Scottish Independence

Contents Introduction ————————————————————————– 3 Chapter I General information —————————————————————- 4 Chapter II Arguments for and against the Scottish independence Arguments for the independence ———————————————– 6 Arguments against the independence —————————————– 7 Conclusion ———————————————————————à ¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€ 10 Bibliography ————————————————————————- 11Introduction The subject I have analyzed in this research paper is the possible independence of Scotland. I chose this topic because the Scottish independence is a problem of great importance not only for the UK and Scotland, but also for the whole Europe. While doing my research I found very strong and opposing opinions about this recent topic. Scottish independence is a relevant and important matter that has been debated for many years but is now at the pinnacle of debate.Both public and politicians and opposing opinions about independence and throughout this work I will evaluate the most current and most emotive arguments for and against independence. First, I will speak about the historical background of this issue and about the parties â€Å"fightingâ⠂¬  for independence. Next, I will represent for and against arguments, which will help to understand this complicated issue. Chapter I General information Scotland was an independent country from 843, with the unification of the Scots and Picts.In medieval times, Scotland fought for freedom from England, which Mel Gibson dramatically depicted in his Academy Award-winning movie â€Å"Braveheart. † Not long after Wallace died in the early 1300s, Robert the Bruce led Scotland to independence, and it remained an autonomous nation until the Act of Union joined Scotland and England in 1707. Since then Scotland has been one of four countries in the United Kingdom. However, the United Kingdom returned some autonomy to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and gave them the right to form their own parliaments, in the late 1990s.Thus, in 1999, Scotland received devolved powers for a new parliament in Holyrood. And now, more than 700 years after William Wallace died fighting for Scott ish independence, and more than 300 years after Scotland and England came together in a United Kingdom, a new agreement could lead to an independent Scotland. Since the Scottish National Party (SNP) came to power five years ago (in 2007) there has been a wave of nationalistic fever sweeping the country and independence is on their agenda. Increasingly people see autonomy as a panacea for all the difficulties Scotland faces.Thus, in 2014 Scotland will decide to maintain the UK or to dissolve it, and this decision will shape not only the future of Scotland, but also of the whole UK. The question of various debates is can Scotland take the next step and become a fully functioning independent state again, and will this be good for Scotland and the rest of UK, or at least for one of them. As I have already mentioned, the Scottish independence is supported most prominently by the Scottish National Party, which is currently the largest political party in Scotland.But other parties also hav e pro-independence policies. These are the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity. Seventy-two of the seats in the Scottish Parliament are now held by parties/members who have expressed pro-independence sentiments, over 55% of the total. These are the 69 Scottish National Party members, the two Green members and Margo MacDonald, an independent politician. It is also important to know, that SNP forms a minority government in the Scottish Parliament.On the matter of Scottish independence British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Scottish counterpart, First Minister Alex Salmond, signed a deal in Edinburgh, Scotland, on Monday paving the way for Scots to vote on independence from the United Kingdom. The referendum, expected to be held in 2014, would allow Scots a straight yes-or-no vote on staying in the union. On this case the â€Å"Yes Scotland† campaign was launched in May. This campaign tries to â€Å"build a groundswell of support for an indep endent Scotland†.However, Cameron has vocally opposed Scottish independence. In February, he said † I am 100% clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together,† since an intact United Kingdom, consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, â€Å"is stronger, safer, richer and fairer. † Rather, the SNP claims that a positive vote for independence in a referendum would have â€Å"enormous moral and political force†¦ impossible for a future government (Westminster) to ignore†, and hence Westminster will declare Scotland independent.After this agreement was signed, different surveys were released, and almost all these surveys showed that less than 50% of the Scots polled wanted to break away from the United Kingdom. It’s fair to say that not enough people want independence. The fact that the SNP are in power now cannot be considered an indication that Scotland wants independence. The United Kingd om, and its constituent parts by proxy, are signatories to the United Nations Charter and as such any action to deny the people of Scotland a right to vote would be in contradiction to the obligations to uphold self-determination.Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) reads: â€Å"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. â€Å" The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 15) further states that everyone has the right to a nationality, and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.However, there are certain factors that give rise to the possession of the right to self-determination These are: ? a history of independence or self-rule in a n identifiable territory ? a distinct culture ? a will and capability to regain self-governance Chapter II Arguments for and against the Scottish independence 1. Arguments for the independence Now I want to speak about the reasons why many Scots consider they should their independence back. First and foremost, Scotland is its own country.It is a distinct country which has its own culture, people, history, traditions, national dress, land and sea borders, health service, legal establishment, education system, flag and a history of nationhood that. So beyond any reasonable debate, it qualifies under all three criteria (the Scottish Parliament representing the â€Å"capability† section), and any attempt to frustrate the people’s right to self-determination will find itself on the wrong side of both domestic and international law. The next argument is that Scotland considers that UK spends some of the country’s money not appropriately and effectively.They say that w hile the UK’s position as a â€Å"power of the world† has dwindled in the last fifty years – and especially in the last ten years – it unfortunately still spends money like a superpower of the world. This can be seen with it investing in nuclear weapons for the next 35 years at a cost between ? 20bn to ? 35bn. This is a substantial amount of the deficit, that the current UK government is trying to save through cuts to schools/universities, hospitals, police, and other public services.Thus, if Scotland were independent, they would invest their elsewhere. Control over North Sea oil and gas, which is expected to generate ? 56bn in revenue over the next six years, is also a major battleground in the run-up to the independence. Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, claims Scotland would take control of 90% of North Sea fields after independence, helping it to become one of the world's richest countries. Furthermore, for the next fifty years, renewable energ y is seen as a key industry worldwide.Scotland has a strategic position for wind, hydro, and tide powered energy. With over 40 years of North Sea oil still available, the profits could be poured into renewable energy – instead of being sent to London. Nowadays a great rise of nationalism can be observed in Scotland. Thus many Scots stick to the point that if Scotland were to become independent, it would emphasize their greatest individuals, businesses, and achievements instead of having them blended with Westminster politicians. 2. Arguments against the independenceFrom all the above mentioned we can conclude that there is obviously a case for Scottish Independence, but before doing this we shall discuss the reason against the Scottish autonomy. Through being a part of Great Britain Scotland has managed to become one of the top financial powers in the world but some are still trying to fix Scotland when in fact it isn’t broken. People think they should have more contro l over their own country and demand more rights. However they do have control over their country as they decide on matters like health, education, transport, housing, environment and local affairs.Isn’t that enough? Scottish devolved parliament has been working independently since 1998 with no major issues so why should this be changed, if it can bring many problems. People complain that Scottish devolved parliament doesn’t have enough power yet they have Scottish MP’s sitting in Westminster deciding on English issues, whereas no English MP’s are sitting in Holyrood. The Scottish parliament has only Scottish MP’s deciding on its affairs but down in Westminster England have Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English MP’s deciding on theirs. How is that fair?If anyone should be complaining it should be the English. Scotland has its own devolved parliament but also has 258 Labour seats down in Westminster deciding on British and English issues . First of all they are lucky to have as much power as they do being even less than a tenth of the population of Britain. So, why should this be changed, if it can result in many problems of different types. Moreover, for unionists, the main argument against Scottish independence is the Barnett formula – a rule that Scotland receives 10 pence of every pound made in the UK, while only having 8. % of the population. Social issues would not be our only problem; Scotland would encounter numerous other issues if we were to become independent. Problems with passports or currency what would be done about them? What would be the solution? Tell a six million population to apply for a new passport and exchange all of their money to Euros. Also problems like defense or immigration and the other issues which affect the whole of the British island which are now dealt with in Westminster. How would separate independent states decide to split these responsibilities?The assumption that indep endence is achievable with the costs and problems involved is something