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.
There were restrictions on Scots ships & merchants trading with England & English colonies.
It was mainly access to the American & Caribbean colonies that the merchant classes wanted - and the subsequent economic boom in Glasgow & Greenock thanks to tobacco and sugar imports, respectively, from the colonies shows why they were so keen on union.
And, at according to the slant presented by The Isles, those restrictions were as much a conscious attempt to harm Scottish interests as an attempt to protect English ones. Though that, in turn, was complicated by Scotland's actions pissing off the Spanish, whom England wanted to remain friends with while England was at war with France, and…
I'm a bit wary about predictions of Conservative gains from subtracting the Scottish constituencies; it assumes that everyone in England/Wales/NI continues to vote (or not) as they would have done anyway, which isn't necessarily the case. The perception, accurate or otherwise, of improved conditions for the Conservatives might have unpredictable impacts on the get-the-vote-out operations of all parties, for instance, or perhaps the balance of support between LD and Labour might be affected.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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)
Date: 2011-10-27 02:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 02:40 pm (UTC)The parallels with the present financial crises - liquidity/solvency - are interesting.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 02:46 pm (UTC)It was mainly access to the American & Caribbean colonies that the merchant classes wanted - and the subsequent economic boom in Glasgow & Greenock thanks to tobacco and sugar imports, respectively, from the colonies shows why they were so keen on union.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 02:52 pm (UTC)Plus ça change, basically.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-10-27 01:37 pm (UTC)