was probably negotiated for primarily economic advantage to the ruling and merchant classes.
I'd feel sad in a way, as I love Scotland, and I'm English and live in England. But I think it would be good for Scotland. I wish for a world in which there is masses of international cooperation and respect, but with a lot more local power. Also, frankly, if there is Scottish independence it will be because the majority of people in Scotland want it. And the concept of English people wanting to stop that and keep hold of the country whether its inhabitants like it or not seems really, *really* icky to me.
I'd like there to be some very nice close connection if it did gain independence.
I could never live in Scotland as I'm too sensitive to cold. If Wales ever gains independence, I might be encouraging mostlyacat to investigate the software possibilities there. ;-)
My default, the monarchy would remain a link, and it would become a Commonwealth realm putting it in the same kind of relationship with UK-lite (or whatever on earth we decided to call England+Wales+NI) as is currently enjoyed by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. as well as being linked via the EU.
If Scotland gains independence I'd seriously consider claiming political asylum in that largely Tory-free land. Trouble is I have no antecedents that are even remotely Scottish, so becoming a Scotsman could be a stumbling block. Would a fondness for white pudding suppers with chippy sauce, renting a holiday home in the East Neuk of Fife, and possession of a full set of Sensational Alex Harvey Band LPs be good enough grounds for citizenship?
Yorkshire declaring UDI would be a political no-no, by the way. Too many people like Philip Davies round here who think "wogs begin at Todmorden" for King Arthur to return and reign from his resting place just outside Barnsley.
All you need to do is move as soon as it looks likely to happen. The SNP's policy of civic nationalism is quite clear: there is no "blood and soil" aspect to Scottish nationality. Simple residence will be one of the qualifying factors.
As my lawyer friend says, 'good' depends on who you are. The arguments that will precede independence is who, exactly, independence is 'good' for.
Salmond is a gradualist. He's taken a calculated (and almost certainly likely to succeed) risk on introducing an intermediate stage - devolution max. While devolution max is running he saves Scotland the cost of: a. an independent army (while making a political point out of not having trident on Scottish land) b. the costs of printing and backing their own currency and c. the costs of setting up their own Scottish NHS - as far as I can see, the web of supply is so involved that the NHS is going to cost to disentangle. However, the NHS will probably stay cheaper at point of supply to the Scots.
More importantly, while devolution max is running (and anyone who bets against the Scots going for that as an option is throwing money away), Salmond still gets to blame Westminster for everything that goes wrong. It's an emotional argument, but one which has been shown to be terribly succesful within Scotland. Moreover, the SNP has a commitment to dissolving once independance is achieved - devolution max is obviously not independence, and therefore the SNP still maintains its ostensible reason for its power base.
So, in terms of maintaining power, Salmond most benefits from devolution max, all the while arguing that this is the best intermediate position to persuade the Scots that they are ready for independence.
However, his arguments are mostly emotional. He is not transparent on logistical and financial details. He is good at persuading people that he has 'everything worked out'. I suspect that tide-swell of emotionalism that he is currently fishing in will overwhelm even him; at some point (probably at a very anti-English point in Scotland), the cries for Independence will be great enough to make that inevitable.
c. the costs of setting up their own Scottish NHS - as far as I can see, the web of supply is so involved that the NHS is going to cost to disentangle. However, the NHS will probably stay cheaper at point of supply to the Scots.
On this you are factually wrong: the Scottish NHS is already independent of the English system, and always had been.
I ticked "English" because I have a British passport and my father is from England, and also "not from the UK" because I was born, grew up, and still live in Germany.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:33 pm (UTC)There's a part of me that would be sad too, seeing as I'm a complete British mongrel, to have part of that split away. But if it's what a majority of people want and *they* see great benefits in it I'm not sure my concerns should outweigh that.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:41 pm (UTC)That's about a border-free zone rather than independence. The UK currently has one of these with the Republic of Ireland (and of course there's the Schengen area on the Continent).
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:48 pm (UTC)And of course, Scotland shares my political views more than England (if countries can be said to have political views at all) so independance would probably make English governments more right wing and ikky. Err, that comes dangerously close to saying 'I want to stuff ballot boxes in a non-democratic way so I get the government I like' though, which I don't really believe in.
