Scotland Votes Of Independence After 307years Union With United Kingdom

 

Researched by : Jide Adesina

Scots vote on September 18 to decide whether they want their country to remain part of the United Kingdom.

In 2014 the Scottish Cabinet travelled the length and breadth of the country hosting public discussions, to give members of Scotland’s communities the opportunity to quiz ministers about independence.

 

 

 

 

Scotland has been part of the union for 307 years. Prior to this the Kingdom of Scotland was a sovereign state for more than 800 years.

There was a referendum on Scottish devolution in 1979, but a narrow majority in favour was not enough to pass a threshold for change to be enacted.

A second vote in 1997 led to the Scotland Act in 1998, which established a devolved Scottish parliament in May 1999.

The latest push for independence gained momentum when the Scottish National Party (SNP) secured an overall majority in Scottish parliamentary elections in May 2011.

What are the Scots voting on?

People living in Scotland will vote on the proposition: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

If they vote Yes it will be the start of complex political and financial negotiations to exit the United Kingdom.

If they vote No the situation remains as it is.

Key issues in the debate include the economy, health care, energy, pensions, immigration, EU membership, defence and broadcasting.

The case for independence

Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, sees the vote as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to “build a more prosperous and fairer Scotland” by breaking political links to Britain and creating a new Scottish constitution.

North Sea oil revenue is a key issue. A Yes vote could see Scotland potentially gain control of up to 90 per cent of North Sea oil which is in Scottish territorial waters.

Mr Salmond’s SNP would also like to see the removal of nuclear missiles from Scottish soil. Trident nuclear missiles are currently on Royal Navy submarines based at the Clyde naval base at Faslane, west of Glasgow.

The SNP is also proposing a defence force that would not be involved in contentious conflicts like the Iraq war. However, it wants an independent Scotland to join NATO, the United Nations and the European Union.

 

The SNP labels the UK as “one of the most unequal societies in the world”.

Mr Salmond says controversial welfare reforms brought in by the coalition government in London should be reversed, and the minimum wage should be raised. The SNP also wants to boost the aged pension from 2016.

He also sees independence as a chance to protect the National Health Service (NHS), accusing the “Westminster elite” of trying to privatise the NHS, cutting services and funding.

Mr Salmond hopes independence will curtail the exodus of Scots from the nation – 70,000 are leaving each year, more than half of them aged 16 to 34.

The SNP leader has recently been invoking “the spirit of Robert the Bruce” – the Scottish king who inflicted a bloody defeat on Edward II’s English army at the Battle of Bannockburn, near Stirling, in 1314.

The case for the union

Alistair Darling, a former Labour chancellor of the exchequer, is the leader of the Better Together campaign – a coalition of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat figures who want Scots to vote No to independence.

Mr Darling says Scotland’s parliament already has real decision-making powers as part of a strong and secure United Kingdom.

He says in 2008 the UK played a key role in stopping Scotland’s banks from collapsing and minimising the impact on Scottish taxpayers, unlike what happened in Ireland and Iceland.

Mr Darling also believes it is unwise for Scotland to turn its biggest market – England – into its biggest economic competitor.

He says separation will create new areas of uncertainty, instability and division and the choice will be irrevocable.

She says the consensus among financial experts is that an independent Scotland would be worse off, with less money to spend on areas like schools and hospitals.

Ms Lamont says if the Yes vote succeeds, Scotland could face a deficit of about 5 per cent of GDP in 2016-17, larger than that of the UK as a whole, requiring tax rises or spending cuts in response.

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie says: “Harking back to a very different world fails to address the needs of a modern forward-looking nation. Partnership, not past divisions, is something that people in Scotland want.”

Former British prime minister Gordon Brown, who is a Scot, says pensions, free health care and access to the BBC are some of the benefits Scotland derives from being part of the UK.

He says through a “pensions partnership” Scotland receives and extra 425 million pounds ($757 million) a year – more than its population would normally be allocated.

Mr Brown says 600,000 Scottish jobs also depend on British companies or exports.

He says Scots also benefit from lower interest rates and “social and cultural connection”, because half of Scots have close relatives in the rest of the UK.

Would an independent Scotland keep the Queen, the pound?

The SNP’s blueprint for an independent Scotland suggests the country would remain a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state.

However, several Scottish government ministers have cast doubt on this.

The chairman of the Yes Scotland campaign, Dennis Canavan, says a second referendum should be held to decide who would be head of state for an independent Scotland.

Mr Canavan favours an elected head of state and says Prince George should never become king of Scotland.

The future of the pound in Scotland is also unclear if the Yes vote succeeds.

The Scottish government says the pound would remain Scotland’s currency because it is in everyone’s interests to share the currency and retain the role of the Bank of England.

However, the UK government has ruled out a currency union with an independent Scotland.

The UK government says it would only be possible if an independent Scotland agreed to constraints on economic policy.

It also says experience with the euro demonstrates that currency unions can be difficult to maintain.

Are there implications for Australia?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared supporters of Scottish independence are not “friends of freedom” or “friends of justice”.

His remarks were the strongest yet by a foreign leader on the independence debate, and drew the ire of Mr Salmond’s office, which said Mr Abbott had “put his foot in it”.

