As an American, I find the idea that Scotland forming its own country a bit baffling. It seems to have come from nowhere, but that could just be my ignorance of British politics. Yet, there has been a legitimate poll released that put the "Yes Scotland" group ahead of the "Better Together" group. Perhaps some of my British friends can weigh in on this for me. Will Scotland really become its own country?

Good question trident, really it is still too close to call. Going way back in history England and Scotland were two separate countries. They each had their own monarch, and there were various skirmishes and wars between the two. After the death of Elizabeth I in 1603 James VI of Scotland also became James I of England. From then on we shared the same Monarch and in 1707 the first Act of Union was passed which brought about Great Britain, one country, one Monarch, one parliament, one currency.

At various times since then there have been calls for "Home Rule for Scotland", in much the same way that there were calls for "Home Rule for Ireland". Ireland ended up with the Republic of Ireland, or southern Ireland, as a country in it's own right while Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom. Scotland however has remained firmly part of Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) and the United Kingdom (Great Britain but including Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man).

In the 1970s the Scottish National Party, which was formed in the 1930s with the idea of forming an independent Scotland, really started agitating for independence. This was finally agreed by a form of devolution which gave Scotland a parliament of it's own, and certain powers to raise taxes, spend tax money in a different way to the rest of the country (for example, Scots do not pay for any prescription medicine, in England we do). Wales was also given a form of devolution with their own Assembly and elected members, but they have lesser powers than the Scottish Parliament.

Despite Scotland having this Parliament with purely Scottish members Scotland still elects members to the main parliament in London, as does Wales, which has given rise to some resentment in England at various times.

Over the last few years the SNP have campaigned rigorously on a home rule ballot, and at the last election they won a majority in the Scottish Parliament and immediately announced they would be holding an independence referendum, which happens in a few days time. The poll today is the first one that shows the Yes party ahead.

In many ways the referendum could be seen as unfair, as whatever happens will affect all of us, not just Scotland, yet only Scotland gets to vote. If central Government are perceived as "buying" a no vote with promises of more money, greater devolved powers etc. then that will cause resentment in England as Scotland is already heavily subsidised. If however they go it alone Scotland will have control of the offshore oil and gas fields and the revenue that flows from them.

It is a really complicated issue. Scotland say they want the Queen to stay as Head of State as they will remain in the Commonwealth and they want to carry on using the pound. However England have said they cannot have the pound if they go it alone. Will they remain in the EU and adopt the Euro perhaps? Will Europe even want a new small nation as a member.

Hope this helps you. I have deliberately tried to give both sides here as I don't want to start a political debate that will get shut down. I've tried to give an understanding of the situation for those not in the UK who may be a bit baffled by the whole thing.

This article gives some idea, from a Scottish point of view, of the background to the rise of Scottish nationalism over the past forty years or so. It may seem somewhat subjective, but I think it helps to explain the increasing appeal of independence for many Scots.

[Edited to correct typos]

Thanks for the info. It all still seems pretty confounding to me. I don't really have any vested interest either way, but it is certainly interesting to observe from afar.

Another question, what might some of the consequences/after-effects of independence? Seems like a pretty significant decision.

One fairly immediate consequence will be that it will become almost impossible for the Labour Party to win a General Election. Scotland will no longer send MPs to Parliament, and most MPs from the Scottish seats are Labour. One possible way to redress the balance would be re-drawing constituency boundaries, which would mean a Boundaries Commission, and it would probably take them two or three years to come up with a completely revised map of seats in the rest of the UK. Then it would have to be accepted by all parties and voted through Parliament, and as far as the Tory party are concerned that would be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

A second worrying effect is that our nuclear submarines are based in Scotland, who have already said that if it is a "yes" vote they will no longer provide a base for them, so another will have to be found. Deep water safe submarine berthing is not that plentiful and no-one will really want nuclear vessels and missiles on their doorstep. Most of our naval ports are adjacent to big town and city areas. Remote areas are not that easy to find.

We are due to have a General Election next year. Things could get interesting.

