Scottish Independence: Where Do You Stand?

Maybe it's my American ignorance talking, but I personally don't see what the big deal is. I say if they want to break away from the U.K. that's their choice to make. I guess I never thought about why Scotland wasn't really it's own independent country in the first place (same goes for Northern Ireland being a part of the U.K.). I just wish the six Californias thing would have made it onto the ballot, that would have been fun to watch state side.

Monetary union without fiscal union has been working out so wonderfully lately.

Bad for both parties in the short term. Lloyds and RBS are planning on moving their headquarters if the Yes campaign wins.

Long term still unsure. I guess it really is up to the success of the leaders.

I've been watching Outlander which makes me somewhat of an expert on the subject. In three Seasons time the Scots will lose yet another Jacobite uprising unless a nurse from the future can change the course of history (or has she already?), with a British victory an almost foregone conclusion there are only downsides in dissolving the fiscal union, chief among them the same crisis the Eurozone faced.

I think the Scots should all buy puts on GBP, vote for independence, and walk away richer than the English for the first time in 1000+ years.

Other than for national pride, I don't know why Scotland would want this economically. I'm not following it too closely but from what I remember reading they're not getting the North Sea oil (at least not in whole, maybe it's proportionally to population?) so they're going to lose the economic support of the relatively richer south. Seems like a somewhat stupid idea.

This is the definition of unintended/unforeseen consequences. I can't see this ending well for the Scots.

As far as I know, Scots won already. Even if the "NO" wins, England will transfer competences to Scotland, without leaving the GBP. That is the true intention of Scottish nationalist.

Eager to see how a "YES" victory would affect to other countries with same nationalist problems such as Spain or Belgium...

I find it very disheartening, the tunnel vision of freedom is really a win, win political move by Mr Salmond. If they vote 'Yes' he gets more power, now if they vote 'No' he gets more power.

I called it from day one - this is about a politician's ego and his willingness to exploit the Scots hatred for the English. Alex Salmond just wants to be William Wallace. 16 year olds have been allowed to vote in the referendum (when they can't vote in the general elections) as they are more likely to vote with their hearts rather than their head. I mean, what 16 year old has a grasp on the long term economic and social effects of such a referendum?

Their economic argument is full of holes: from their tax revenue from the North Sea oil, to the currency union issues.

1. They are already getting an increased portion of the tax revenue to account for the fact that most of the North Sea oil is in 'Scottish' waters. (Barnett formula). This is how they fund their rather more generous welfare state and entitlements.
2. Its deeply ironic that they are voting to leave a currency union, only for the freedom to start negotiating the rights to return to the same currency union. It's madness.
3. They will have voted for a more prosperous economy, only to discover the savings will fly south of the board, just behind their biggest and best industries relocating to the UK.

Being English, I was initially hoping for a 'No' vote since we are indeed stronger together. If this campaign has highlighted anything, it is that the Scots are already getting a pretty good deal. I am in favour of more localised government, but as this has progressed, with calls for devo max if the Scots stay, I am not sure I even want them to stay. The residents of England, Wales and Northern Ireland need to hold a referendum with the question: 'Should Scotland be a part of the UK?', and send them on their way.

EU: The Spanish will never let them join the EU (Catalonia issue) and the point has been made clearly, even by Barosso, as unanimous vote is necessary for accession - so they are out the EU.

£:They have been told they can't have the £, reaction, we won't take on our share of the debt. Could just be me but I wouldn't want my first move as a sovereign state to be an effective default on national debt. Also, trying to set up a free floating totally new currency in the midst of major reform would just be a shit show.

Oil: No one knows quite how much is left but the amount aside unlike the ring fencing the Norwegians did to fund Norges investment Fund the Scottish will either have to service debt (bar the above) or use virtually all the funds to be able to keep their free higher education and astronomical benefits package - which incidentally is the thing they were trying to protect in the first place.

Military: A huge source of Scottish revenue is MOD related revenue especially from Trident, that will be relocated to either Plymouth/ Portsmouth/ a whole new build.

Agree with above poster, this is about Salmond's ego, historical cleavage and spineless rhetoric.

My view (English). Let them go, for the lulz. But everyone who votes YES has to be registered, and when in a decade their state has failed totally, we rebuild Hadrian's wall and they have to stay up there. The NO voters can come down.

I'd be interested in hearing good arguments on the pro side. The ramifications of this going to such a close vote are terrible as it is, but a 'yes' is a loss for just about everybody.

All these separatist movements in Europe are retarded (no offense intended to mentally delayed people). What in the world are Catalonia, Scotland, Basque Country, Corsica, Brittany, the Flemish or Scotland going to do on their own? These aren't viable countries. They are too big to be like Monaco, Luxemburg or Lichtenstein yet too small to be of any relevance on an international scale.

Modern European states are no less artificial than the would-be breakaways. Next thing you know, we'll be back to city-states (at least I live in a big one).

As part of a former English colony, I am pro-secession.

I agree that a 'Yes' vote is a loss for pretty much everybody. But a 'No' vote (and consequent changes to governance vs. how it's been before the referendum) is an even bigger loss for the rest of the UK. Our politicians are lining up to give Scotland concessions like a bigger share of the public spending budget to fund Scotland's already bloated welfare spending. This is sure to piss people off south of the border eventually. In the end, I guess we are certain to have a divided Scotland, divided United Kingdom no matter what happens on Thursday.

Scotland as an independent nation, I think, would have a better shot at success in the long run if they cut spending and adopted laissez faire methods. Whether it is through North Sea oil or by establishing a manufacturing base in the north of the island, they could prosper. Independence will help them change policy more radically, but alas, that is not what the people of Scotland want. They have voted overwhelmingly for Labour in the last 50 yrs and I see no evidence to suggest they will ditch their socialist ways.

Finally, @superandy241 - If I may correct you, "former British colony". There hasn't been one without the other for the last 300 years.

Wait, I thought this was already settled by William Wallace?

I'm on the who gives a shit side.