In the past (post-Empire, pre-EU), national borders have meant a lot. Your citizenship gave you a very limited area that you could live and work in. Today, if Scotland is separate, what is the downside? Europeans have the right to live and work in Europe. Keeping the pound, things would look much as they always have for Scots. Even things like consular representation wouldn't change rapidly: Europeans can already use the embassies and consulates of other EU countries if they don't have their own representation in a country. And for all of the posturing, I think that any rump-UK government would allow and, in fact, want an independent Scotland to be as close and integrated as possible.
In some ways, it feels like the world is trying to figure itself out. In the past, empires brought lands together. If you were part of a tiny country, you could be at a distinct disadvantage. Empires broke up for many reasons into a more fractured world. Today, I think we're trying to build institutions that allow for independence while getting the benefits of trade, freedom of movement, etc. For non-Scots, the question somewhat becomes, "does it make a difference to us whether Scotland is independent or not?" If one is English and will have the right to live, work, vote, etc. in Scotland, aren't those the same privileges you have now?
And ultimately this campaign, on both sides, has (seemingly unknowingly to anyone in it) laid some of tracks of what our future might look like (worldwide). I think the Yes campaign has been a rebuke of nationalism based on race and hatred, while showing that nationalism can still be relevant when it's based on governance and values. Similarly, the No campaign has recognized the importance of democratic governments not simply imposing themselves on people and the flexibility and changing landscape of modernity. No matter how the vote goes later this month, the UK should be really proud.
Unlike other nationalist movements, the UK-Scotland situation feels so modern, regardless of the result. They're almost to that point of asking themselves what it means to be a nation, in which ways are locations important to be independent and in which ways should they be integrated, and how do we best provide for happiness and prosperity in the modern world.
If Scotland stays in the UK and the UK leaves the EU, Scotland is out as well. If Scotland becomes independent, the Spanish might block their EU membership to deter Catalan independence.
Crimea was the most interesting since it actually had the legal structure in place for a secession and if a proper referendum had been held it would actually have been a close call.
What happened was not actually a proper referendum though; even Russia's own internal sources indicated an actual turnout of only about 35% which is nowhere near enough to qualify for the legal way of seceding from Ukraine.
For Crimea, this referendum was like the real second coming of Christ for the bible belt of US of A. Would be surprised.
Here is an article of the leaked document I was referring to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/p...
The Forbes article isn't fair in that the polls indicated 55% in favor and a turnout of 30-50%, but it's to be expected that those that voted disproportionately voted in favor so the final tally of 22.5% voting in favor is probably not accurate.
It's also important to keep in mind that the current faux-referendum was not about independence but joining Russia. Independence would have gotten much more votes, also from the Tatar population.
What most people forget is that the Tatars were forcibly removed from Crimea in a mass deportation/genocide under Stalin and returned to Crimea, their original homeland, after the fall of the Soviet empire. They were understandably wary of accession to Russia, rightfully so since Russia almost immediately barred their main leader from (re-)entering Crimea, and would never have voted in favor of the referendum.
"Independence would have gotten much more votes"
I doubt this is true. Russians are not accustomised to living in tiny independent states. This is a dream of a few national theorists, to peacefully split Russia into more manageable states with local transparent government, more responsible fiscal policy - but there's not much ground under this idea.
There is no "Crimean nation" to build a successful state on.
Sadly, most off-block small states won't know what to do with their independence and will be forced to side up with some larger state sooner or later.
And tatars are a minority. A significant minority which is at risk of civil war and ethnic cleansings in the suggested independent state. Which they may eventually even win, but I think they seen enough pain already.
From what I understood Crimea was already very independent so it was already more a matter of degrees either way...
You're absolutely right though that independence would have meant becoming dependent on Russian influence in practice (which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation.)
Yes it's possible to vote for greater autonomy, but how to make sure it is granted? Crimea has already voted this greater autonomy in the 90s - and it was promptly ignored by Ukraine.
Regarding independence - why would Crimean Ukrainians vote for it? They are content being part of Ukraine. Why would Tatars vote for independence of tiny state where they will still be a minority, maybe even the persecuted minority. Much safer bet is any stable large state. Why would Russians vote for independence? They don't consider themself "Crimeans", rather they consider themself Russians.
"which is what the world expected and why everyone was so shocked by the annexation"
You see the problem right here. World expects independent puppet states to be created, because that's how it works in the modern world. But this arrangement will be harmful to actual people living in Crimea. And that's what matters here.
