22 thoughts on “Scottish Independence”

  1. On the flip side, it means Scotland will likely not elect a Conservative majority government in the next 100 years.

      1. Maybe we should think of it as an A/B test! As for a backstop, I think they intend to make off with the North Sea oil and gas, which could pay for a lot of socialist nonsense. Could make for a severe case of Dutch Disease.

        2. Under existing international law, they should only get part of the oil.

          Besides, there have been some mutterings from the Scottish islands about declaring independence from Scotland, so they get most of the Scottish oil and all become millionaires overnight. Would be entertaining to see the new Scottish government explain why they can’t have an independence vote.

      2. I wouldn’t bet on it. The current line from the nationalists is that London would “punish” them for partitioning Great Britain. So the economic catastrophe we’re staring in the face won’t be their fault. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they know perfectly well that, as Edward says below, international law would deny them half of the oil, but that they don’t care: when their spending plans fail to add up, they can blame the English for “stealing” “their” oil. The drones will lap it up. And that will do.

        Because what the unionist parties have completely failed to appreciate is that these people are nationalists. They thought they were simply seperatists or secessionists. They thought real nationalism died in the 1940s. And the nationalists themselves like to claim that this is a new, friendly, “civic” kind. But for all the sober suits and (so far, relatively) competent administration, this referendum campaign has shown them to be the genuine article: the biggest tool in their toolbox is the whipping up of resentment against The Other. (That The Other isn’t really The Other at all – I’m as Anglo-Saxon as they come – is neither here nor there. If there’s no Nation, they’ll invent one.)

        Given that they’re still blaming the Thatcher government for their woes, that gives them at least another generation of free disaster.

    2. Scotland wasn’t going to do that anyway. List of Political Parties in Scotland, with counts of each party’s seats in the Scottish Parliament, British Parliament, and EUP.

      15 of 128 seats in Scotland are right-of-center, and in the British Parliament, only 1 out of 59 Scottish members is right-of-center.

      Amusingly, Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, said that is Scotland goes independent then England will put up border checkpoints and require a passport to enter. (Daily Mail link).

      That’ll put a crimp in the morning commute, but his logic is sound. If Scotland goes with the EU then, due to rules banning travel restrictions within the EU, Scotland could fill up with unlimited numbers of immigrants who aren’t allowed into the UK.

      1. Scotland wasn’t going to do that, but as part of the UK as a whole it might still see Conservative majority governments.

  2. Scottish independence could be a severe blow to the UK’s nuclear defense capabilities. Apparently the only harbor capable of servicing the UK’s nuclear subs is in Scotland. From what I’ve read, an independent socialist Scotland would very likely demand the UK remove nuclear capable weapons and subs much sooner than the UK would be able to finance and build alternate harbors to the south. The United States could conceivably help the UK with using our harbors to cover the gap, but does anyone expect Obama or another Dem president would help in this manner as they would be thrilled to see the UK lose nuclear capability.

    1. There’s no law of physics that requires a Trident missile to be launched from a submarine. Britain could retire the boats and put the missiles in silos, or on off-shore platforms, if need be. Assuming the need for an independent nuclear deterrent still exists in the modern world.

      Would the lack of an SSBN fleet leave Britain more vulnerable to a first strike? Theoretically, perhaps, but if anyone launches a nuclear strike on Great Britain, the result is almost certainly going to be world war, which would include the United States. Any potential enemy has to know that.

      1. Any potential enemies know that a nuclear strike on Great Britain would at most result in several Obama speeches featuring the words “I”, “me”, and “my”. He would reassure us that he’s as outraged as we are, that such nuclear strikes have no place in the 21st century, and that the future belongs to those who build, not those who destroy. Then he would then pledge that America would do everything in its power to help provide aid for the victims of the senseless tragedy, track down those responsible, and then tell a story about the time he met the Queen.

      2. Would the lack of an SSBN fleet leave Britain more vulnerable to a first strike? Theoretically, perhaps, but if anyone launches a nuclear strike on Great Britain, the result is almost certainly going to be world war, which would include the United States. Any potential enemy has to know that.

        Absolutely, yes it would leave Britain more vulnerable to a first strike. To elaborate on George’s point above, Obama won’t be the last politician in the White House who is all hat and no cattle. Just save the first strike for when an Obama is in office rather than a Reagan.

        Also consider the geopolitical significance here. If UK ceases to be an independent nuclear power, then that both strengthens the EU and provides more incentive to make the EU a nuclear power. Personally, I think there’s going to be considerable proliferation of nuclear weapons over the next fifty years, driven by China’s rise to superpower status (and perhaps earlier by a bit of Russian beligerence) with reactionary nuclear weapon stockpiles built by the EU, Japan, and India. But it might not be wise to hasten that process.

        1. As I said, there is no law of physics that says a nuclear deterrent requires submarines. Britain could take its existing Trident missiles and deploy them in some alternative basing mode — at considerable financial savings, which could be used to build up conventional military capabilities that are more likely to be needed. You don’t think Trident has to be launched from underwater, do you?

    2. I agree with Edward above, but I also want to give some credit to Obama on this. Among his many pandering lies, I think Obama would happily and quietly support the remainder of the UK if necessary. If for no other reason (I think there are many other good ones), then there is the current issue of him trying to build a coalition against ISIS.

      1. Any other nuclear powered vehicle can stay at sea longer than a submarine – the limiting factor would remain food and stores, and a surface ship has more room for both.

    4. The Vangard SSBN’s were built in England (Barrow-in-Furness), I’d be surprised if they couldn’t be based and maintained at an English port.

  3. For you Monty Python fans, I want to know if Andy Murray was the first person from Scotland to win at Wimbledon?

    1. Pretty sure that was Colin ‘Bomber’ Harris. IIRC he defeated Colin ‘Bomber’ Harris in a very close match.

  4. If there is a Yes vote on September 18, I for one will mourn, for it will mean that something that was once grand and wonderful will have passed out of the world. Within 20 years, 30 at the most, the UK rump south of the new border will have become a de facto Islamic state, and that will certainly finish the job. Given the current state of much of Islam, that will mean the end of all joy, creativity, and freedom. Hopefully the Brits can make one last major technological contribution, the Skylon Spaceplane, before night closes down on them

    1. With or without Union, that would happen; in fact there’s an argument to be made that Scotland’s socialism and political correctness are preventing the UK from stopping it.

Comments are closed.