Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

If they said no to independence they would be internationally shunned. It is unheard of for countries in Western Europe in modern times to reject a UDI with a democratic majority for independence.

[Max White]

Perhaps one day the world could want it. I think our water supplies will become the "new oil" one day. Our Australian friends will know all about this, didn't you chaps create that wonderful desalinisation plant to cope with your drought conditions? They say that technology could be used in Africa and the Middle East. If it comes to measures like that being taken across the world, who knows how far we could take our water?

We have a few, but they are much better suited to providing industrial cooling water than drinkable tap water.
I grew up in pretty much desert conditions, and there was a desal plant for severe droughts, but it was a last hope type situation. Although this was in a developed country that expects its water to be not only clean, but tasteless too. The water was fit for human consumption.

Basically it pumps water at high pressure through a membrane that is structured on a molecular level to filter the salt out. Constructing the parts is the hard part, and can be done anywhere, then ship everything to where you need it. No special engineering qualifications required.

I'm actually a little surprised to hear these are unique to Australia, I thought all dry places would have them by now...

[10ebbor10]

If they said no to independence they would be internationally shunned. It is unheard of for countries in Western Europe in modern times to reject a UDI with a democratic majority for independence.

Primarly because it never happened before. Besides, it won't be hard to rearrange the numbers a bit. Also, they don't need to deny you your independence, they just need to give you an offer you'll reject. (Or which places you in the same place as before)

I'm actually a little surprised to hear these are unique to Australia, I thought all dry places would have them by now...

All dry places have them. Hell, several wet places have them to, and use them in reverse.

Sadly, desalinization has problems too. Coastal areas around the Middle East are faced with increased salinity due to the many plants in operation. Adding to that, they're expensive, power-hungry, and inefficient when they need to make water fit for human consumption.

[Owlbread]

You can't imagine what a rejection like that would kick up. I don't want to start talking about the Troubles but god knows. The resentment would be terrible, I think we'd just have to unilaterally declare independence. The British government is too wise to do something like that though.

The desalinisation plant that I was thinking of is some kind of a new development I saw on Al Jazeera. I can't remember much about it but it was a breakthrough of some sort.

[palsch]

Trying to think up some reasonable anti-independence arguments here. Sovereignty just seems too strong a point to be easily overruled. There are some remaining problems and difficulties though. Here's the main ones I can think of immediately;


1) It will leave England to the Tories and I will hate you all endlessly for that.

2) It makes supporting depressed regions politically harder.

Bailouts and economic support through the EU or other international structures are tricky things, especially after Greece. Right now depressed regions in the UK get invisible economic support based on public spending being independent from taxation (based rather crudely only on population distribution). If Scotland were to have a localised economic crisis then the losses would be shared across the UK, softening the impact at least.

3) Scotland will be strongly dependent on oil.

The latest estimates I've seen suggest the desired oil is worth ~£4-5,000 in per-capita GDP to Scotland. That's a huge amount to have pegged to a single economic resource, especially one with massive environmental negatives and which is generally controlled by outside nations. Scotland would be, at best, a third tier oil producer with no ability to control the prices that are manipulated for the interests of top-tier producers. Not to mention we are pretty much definitely past peak North Sea oil, so that's going to decrease each year. An independent Scotland would need to immediately use oil revenues to transfer away from an oil economy.

4) The precedent set might have some unpleasant global consequences.

This is more a question of how the EU will treat Scotland. You can expect push back from Spain (Basques and Catalans), Belgium (the Flemish), Cyprus and Greece (North Cyprus), and Slovakia and Romania (Hungarians), all of whom have concerns over independence or separatist movements. These countries haven't recognised Kosovo's independence out of fears of the precedent that might set, so showing that Scotland is a unique case would be important to getting them on side.

[Owlbread]

1) It will leave England to the Tories and I will hate you all endlessly for that.

Every time England has received a Labour government it is because enough English voted Labour for that to happen. Whether they voted just enough for the Scottish/Welsh vote to swing it or whether the English electorate really got behind the party, there was a strong mandate for Labour within England each time. It is also terribly undemocratic for a country of 5 million to decide the governance of a country of 60 million.

2) It makes supporting depressed regions politically harder.