Also I should remind that the situation in Crimea (and the conflict in Ukraine too) is not purely ethnic; many ethnic Ukrainians are pro-Russian, and some Russians are pro-Ukraine. It's not even ideological divide, rather different views on past and future history of the place.
I'm not that sure accession was better for Crimea though, since international tourism has all but dried up and after giving it a try this year Russians will be right back in Turkey next year... but that's just debating the finer points of punditry.
I don't think Crimea had much international tourism. When I checked two years ago, Crimea didn't have single plane or train scheduled from Poland, for example. It had some connections to hubs like Frankfurt, but I doubt many non-ex-USSR people ever considered Crimea. As for Russians, they always were the bulk of visitors. In the summer, trains from Moscow to Crimea departed like every 20 minutes, and you could meet all kinds of Moscow friends on the streets. This year, a lot of railway service were disrupted, understandably. I hope it returns once. I think that mainland Ukrainians will visit Crimea too once the situation stabilizes.
a) maintaining control over as much territory as possible, given Russia's original goals [1] and the huge importance a land-bridge to Crimea has to Russia (imagine having to ship water, food and oil for 2.5mln people by sea.)
b) preventing a Georgia-style frozen conflict, which is Russia's preferred technique of destabilization lately.
It seems they have only just given up on b) but they're still working very hard on a).
Either way; I doubt there are many parallels with Scotland at this stage of the conflict.
No. The only thing they could do (and are doing) is attempt to undermine and scare everyone out of it.
- "You don't even have a currency figured out!" - "You are not getting to use the pound, no way!" - "You are not getting into the EU either, we've checked and got the big wigs in the EU to say as much, publicly, as well." - "... and there'll be no more commonwealth for you either!" - "Your north sea oil wells are drying up, you'll all be starving to death in a decade. The horror!" - "It's a big world and you'll be in it on your own. Be afraid!"
...etc.
*PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition.
By that you of course mean caricatures of real arguments with valid points.
The Yes side have sidestepped questions where they dont have answers or provided partial answers or over simplified things to make the yes decision seem like the better decision.
Anyone voting on this issue should read this book:
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...
90 page PDF explaining both sides of the biggest questions, providing the Yes and No side and then an analysis by independent experts.
Even if you are not voting it is a worthwhile read. I am not eligible to vote as i dont live in Scotland but this give me a much better understanding of the issues at hand. Personally i would like to see a Yes vote, partially because it will be interesting to see how it all pans out, but also because there is a genuine feeling in Scotland that they may be able to make a difference to the lives of residents of Scotland, who lets be fair, are usually at the bottom of the pile in terms of health, employment, life expectancy etc.
These stats may not improve in an independent Scotland, but it's clear that given our history, it's unlikely things will improve in the union and actually, I'm pretty sure the feeling is the devolved government has been doing a better job since the SNP won power.
Apparently, polls suggest those who are educated are more likely to vote yes. I guess it comes down to whether those who aren't are going to fall for the fear tactics of the "better together" campaign.
So if you are voting yes because of these issues you may want to look into them further. Of course if you just want to rationalise an emotional decision then people will assume what ever suits them I. E. London is to blame for ill health in Scotland.
Still:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26681098
It'd be nice to back that with cause and effect, but it seems it's untrue that there's been no change.
I do hope that something like Alcohol minimum pricing[1] will have a positive effect in Scotland, time will tell. However, I very much believe we'd never get legislation like that without a Scottish Government serving the interests of the Scottish people[2], something I neither believe Westminster nor devolution with Scottish arms of UK parties in power would get us.
[1] I generally don't like such legislation, I very much believe in flat tax and letting people spend it on what they want, but Scotland sadly us have a cultural problem and I think the pragmatic view is it's worth doing.
[2] This is obviously just an example. It's hard to quantify a feeling, and that's not thet point. I'm just trying to describe how I feel, which is basically the rUK parties cultrually will bend to big business in an attempt to have the best economy possible, which I don't believe reflects Scottish values, nor common sense unless you're already rich.
In Spain, where a Yes result in Catalonia seems likely, there is opposition to a referendum. In the UK the opposite is true.
One of the great confusions of separatist movements is they seem to always want to pull away from a host that needs to be seen to want them at all costs. The idea that the host may push them away or act indifferently is met with moral indignation.
If there is a legally-held and popularly-supported vote in Scotland which decides in favour of independence, it would end badly if Westminster somehow decided to declare it null and void or just pretend it didn't happen.