the Scottish taxpayer would have to bear the burden of. Scotland’s strong position in Britain is not the only reason against autonomy. The fact that people simply don’t want independence is another vital argument. This is being ignored by the SNP who are still campaigning for Scottish independence explaining that independence is going to help Scotland â€Å"prosper† but why then after 7 years of SNP campaigning only 37% of Scotland votes for independence in polls.Another barrier is that numerous commentators have raised the objection that since a vote for independence would affect the entire UK, then residents of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be entitled to vote. Others have raised the issue of whether Scots not currently resident in Scotland should have the right to vote. More problematic would be Scotland’s status as an independent EU member state in the area of fo reign and particularly defense policy.It currently remains unclear if an independent Scotland would remain part of the British military forces or if it would develop its own military capabilities and consequently an independent defense and security policy. This is probably the biggest concern for the British government which has to fear that the withdrawal of Scottish forces from the UK’s military capabilities would substantially weaken the status of a smaller Union consisting only of England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the EU’s defence and security pillar.To exit from the United Kingdom certainly poses substantial and unforeseen risks for Scotland, most of all in terms of the country’s economic and budgetary development. However, England potentially has most to lose overall from Scottish independence. If Scotland splits from the rest of the UK and turns out to be relatively viable as an independent country it is possible that Wales, and even Northern Ireland , will follow its example. As a smaller country existing outside the Eurozone, England’s influence over the political and economic agenda of the EU would be diminished.It would then only be a matter of time for the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party and the UK Independence Party to get their way and for a public referendum on England’s EU membership to take place. Hence, English Eurosceptics who consider Scottish independence as an opportunity to push their country quicker towards EU exit should think again. Scotland might have the last laugh after all. Conclusion Thus, in this research paper I spoke about the issue of Scottish independence. This is a matter of global importance, and in the first chapter of my work I tried to give general information about the history of his question, about the parties which want their country gain independence, about different surveys held on this issue. In the second chapter I represented the major for and against arguments. This arguments help us understand what are the main reasons some Scots want independence and what are the objections. Thus, we can come to a conclusion, that if the Scottish national party’s irrational campaign for independence does succeed one day Scotland would be looking at a whole different range of problems. The separation of Britain would provoke competition, bad relationships and ambiguity in various questions.And in my opinion even if the idea of this independence does have good points for Scotland, this nationalistic pride will only make both Scotland and the rest of the UK more vulnerable. Bibliography 1. http://www. markedbyteachers. com/as-and-a-level/english/scottish-independence 2. http://edition. cnn. com/2012/10/15/world/europe/uk-scotland-independence/index. html 3. http://wingsland. podgamer. com/weekend-essay-the-right-to-decide/ 4. http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/uk-scotland-13326310 5. http://topics. cnn. com/topics/scotland 6. http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/uk-sc otland-scotland-politics-19942638 7. ttp://edition. cnn. com/2012/10/15/world/europe/uk-scotland-independence/index. html 1. http://interstateinaninstant. wordpress. com/2012/02/04/the-case-for-scottish-independence-regional-trade-energy-and-power/ 8. http://www. charliedavidson. net/scottish-independence/ ——————————————– [ 1 ]. http://www. markedbyteachers. com/as-and-a-level/english/scottish-independence [ 2 ]. http://wingsland. podgamer. com/weekend-essay-the-right-to-decide [ 3 ]. http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/uk-scotland-13326310 [ 4 ]. http://topics. cnn. com/topics/scotland Scottish Independence Should Scotland be Independent? There has been a wave of nationalistic fever sweeping the country ever since the SNP came to power in 2007. Independence is on their agenda and now there is a referendum set for 2014. But why should we go independent? After all, we have been married to England for over 300 years and our country is ‘too poor’ and ‘too wee’ to square up to the economic giants in the global market today and what would happen if the our banks were to self-destruct again? Would we manage to govern our own country independently?Increasingly people are beginning to see autonomy as a panacea for the predicament Scotland faces. However, there are masses out there that are still worried about the myriad of ‘unanswered questions' about independence. Furthermore, misconceptions are conceived