Associate Professor Iain Stewart from Macquarie University says if the Yes vote prevails in Scotland, it could seriously affect Australia.

“It could remove our head of state, the monarch, and thus, at least legally, make government in Australia impossible,” he said.

“We need to think ahead. We may need to move to a republic and soon.”

Professor Stewart says if Scotland regains its independence, a revival of the Scottish monarchy appears a likely option, with Queen Elizabeth installed as Scotland’s head of state.

This could fix an issue in Scotland, but create a serious one in Australia.

“It appears that the former throne of Scotland would be revived and [Queen] Elizabeth would be invited to accept it,” he said.

“There would then be a ‘personal union’ – a single person on both thrones – of the monarchies of Scotland and of remaining Britain, as there was for Scotland and England before the two countries united under a single throne in 1707.

“The problem for Australia is that, whatever Elizabeth or her successor may do, they would not occupy a throne of the ‘United Kingdom’, which is how Australian constitutional law defines our head of state.

“There would no longer be any sovereignty of the United Kingdom on which Australia could draw for its own head of state.”

But the overwhelming sense of Scotland as she stands now is how much of this debate is not in the chamber, or amongst political parties, or activists or the “usual suspects”.

The overwhelming sense I have – having been across Scotland – is how engaged in the arguments and debates so many of our fellow citizens are.

And – contrary to the wilder reports in the media – how well informed, reasonable and civilised this debate is. I am also extremely proud of that, and of our country.

But today I have taken the last opportunity to emphasise the key points in favour of independence to my parliamentary colleagues.

In essence this whole debate can be boiled down to a simple question of “who decides?”. To borrow the words of Canon Kenyon Wright as reported in the Scotsman: “Where should the final word over Scotland be – in Westminster or in Scotland?”

Take the NHS.

Of course the management of the NHS is fully devolved to Scotland. That has allowed us to avoid the privatisation and constant reorganisation of management of the NHS that UK Governments have pursued in England.

Instead the NHS in Scotland has been run in line with priorities of the people of Scotland and the needs of a nation of 5 million people.

That demonstrates the advantages of self-government. Of making decisions in Scotland for Scotland in accordance with Scottish needs and wishes.

But we do not control our resources. We hand our money to the Treasury. And it decides how much we have to fund our NHS and our other public services – we have no say.

That is why protecting the NHS as a fundamental reason for independence. So that cuts from Westminster don’t damage our NHS and instead we have the opportunity to decide for ourselves the resources we give to the NHS and other public services.

As for health so for welfare. We are currently in the ludicrous position of having to use our limited block grant to mitigate the effects of the ‘Bedroom Tax’ and other UK welfare reforms.

Who decides? The DWP. The Treasury. We are left trying repair the damage these decisions wreak in our communities.

It would clearly, unanswerably be better for us to make decisions about welfare here in Scotland in the first place and to control our resources. That would give us the opportunity to shape the welfare system we want and need.

As for welfare so for our economy.

Again it would clearly, unanswerably be better for us to have the opportunities of control of our own resources to plan and invest in our economy in line with our national priorities and strengths. Not to rely on the Secretary of State for Scotland winning a bureaucratic battle within Whitehall to secure back some of our own money.

And as for the economy so for immigration, or retaining our taxes to invest in childcare, or our representation in EU farming negotiations.

In all these areas we are currently dependent on decisions made elsewhere. With independence we will have opportunities: to reinvest in transformational childcare; to encourage talented migrants to say here and to provide opportunities for Scottish young people to remain; to argue Scotland’s case directly in Brussels.

And let’s be clear that none – not one – of the proposals for further devolution from the other parties will improve this position.

They show no ambition, no sense of the powers the people of Scotland want for us here.

They do not provide the opportunities we need to grow our economy or preserve our welfare system.

We believe in independence – that decisions about Scotland should be made in Scotland – for two simple reasons.

First, that is right and democratically proper. Second, no one is better placed to take advantage of the opportunities for our country.

We do not – and never have – claim that we will get every decision right, or that independence is a magic wand. But we have the talent, the resources, and the incentive to do a better job than anyone else.

Before the final weeks of this historic campaign, let me end on a note of consensus.

I believe that we can confidently expect three things after a vote for independence.

First, that this Parliament will come together to argue the case for the interests of Scotland. We might not agree on every detail of the best settlement for our country, but we will work together as we take this next step on our national journey.

Second, that the negotiations between Scotland, the rest of the UK – and others such as the EU – will be timely and constructive leading to two friendly and viable states.

A moment’s thought tells us that this is in the interests of all concerned. Both governments will want to help citizens and businesses across the UK navigate the path to a new constitutional future as easily as possible.

Third, that an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK will be the closest of friends and neighbours. Once the rhetoric of the campaign has faded the enduring bonds of family, history, geography and common interest will remain. As nations and individuals we will be as close as we are today.

The next time we meet in Parliament, Scotland will have taken its historic decision. When we return I am sure we will all work together for the good of our country – whatever the outcome.

And I am convinced the opportunities of independence will win the day and Scotland will be on its journey to independence.