LDs will back the outcome of the referendum whatever happens. Labour are the only party that might attempt to ignore the referendum because Scottish independence will end their existence.
My main concern is what does this mean for the position of Wales and NI in the union? I think that it will diminish Wales as an entity, and lord alone knows how it will play in NI.
I'm English, I think England will muddle along, a bit like a sort of very militant and eccentric version of Holland. No bad thing that...
Labour would have gotten elected quite frequently discounting Scottish votes. This link has been posted further downstream by nmeofthestate but worth reposting here: http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php
Without the scottish seats, the only real difference in the last 50 years is that the current coalition would be pure-tory.
See http://theweebluebook.com/assets/images/uk-govts.png
(from http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_ele...)
What, any more than Maggie? I agree that it would be extremely unpopular in Scotland, but there's ways to spin independence referendum results for propaganda in the outside world. Claims of unclear/biased question, claims of voter eligibility "irregularities", claims of bad faith independence negotiations, etc.
If push comes to shove who's going to ostracize UK over 5 million people? U.S. wants HMNB Clyde to stay, big European countries will be afraid of UK leaving EU, and the UK doesn't listen to the rest anyhow.
If UK wants to hold onto Scotland against its will they will, but let's hope they don't.
(I favour independence if Scots wish.)
But even the UK hasn't cared about popular sentiment for independence in the past. Look at the United States, Ireland, and India. But I think the UK has changed a lot and recognizes that it can get much of the same benefits without needing to rule over places. Frankly, it's a mature attitude to notice that you can succeed without force.
And it's that maturity that's going to make this a mostly good experience regardless of the result. If Scotland becomes independent, the UK will try to make it as easy as possible so that Scottish and other British people will barely notice a change. It's best for the UK if an independent Scotland has no barriers for their people and firms. Similarly, if Scotland remains in the UK, politicians seem to recognize the desire for even more devolved powers to the Scottish Government.
Normally, countries don't recognize a piece of their land becoming independent easily. Popular sentiment and even riots often don't deter countries from asserting dominance. Heck, sometimes countries even want to take over pieces of land that are currently independent where popular sentiment is 95%+ against being taken over. Yes, the UK government is doing the pragmatic thing where "it doesn't have any other choice". But loads of other countries are faced with the same issue and they're not facing it with that sort of logical pragmatism.
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...
As an American, what I find truly fascinating is that they trust democracy with such a substantial issue. Can you imagine how things would be if we had a simple up/down vote on abortion or gay marriage or the war on terror?
Edit: One interesting part of this story is that the Union was pretty much bought - the English bailed out Scotland and the institution that was created to handle the payments eventually evolved into the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).... famous for briefly being the largest bank in the world and one of the largest casualties of the recent financial crisis, requiring a vast bailout from UK taxpayers....
I actually expect some morning radio stations in the southwest USA will declare "it's time for Azltan's independence", millions will simultaneously just refuse to comply with existing sociopolitical infrastructure, and those in authority will simply have no idea what to do about it - or may even support it, given the developing tribalism. We'd lose about half the land of at least three states in the process. Individual states not having their own armed militia, they could not stop it (the "National Guard" troops of each state can, and would, be "called out" by the central gov't as a trump move for purposes to defuse their influence). Things would get very tense, but separation would ultimately be peaceful.
Texas has long been considered to have some ill-understood legal standing to ease secession (being the only state to volunteer for annexation as a former independent country), but I don't see that actually happening. It's akin to an oft-angry spouse who frequently threatens divorce but never actually will.
In practical terms: if Labour gets into power in 2015 then Scottish independence will not happen regardless of the outcome of this referendum, because Scottish independence would eliminate Labour as a political force in the UK (Tories would win all UK elections, SNP would win all Scottish elections).
It's not over yet.
Sorry no - one way or another the people of Scotland will make the decision. Whether the government of the UK lives up to that decision is up to them, I honestly believe they would abide by what the people say.
Labour would still be able to win elections in the UK without Scotland (in fact Blair would still have been PM without Scotland), At most some policies would change, or worst case another party rises as competition.
If this would happen, I'm pretty sure some or other power-hungry fractions of the party would try to make a new party, so you'd again have two (or more) competing.
That is incorrect, all 3 parties (not individuals within the parties) gave a promise to respect the outcome of the referendum. So even if a labour govt gets in at the next General Election they will respect the decision. The dificulty will come in negotiations for the exit, that will be impacted by the format of any new government, but the decision to allow independance will not.
http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...