through the unionist’s tactics, ‘throw enough mud and hopefully some will stick’, and now that the referendum date has been announced, we ca n observe the wild thrashing Scotland will receive through the masses of propaganda that the London controlled media will propagate. Firstly, it is important to consider if Scotland is prosperous enough to survive on its own.Scotland is a rich country, yet many Scottish people are poor. Scotland has a surplus of energy, yet many Scottish people struggle to heat their homes. Scotland produces an educated workforce thanks to our tradition of free education for all, yet Scots are forced to emigrate to find work. Why is that, if the Union has been so great for us? Poverty, which disfigures much of our country, is a direct product of the Union. If Scotland really is so poor, a derelict society dependent on handouts, then just why is it that Westminster is so desperate to keep a hold of us?Those opposing Scotland’s independence claim that she would be unable to cope in a situation like the HBOS and RBS bailouts. The truth about one of the bailouts is illuminated if we consider the name – HALIFAX Bank of Scotland – it was not solely a  Scottish bank; it was run from Halifax, in Yorkshire, England. All the management and decision-making was carried out in England. So half of the blame deserves to be placed on the avaricious muttonheads at Halifax. After all, it was coping just fine before Halifax came along.Unlike what the media skewed towards, Scotland actually deserves the minority of the blame for the crash at RBS too. As Andrew Hughes Hallett, Professor of Economics at St Andrew’s University put it, speaking on Radio Scotland. â€Å"†¦by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it’s shared between several countries. In the case of the RBS, I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotlandà ¢â‚¬ ¦ â€Å"1Therefore, in reality, Scotland was only responsible for 10% of the crash at RBS. Which is quite a substantial deviation from what the media proposed. I wonder how they managed to dodge that fact. Oil is a finite resource and eventually it is going to run out. But what is the point in pretending it’s not there now just because there’s a chance that it may only last 30-40 years? According to the oil companies. Which I am sure must be absolutely 100% accurate. Why would an oil company want to underestimate the length of time their reserves will last? It does not at all sound like simple business logic to me.Let’s all face it; if a doctor tells a family that their granny has three years left and she passes in six months — the doctor will be met with a multitude of beetroot faces demanding explanations. In addition, the more people that begin to think that oil is drying up the higher the price will be. And that means mega bucks for the oil comp anies; when they make money – Scotland makes money (that is if it were independent). As it stands, Scotland currently wants to set up an oil fund. It does not sound like a bad idea; that is how the Norwegians powered their way through the recession.They were smart enough to seize the opportunity. However, the UK is against this because it wants the money for bank bailouts and nuclear toys. So what happens when it eventually does run out? Well, as it runs out, a 50% reduction does not exactly translate to a 50% fall in revenue; prices will rocket and despite this possibly not boding well with the consumers, it will still boost the nation’s economy. In addition, it is possible we will stumble upon even more financially viable reserves – which no one seems to account for in the ‘horrifying’ statistics.If not, then we will just simply have to be a bit more economical and is Scotland not the perfect place to go green? We are geographically sound in terms of wave and wind energy. With the oil fund pot, that we will have if we go through with autonomy, we will be able to fully open the door into the renewable industry. This will propel us through any economic crises that may face us later down the line. And the country will be clean. However, if we do not go through with independence now, before our oil runs out, then yes, we probably have very little chance of independence being successful.I bet David Cameron would happily let us devolve after that. Scotland is not uniquely incapable of governing itself. We are not too ‘wee’. We have a larger population than the Irish Republic, Norway, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovenia. We have approximately the same population as Denmark or Finland. In area, we are larger than Slovenia, the Irish Republic, Belgium†¦ We are approximately the same size as the Czech Republic or Austria. Plus, the Scottish parliament appears to be plugging away just fine and if all of these coun tries can manage on their own why can’t we?People of Scotland, vote for independence while we can in 2014! After 300 years of a helpless bickering marriage, I think it is time for an amicable divorce. It happens every day. Sometimes it just does not work out and it is time that we all come to grips with that fact. 1 â€Å"http://www. muzzerino. com/2011/08/truth-about-hbos-and-rbs-bail-out. html† http://www. muzzerino. com/2011/08/truth-about-hbos-and-rbs-bail-out. html â€Å"http://www. newsnetscotland. com/index. php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation#poverty†