To be honest I can't see a positive side for Scotland, just negatives. Some large employers are basically in Scotland to provide employment, two for instance are the Department of Works & Pensions and National Savings, these would both have to pull out since they are for the UK and there is no way either of them should be based in a 'foreign' country, then what about the national debt, presumably that has to be apportioned so Scotland will start of with a massive debt.

Currency has been mentioned. The British taxpayers have bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland which also owns NatWest, what the heck happens there?

If they do not join the EU then work permits will probably be needed for Scots working outside the British Isles, but on the plus side they do not have to accept immigrants from the EU and those people will need work permits but then they would need border controls to keep what would then be illegal immigrants out of Scotland.

Will the UK continue to have ships built on the Clyde or will they move to Belfast and spend their money on those still in the UK?

The National Health Service, could Scotland afford to continue with having something similar?

Finally, they are estimating that the oil and gas could run out in about 30 years, then where will they get money?

The difference between Great Britain and the United Kingdom has always been a little confusing to me. Is Canada included in the United Kingdom? The southern part of Ireland is now independent, but, are they still a part of the United Kingdom? How's that working for them? Very interesting!

Great Britain is the island containing England, Wales and Scotland. The United Kingdom consists of Great Britain and the six counties of Northern Ireland.

The southern part of Ireland is (as you say) independent and is not part of the United Kingdom. Neither are the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man (though they are dependencies of the British crown).

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth but not part of the UK.

For political purposes, "Great Britain" includes the smaller islands lying off its shore; hence the Isle of Wight is part of England and the Hebrides are part of Scotland.

The United Kingdom is currently made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If Scotland leaves the union, it will still be on the island of Britain, as well as being in the continent of Europe, because these are both geographical concepts.

Northern Ireland is on the island of Ireland, so is not in Britain, but it is part of the union of the four countries (or kingdoms) that make the UK. The four countries once included all of the island of Ireland but Ireland left the union following a rebellion and uprising about a century ago, and created an independent state. Six counties on the North of Ireland immediately opted to stay under British Rule rather than join in with the new independent Republic. This was highly controversial and not unanimous, hence there is still well documented disagreement and trouble regarding the sovereignty and nationality of Northern Ireland; And that needs a whole thread of its own!! let's not!

The political concept of Europe is the European Union. Any Political concept of Britain is, in my opinion, very poorly understood or ill-defined, and often mis-used, so if I were you I would wait to see how the user contextualises it. But remember that geographically it contains the three nations of Scotland, England and Wales.

Canada, India, and Australia are examples of Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth is made up of many completely independent nations that were once part of the British Empire, ie once under British Rule, ie once governed by the government of the UK. These countries are now independent from British Rule, but have opted to retain their links with Great Britain in some way, including having the Queen as their 'Head of State'.

The Republic of Ireland is not in the Commonwealth having essentially opted not to be part of it. The USA likewise made a decision not to be part of a Commonwealth, you could say, via revolution.

So Canadians are not Britons, and Canadians are not in the United Kingdom.

An independent Scotland would be similar to Canada, ie in the Commonwealth, but would be British as it is part of the island of Britain - just as Canadians are North American.

Has that added to the confusion??! ;D

I think I am totally correct. But I feel sure someone might come and correct me, lol... and I welcome it because it can get very confusing...

These are hypothetical worries, in that they are real concerns but to imagine that there is only a negative outcome under an independent Scotland is purely hypothetical - the truth is, no one can know until it happens, one can only guess. And we shouldn't underestimate the ability of Scotland to employ people - If UK State offices depart, the English section may go, but there will be Scottish State offices to staff. The decision for the voters is whether they are willing to gamble on getting through an inevitable rough patch while these things are sorted out, and surviving, even ending up in a better position, but possibly the same or worse. There is just as much chance of Scotland retaining shipbuilding work or nuclear submarines as there is of losing them. All the really big movers, shakers, and controlling interests will wait until after the referendum is decided before starting negotiations. Until then, they are either lobbying in self-interest (their personal profit) or refusing to show their cards. It is all one huge game of poker. That is why the voters must go with their hearts, I suppose, or their own best guesses.

Anyway... today I would put a quid on a no vote being the outcome. Oh, heck, maybe just 50p then.

