I have a little bit of skin in the game — relatives living (at least part time) in Scotland, and business travel takes me to Glasgow every year or two (in fact, I'll be there in early October, after the vote). But I honestly don't have a strong feel for the history nor current issues driving the vote one way or the other.
The American in me likes to think that it's better to learn to work together, rather than breaking apart. The atomization of Europe's ethnic nations over the past century has often happened for legitimate reasons (usually political, social, cultural, and economic dominance by a majority over a minority), but sometimes they've seemed drive more by desires to identify with a smaller tribe, whether it makes sense or not.
Scotland is, for various reasons, being given an all-or-nothing alternative, whereas a greater devolution of authority or creation of a federal system (as in the US) could accomplish much of what I suspect the middle ground wants. It will be interesting to see what they decide, and what that then means.
What Scottish Independence Might Mean for a Less-Great Britain
The economic effects could be minor; the cultural ones, more profound.
One question – the picture caption mentions giving up the Royal Family. Does the referendum request that Scotland become a republic, rather than a Commonwealth nation like Canada which still has the Royal Family?
Regarding your comment about working together, rather than breaking apart – I have a different view.
Pending review of the details (especially the financial details), I am actually supportive of the notion of breaking California up into multiple states. While each one of the 12 U.S. Senators of a divided California would have less power than our present two U.S. Senators, I personally would have more power to choose my own Senators. In general, I would have more personal control over my state government.
And most if not all of the six states would still have populations larger than some of the smaller U.S. states – if I recall correctly, Ontario would be part of the San Diego state, and thus would have a population of well over 2 million.
To top it off, the people who manufacture U.S. flags would get a whole bunch of new business. Too bad a bunch of them are in China. 🙂
+John E. Bredehoft Well, that's an interesting question. I had originally included a question about what happens to the UK's flag — does it lose the St Andrew's Cross (the blue field with white diagonals)?
The College of Arms has announced that the flag would not need to be changed, at least not immediately, because the Royal Family would still be the "sovereigns" over Scotland, even if political power were exercised locally (as with Canada, Australia, etc.). I'm not sure that's clear to the Scots.
The actual wording of the referendum is, I believe, pretty basic — should Scotland become an independent nation.
+John E. Bredehoft As a former Californian, the whole multiple states thing for California sounds pretty crazy to me. Maybe, maybe, a North and South, but anything more than that (esp. the plan proposed for the ballot) looks like a way to kick a lot of the poorer areas to the curb, and to create an even more intractable water problem. It's unclear to me as well why one would want to divide the greater LA/OC area between two states.
Water is an issue. Of course, one could claim that the water issue would best be resolved by combining California, Arizona, and several other states into one. As an offshoot of that, perhaps Cliven Bundy would have no excuse for his anti-Fed stance if the new state of Calneveraricoloregoutidaho controlled the land in question.
I've always had a love for the British Isles, England and Scotland in particular. If I were a Scot (and sometimes I wish I were for some strange reason) I'd prolly vote for this. And according to the proposed ballot, keeping the Royal Family is indeed in the deal as it dates back before 1703 Act of Union, in 1603. So +John E. Bredehoft , your question is yes, they would keep the Royal Family and join the Commonwealth of Nations like Canada and Australia.
Through some friends of mine, I've been keeping an eye on this and am very curious to see the result.
As a Californian resident, I can understand the desire to split the state up, but maybe as a North and South…the culture and social unity is there, apart from the urban areas which are enigmas unto themselves, in my opinion.
+John E. Bredehoft Agreed. Thus the balancing act. I'm not as convinced that "more local election of senators" is as big a deal. On the other hand, while a super-regional state of Calneveraricoloregoutidaho would internally be able to deal (ha!) with water issues, it would probably be too big for other sorts of purposes.
I just mention I'd would vote for it. I have to check that,real quick as I don't want to seem like I'm being fanciful . It's a serious issue with major repercussion for better and for worse. I'd like another option something close to federalism, but that's easy for me to say as I'm American. I am, however, sympathetic to the independence cause.
Just saw this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083204/Scottish-independence-The-Queen-is-urged-to-intervene.html I don't know if it's an exaggeration, but if not, the political ramifications for England are immense if independence wins.
"The Prime Minister has been warned by his own MPs that his job may depend on the outcome of the Scottish referendum on Sept 18. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader — who would lose more than 40 MPs if Scotland votes for independence — would also come under pressure to resign if Scots vote to separate."
And for what it's worth, there was a short-term financial panic.
"The pound crashed to a 10-month low on Monday and £2.3 billion was wiped off the value of the six FTSE-100 companies based in Scotland on the first day of trading since a weekend poll put the Yes campaign ahead for the first time."
And regarding the whole Commonwealth thing:
"Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, has said the Queen would remain Head of State of an independent Scotland, making it even less likely that she would be willing to speak out. The Queen will be at Balmoral until after the vote and has no public engagements before then at which she could be asked to speak."
So the English are wanting the Queen to intervene…and the Queen will be in Scotland for a while.
The surge in the polls in favor of the Independence vote has been interesting — and, for a lot of English (esp. establishment English), panic-inducing.