Against that, I kind of believe that if a country overwhelmingly wants to be their own country, and not a bit of our country, they probably ought to be allowed. Independent Scotland and England in a more powerful EU could be OK...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:55 pm (UTC)Then there's the topic you obliquely touch upon - sovereignty, and whence it derives. Is it devolution to bestow powers, from the sovereign queen-in-parliament, or is it the sovereign Scots people reacquiring their previous powers that they handed upwards in the Act of Union? We have two, competing, theories within the one legal state...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:28 pm (UTC)Does anyone feel smug about the minimum wage? I mean, I know people who are desperately grateful for it, and I know people who are angry that it's not higher, and people who are both (I am one of those). And of course there are people who want to remove it. But I don't think I've heard anyone express smugness about it.
I hope that your perspective doesn't mean that you think the UK minimum wage should go. Removing it would not help to gain a global minimum wage (which I totally agree we desperately need). I think that the UK has a huge responsibility (and power) to create a more equal society globally, but it's the richer, not the poorer members of the UK who should be making the sacrifices to achieve this. Also, inequality within the UK is at appalling levels, and should be massively decreased, not increased.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 06:21 pm (UTC)The far-off-pipe-dream of a one-world state would be another layer on the top of all this pie.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 08:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:58 pm (UTC)Also, I would like to declare a Machiavellian interest: without pro-EU Scotland to hinder us, we can leave the EU. (-8
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 06:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 12:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:20 pm (UTC)Based on the time I spent in Scotland (2001 to 2005), and following the news since then, I think that Scotland generally has more sensible politics than England. Although there is some degree of subsidy of the smaller, poorer country, this is much less important than it was due to Scotland having oil and a somewhat functioning economy (see: more sensible politics). I think Scotland could survive as a member of the EU, and not the poorest or least stable by any means. If I'm right about that, the main reason against independence is all but faded away. Hence, I think it's likely.
I think there might be some negative consequences for a devolved England, such as a higher chance of a true majority Conservative government, and less reason to argue against some of our more regressive policies (university tuition fees, making people pay for personal care etc) on the basis that it's not fair if Scottish people, who are part of the same country, get a much better deal. I don't think that in itself is a reason to keep the Union together, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:37 pm (UTC)What military conquest? The English army had left, before the restoration, at the end of the Commonwealth.
The Scottish government and parliament entered into a negotiated, legal, union, expressed in and governed by, the founding Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707. It probably wasn't a union favoured by the Scottish populace as a whole, and it was probably negotiated for primarily economic advantage to the ruling and merchant classes.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:21 pm (UTC)I'd like there to be some very nice close connection if it did gain independence.
I could never live in Scotland as I'm too sensitive to cold. If Wales ever gains independence, I might be encouraging
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 02:25 pm (UTC)Is that enough?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:47 pm (UTC)Yorkshire declaring UDI would be a political no-no, by the way. Too many people like Philip Davies round here who think "wogs begin at Todmorden" for King Arthur to return and reign from his resting place just outside Barnsley.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 07:39 pm (UTC)Salmond is a gradualist. He's taken a calculated (and almost certainly likely to succeed) risk on introducing an intermediate stage - devolution max. While devolution max is running he saves Scotland the cost of: a. an independent army (while making a political point out of not having trident on Scottish land) b. the costs of printing and backing their own currency and c. the costs of setting up their own Scottish NHS - as far as I can see, the web of supply is so involved that the NHS is going to cost to disentangle. However, the NHS will probably stay cheaper at point of supply to the Scots.
More importantly, while devolution max is running (and anyone who bets against the Scots going for that as an option is throwing money away), Salmond still gets to blame Westminster for everything that goes wrong. It's an emotional argument, but one which has been shown to be terribly succesful within Scotland. Moreover, the SNP has a commitment to dissolving once independance is achieved - devolution max is obviously not independence, and therefore the SNP still maintains its ostensible reason for its power base.
So, in terms of maintaining power, Salmond most benefits from devolution max, all the while arguing that this is the best intermediate position to persuade the Scots that they are ready for independence.
However, his arguments are mostly emotional. He is not transparent on logistical and financial details. He is good at persuading people that he has 'everything worked out'. I suspect that tide-swell of emotionalism that he is currently fishing in will overwhelm even him; at some point (probably at a very anti-English point in Scotland), the cries for Independence will be great enough to make that inevitable.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 09:02 pm (UTC)On this you are factually wrong: the Scottish NHS is already independent of the English system, and always had been.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-28 02:56 pm (UTC)