Well, we'll all know in a few days time. I just hope it doesn't end up as being a really divisive issue for Scotland. Given that a simple majority of 50% plus one vote either way will win it, if it does turn out to be as narrow a victory as predicted then the repercussions could rumble on for years.

If the US can build a prison in Cuba, I see no reason why Scotland can't keep housing the British nukes. They'll presumably get paid for it if they're independent, rather than being told to do it lol. I'm only assuming there is some sort of compensation somewhere, possibly the employment factor.

I'm a Canadian and roughly of 3/4 Scottish descent I guess. And (this is a JOKE folks so don't tear out my jugular lol) the Irish (btw the hubbs is Irish so that makes us quite the combo lol) might be stereotyped for their quick tempers, but Scots can hold grudges for centuries ~ But while I can understand the need to "right old wrongs", I do believe that there will be consequences of some sort and if it's a "yes" that it might take quite some time to get all things sorted. But I don't think that all things associated with this are necessarily negative as long as folks don't think "magic" will happen overnight lol.

Although Scotland is not my home, I'm still very interested in how this turns out. In my own country, I was happy that Quebec didn't separate (was a close one 49.42 vs 50.58 % of the vote) in 1995. Different kettle of fish though, complicated by our Original Peoples population, but don't let me digress lol.

And for the record, I don't mind our country being a member of the Commonwealth at all. Britain hasn't interfered with anything we wanted to do since, I dunno, prior to 1867? Not entirely sure most schools these days even have a portrait of the Queen hanging on the walls like they did when I was a kid.

Anyway, Christina and Chavs, that was a LOT of writing you both did - and all of it quite informative - thanks : )

I have been reading up on this story and it just seems to get more and more interesting. The three party leaders have decide to travel to Scotland. It sounds like they are seriously worried this could pass. Almost in a panic-mode. I was also reading how some other nationalist movements were watching how this plays out, such as Corsica. We certainly live in interesting times!

I know that I have posted elsewhere in the thread but thought that I ought to stress that Scotland is already a country in its own right, the issue is whether they pull out of the United Kingdom which is a groups of countries.

It is a complicated situation. England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are technically four separate countries and often compete as such in various sporting events, such as World Cup, Rugby, Cricket, Commonwealth Games. Overall however they are the United Kingdom with one head of state, one currency, although, just to complicate matters a bit more, there are different laws about some things in parts of the UK. Scottish Law for example is different to English Law in quite a lot of areas. Then of course you have Channel Islands and Isle of Man which are part of the UK but are Crown Dependencies. Again they have their own tax laws, own parliaments and a fair degree of autonomy in a lot of areas.

It does seem as though the main parties in Westminster have been sitting there thinking "They'll never do it" and have suddenly gone into headless chicken mode when they have realised how close the polls are. Not sure the three of them going to Scotland is a good move, none of them are very popular north of the border.

Just to add, really the whole current arrangement is the sort of thing that only happens when you have around 500 years of acts of parliament, arrangements, agreements etc. If you were starting from scratch now it would probably be a fair bit different.

You missed out a very important word and that is not, the Channel Islands have never been part of the UK, I do not know too much about the Isle of Man as that wsn't part of France in 1066.

Were the islands a part of France at one time?

Yes, of Normandy, and the Duke of Normandy was William who conquered England in 1066. Then went King John lost his Normandy to the French the Channel Islands opted to remain with England so as a reward they were given the right to rule themselves.

The following is from the British Library website.



The Queen is actually known to us as The Duke of NOrmandie.

I've been told that the loyal toast in the Islands us to "The Queen, our Duke." Is that so?

Yes indeed Tom.

Looks like King John was not well-liked, but was willing to let the islands have their own way when Normandy was taken back by France, as you're considerably closer to France than you are the UK, correct? The islands, if I recall, are also on the same time zone as the UK and not France.

Will it affect the islands much, if at all, if Scotland splits?

There was a suggestion yesterday that the announcement of Kate's pregnancy had been made early in an effort to influence the vote, which has today led to Buckingham Palace stating categorically that the Queen will not and would not try to influence the outcome of the referendum.