This was an interesting point of discussion. From what I've seen despite the support our depressed regions are getting from through the Barnett formula, there hasn't been much of an impact. There's still far, far too much social deprevation in this country and I suspect at least part of it may be down to certain Labour figures putting their feet up on their provincial-governor's desk, not having to think of anything radical because it's a wider UK issue.

3) Scotland will be strongly dependent on oil.

The latest estimates I've seen suggest the desired oil is worth ~£4-5,000 in per-capita GDP to Scotland. That's a huge amount to have pegged to a single economic resource, especially one with massive environmental negatives and which is generally controlled by outside nations. Scotland would be, at best, a third tier oil producer with no ability to control the prices that are manipulated for the interests of top-tier producers. Not to mention we are pretty much definitely past peak North Sea oil, so that's going to decrease each year. An independent Scotland would need to immediately use oil revenues to transfer away from an oil economy.

We are currently doing our very best to move away from an oil-focussed economy even within the UK, and the SNP are planning on doing exactly as you say. That is why we've pursued renewable energy with such gusto. Numerous articles and documents have been published in the last month by the SNP claiming, in their own words, that "Scotland doesn't need oil". I would recommend having a hunt for them.

4) The precedent set might have some unpleasant global consequences.

This is more a question of how the EU will treat Scotland. You can expect push back from Spain (Basques and Catalans), Belgium (the Flemish), Cyprus and Greece (North Cyprus), and Slovakia and Romania (Hungarians), all of whom have concerns over independence or separatist movements. These countries haven't recognised Kosovo's independence out of fears of the precedent that might set, so showing that Scotland is a unique case would be important to getting them on side.

This is one that I agree with, but I don't see it as unpleasant. I see it as very pleasant indeed. These are all countries that should be independent in my opinion. Also, if the UK and Scotland have an amicable divorce, how do countries like Spain and Belgium justify blocking our independence? What do they expect us to do? Just rejoin the UK with our tails between our legs? It would destabilise us (and Europe) terribly for the sake of domestic fears and only galvanise support for separatism in their territories.

[Loud Whispers]

I am sure relations between our states would be very good in the event of a break-up.

This part is uncertain. The news would have a great deal of control on this, alongside reverberated social medias. Any one reaction could be hyped up and held. Already pretty much everyone on this island hates everyone on this island, but it's always been quite light hearted.

In any case, I'm torn on the issue. I don't want to see Scotland leave the union as the very act would, of course, sever the union. If the Scottish want to leave, then there's no point in keeping a painful union alive. I am a bit curious as to how this will affect the armed forces though, as this could be pretty damaging to the ability for the UK to protect its overseas territories.

[Owlbread]

I honestly can't comment too much on the future of the UK post independence. The thing is though, the UK already can't really protect its overseas territories with the focus our government has put on the army rather than the Navy.

[palsch]

Point 1 was mostly a joke.

This was an interesting point of discussion. From what I've seen despite the support our depressed regions are getting from through the Barnett formula, there hasn't been much of an impact. There's still far, far too much social deprevation in this country and I suspect at least part of it may be down to certain Labour figures putting their feet up on their provincial-governor's desk, not having to think of anything radical because it's a wider UK issue.

That's both a strength and weakness of the Barnett formula. It in no way takes need into account, just an approximation of relative population weighted towards devolved regions. Its a way to completely avoid making such regional variance political. This means when the needs of a region outweigh its population weighting you are going to fall short. At the same time it means that regions where productivity is low aren't going to fall as short as they might so long as the entire union isn't doing badly as well.

It's more a concern I have regarding the EU, as they would be the natural body to offer such support but I don't see that as likely post-Greece. Any redundancy in economic support systems is a good thing in my book, and separation will lose a layer between England (or rUK) and Scotland.

We are currently doing our very best to move away from an oil-focussed economy even within the UK, and the SNP are planning on doing exactly as you say. That is why we've pursued renewable energy with such gusto. Numerous articles and documents have been published in the last month by the SNP claiming, in their own words, that "Scotland doesn't need oil". I would recommend having a hunt for them.

