IMO, ideologically I support Scottish independence; practically, I think it would be a struggle.

Independence was never easy.

Ideologically I'm opposed to Scottish independence. I can see little benefit in creating a new state justified primarily on the basis of near ancient grudges and meaningless nationalism. Self-determination, rooted in 19th century European nationalism, has much to answer for in the world. Frankly, the fewer states the better and the only good reason to divide states is significantly different core values. The differences between the Scottish and the rest of the UK, insofar as these core values are concerned, are so infinitesimal they don't even warrant mentioning in the context of global differences.

Other reasonable justifications for dividing states exist, mostly rooted in misdeeds, but these act to address an immediate concern and don't constitute a good long-term justification and, in most cases, are better served by insurrection rather than secession. In any case, these don't apply to Scotland. Then there are the enormous practical considerations...

The problem is they are being persuaded to vote 'yes' [because] The Tories Are Bad!

I dunno... if someone here suggested splitting socially-liberal South Eastern Australia apart from the socially-conservative rest of Australia, I'd be all for it.
Both halves are just constantly disgusted at the other, resulting in governments that over 50% of their people absolutely despise. Making them more local would reduce the differences greatly and result in govt that is more representative.
I know there'd be consequences, but living under perverted ideology is itself a terribly hurtful consequence too.

The problem is they are being persuaded to vote 'yes' [because] The Tories Are Bad!

I dunno... if someone here suggested splitting socially-liberal South Eastern Australia apart from the socially-conservative rest of Australia, I'd be all for it.
Both halves are just constantly disgusted at the other, resulting in governments that over 50% of their people absolutely despise. Making them more local would reduce the differences greatly and result in govt that is more representative.
I know there'd be consequences, but living under perverted ideology is itself a terribly hurtful consequence too.

That's probably more an argument for decentralization than splitting the government outright. I'm sure that doesn't apply to Australia or Scotland, but here in the states we'd have to play government musical chairs every fifty years or so if we followed that policy.

As for the Scotland secession issue, I'm honestly not informed enough about it to have developed a strong opinion on the matter.

The problem is they are being persuaded to vote 'yes' [because] The Tories Are Bad!

I dunno... if someone here suggested splitting socially-liberal South Eastern Australia apart from the socially-conservative rest of Australia, I'd be all for it.

That's the thing, it's not like Scotland is socially-liberal and England/Wales are conservative; Scotland has gone Conservative before now on many an occasion (not so much in maybe the last 10 years, probably due to the rise of the SNP in that time) and politically there isn't a massive difference across the UK.

I'm surprised I don't see a lounge topic on this already.

So two polling questions, one set for locals who get a referendum vote and another for everybody else.

I'm most interested in hearing from those actually living in Scotland and who actually get to vote. How do you feel about it? If yes, why? If no, why not?

The referendum discussion has been going on for some time. I'm in another continent living 7500 km away and still see it in the news. I've read discussions about assorted viewpoints and concerns: How will the budget work, how will healthcare work, how will currency work, how will taxes work, how will the oil revenues work, even discussion about how BBC will be affected by a potential split.

I can certainly understand the desire for more local control of government services. It is a refrain we always hear. Local control is often better attuned to local needs, so results tend to be better. Yet national issues are expensive, and there are collective benefits. A nation of 5M breaking off from a nation of 64M, well, that's not a particularly large nation either by size or by population.

For those in the region, what are your thoughts on the matter?

I was thinking of making a topic, but thought it would just result in me yelling at everyone. I will try and keep it short.

For people who don't know:

Scotland want independent because for 50 years they have always voted left (? I always get left and right mixed up), it is something like 95% of mp's in scottland have been from the labour party. They want independence because they are fed up of being ruled by tories.

Why vote a yes vote makes no sense

Firstly they want to power to control their own interest rate and tax, however they want to keep the pound. These two things contradict each other. They want to have a currency union with the rest of the UK, which means they would have the support of the bank of England's assets, and If they don't get it they will give the UK £100bn debt. However every party said they wont do it, the reason being is that if a bank goes under in what will be a foreign country, it would be up to the British Tax payer to pay the majority of it. This has happened before with Irish banks.

Ok, so why do they contradict each other? if somehow they get the currency union they wish for, interest rates will be set by the UK and the UK will have a say on what their tax is.

So ok, if they don't get a currency union?

Many officials opinion is that they will be in trouble. using the pound with out support means interest rates would vary wildly, and if they do get into trouble any other country is unlikely to loan Scotland money, because they defaulted on a £100bn debt - talk about a bad credit rating.

They could, and prob will, use the €. however you have the same problem as using the £ with currency rating.

They also, apparently, don't have a strong enough economy to have their own currency.

A note on alex salmond

oh my god, ive seen politician before but this guy is something else. He skirts around any question he will loose votes.

Eyebrows (forget his name, but he is a labour Scottish politician): what would you do if you don't get a currency union?

Alex: We will get one

eyebrows: but if you don't

Alex: We will get one

eyebrows: but if you don't

Alex: We will get one

eyebrows: but if you don't

Alex: We will get one

eyebrows: but if you don't

-.-

I could go on, but I don't want to break the forums

The problem is they are being persuaded to vote 'yes' [because] The Tories Are Bad!

I dunno... if someone here suggested splitting socially-liberal South Eastern Australia apart from the socially-conservative rest of Australia, I'd be all for it.

That's the thing, it's not like Scotland is socially-liberal and England/Wales are conservative; Scotland has gone Conservative before now on many an occasion (not so much in maybe the last 10 years, probably due to the rise of the SNP in that time) and politically there isn't a massive difference across the UK.

That's not really true, the whole of north England and north wales (I believe) are Left wing, but if Scotland goes UK will never have a left government again.

Except that isn't really true either; look at the election map for 2010 in the UK; large rural areas tend towards conservative, where as urban areas tend towards Labour.

If you take The North there is a mix of Tory and Labour areas to say it is overwhelmingly one way or another is a gross simplification of the issue.

Also given that Scotland have got, and continue to get, increasing powers to say they are 'ruled by the Tories' also isn't strictly true either but that doesn't make for a great rallying call.

Except that isn't really true either; look at the election map for 2010 in the UK; large rural areas tend towards conservative, where as urban areas tend towards Labour.

If you take The North there is a mix of Tory and Labour areas to say it is overwhelmingly one way or another is a gross simplification of the issue.

Also given that Scotland have got, and continue to get, increasing powers to say they are 'ruled by the Tories' also isn't strictly true either but that doesn't make for a great rallying call.

I guess I meant to say compared to the rest of the UK. which swings mostly to tories.

'ruled by tories' When last election labour was in No. 10 for 10 years :/

I think there should have been a 3rd question "regardless what you WANT, which way do you think it WILL go?"