I'll admit this is about a year old now, but I did dig into some numbers on this before and the SNP's proposals were all heavily based on maintaining the current oil revenue levels into the medium term, with losses moving into renewable benefits. I frankly don't think that adds up, economically or environmentally. You aren't likely to get a 1:1 replacement with renewable or other energy, which they seemed to suggest. Especially when you get into NIMBY fights.

The closest analysis along those lines I've seen suggests Scotland could become a net energy producer, selling power to England, based on rapidly developing the fantastic hydro and nuclear power sites there are around the country. Except that neither of those are likely to happen under the SNP or any other populist party. A more cynical projection, based on strong push back against many forms of renewables and oil dropping off quickly, would see Scotland being a net energy importer, as the UK is now.

This is an area where I'm extremely cynical, given I haven't seen a single British party (English or Scottish) with an honest or workable energy plan in the last decade or so. I'll try to read through the new SNP proposals but frankly my expectation is that they are just more bullshit.

This is one that I agree with, but I don't see it as unpleasant. I see it as very pleasant indeed. These are all countries that should be independent in my opinion. Also, if the UK and Scotland have an amicable divorce, how do countries like Spain and Belgium justify blocking our independence? What do they expect us to do? Just rejoin the UK with our tails between our legs? It would destabilise us (and Europe) terribly for the sake of domestic fears and only galvanise support for separatism in their territories.

It makes EU membership for an independent Scotland harder, weakening their entry debate position. If Scotland wanted to maintain any current UK benefits (especially the opt-outs) then having a block of countries opposed to your very existence is a pretty bad place to start from.

And arguably their fears would be less about Scotland becoming independent through a peaceful and democratic process and more about Scotland becoming independent and successful. You may well end up with a block of nations who want to see Scotland fail or at least end up weaker than they were as part of the UK to avoid setting a positive example to their own independent regions.

[Loud Whispers]

I honestly can't comment too much on the future of the UK post independence. The thing is though, the UK already can't really protect its overseas territories with the focus our government has put on the army rather than the Navy.

The focus has been on the army because of the degradation of the expeditionary force, within this decade we could be seeing the two largest ships ever created by the Royal Navy and the astute class submarines have been sailing since 2011, it looks functional for the first time since the harriers were scrapped. The UK can as of now, but Scotland's independence could change that. What immediately comes to mind is the loss of a quarter or so of naval bases, but then there are also things about the loss of specialist recruits and training centers alongside production facilities. Moreso when the modern ships of the fleet are not built in one shipyard and the modern aircraft aren't even built in one country. An easy example would be the Queen Elizabeth which is currently in Rosyth shipyard in Scotland.

[10ebbor10]

Ahum. Belgium recognized Kosovo a week after it's declaration of independence.

Also, the situation in Belgium and the UK aren't really comparable. Primarly, because Flanders is the politically and economically dominant region in Belgium, rather than being the suppressed partner, like the Scotland-UK thingy. We also have the made-up country going around, a history of suppression by pretty much every power in Europe, and most importantly, linguistical problems. The latter is the driving force between all this separatists stuff, seeing as Belgium used to be a monolingual French nation till 1960.

Then again, I don't see Belgium splitting up in the near future, and I don't see them opposing the split either. Spain might though.

EU opposition to a possible split will most likely be a result of fears for destabilization in the region, if UK-Scotland relations turn out to be bad.

[palsch]

Oops. Serves me right for treating written Parliamentary testimony as reliable. Yeah, it's just the other five who haven't recognised Kosovo within the EU. Should have thought for more than two seconds before copying that list.

Even so I think the rest of his analysis is reasonable.

[ChairmanPoo]

I've never been an independentist. I'm not one now either, as I don't think the problems we have lie in the state we are inside as a whole as much as in the status quo that is dominant in the western world as a whole. But I'm aghast at the people who would consider military action if the majority of a region's population decided to secede. Are you seriously saying that you'd rather have Chechenya mark II within your own borders than an independent state without?

[Morrigi]

The United Kingdom would be a bit less united if it did fall through... Might need a name change 

[Owlbread]

I think the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is sufficient. Unless Cornwall gain devolved status in which case it would be the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the UK.

Of course if it lost the extra provinces then it would just be the Kingdom of England, as it always should have been. Unless George Galloway somehow turns the country Republican, but that's like turning Texas Democrat.