Hacker News Reader

Comment by tchai_ | Hacker News Reader

The fact is that no non-Scottish UK citizen really gives a toss. It's Scotland vs Westminster and the rest of the UK couldn't give a fuck what they do.

View on HN

Not true. They will once they understand the significance of the Westminster parliament losing 52 Scottish Labour MPs which would leave the rest of the UK with a strong Tory majority.

If the vote is YES the Prime Minister in office when independence takes effect (most likely to be Labour) would certainly have to resign.

"most likely to be Labour" - er, what? Ed Milliband? I would say it's 50/50 as to who the next PM would be.

"If the vote is YES the Prime Minister in office when independence takes effect (most likely to be Labour) would certainly have to resign."

I doubt it, if Scotland votes yes it'd probably cripple Cameron's career, not whoever becomes PM after the vote.

I sometimes wonder if this was exactly Osbourne's plan

Part of me wants to say that gives Osbourne a lot more credit than he deserves, part of me thinks he's probably shrewd enough to have a go at it with some level of success.

You think Boris wouldn't be the heir apparent in that case, not Osbourne?

As far as I understand, there's only been a couple of elections where losing the Labour majority in Scotland would have made a difference for Labour.

It's true that a Labour government would likely have a far smaller majority without the Scottish MPs, but when Labour has won, it has usually been with far greater majorities than that.

It would have in the most recent general election, while the general consensus is that hung parliaments[1] are only going to become more common if not the norm in future.

[1]That is, no clear majority, requiring a coalition government

If independence happens (I don't think it will), this will be re-writing of borders of a country long term. The political paradigm will adapt.

Long term, the Westminster system gravitates towards a two main party or coalition equilibrium. Scottish Labour will be gone. Maybe the Tories will pull right and cede some of the centre. Maybe Labour will pull right.

This is actually a pretty minimal effect historically:

http://theweebluebook.com/assets/images/uk-govts.png

I'm English and I care about it, so that's not factually correct.

It's a commonly repeated SNP canard that non-scottish people don't have opinions on it, along with that they would somehow be able to use the pound despite every single political party and the EU saying they can't.

Actually what I think the SNP are saying is non-Scottish peoples opinions aren't of as much importance as Scottish peoples opinions. Which is fair, it's their country, they get to decide their own future.

Speak for yourself buddy, not for me, thank you.

Definitely not true. There are plenty of people in Wales and Northern Ireland wondering what it means for them if Scotland does leave the union.

I imagine this will be confusing for Northern Ireland Unionists, and Republicans probably.

It's hard not to see this as a precedent. Perhaps even a precedent in international geopolitics. If Scotland has an inalienable right to secede by popular referendum, Why not Iraqi Kurdistan? Why Not Turkish Kurdistan? Why not Crimea?

It's going to be incredibly confusing for Northern Ireland. Historically, and culturally, they have much closer ties to Scotland than England/Wales.

So what happens when the unionists find themselves left attached to 'the wrong union'?

It's a layered and weaved history. Northern Ireland's Gaelic culture is historically related to Isle of Mann and Northwest Scotland's Gaelic cultures. At certain points in history the spoken dialects, kinships and such were closer between these regions then they were between Northern Ireland and other parts of Ireland. Dublin was a Gaelic-Viking town, later a Anglo-Irish-Norman town.

During the 16th-18th centuries, "The Plantations" there was a lot of migration of Loyalists from the Scottish Lowland. Their descendants make up the majority of the island's Presbyterians. Some still call themselves (or their subdialect of English) Ulster (Norther Ireleand) Scots.

Obviously there is even more weaving and layering. There are mountains of historical threads, cultural similarities. The Highland clan system is related to the Northern Irish system. There was trade dating back to prehistoric times.

When Irish Nationalism was on the rise, strongly Republican and strongly Catholic, these people developed their own Unionist political identity.

The whole thing is predicated on being in the United Kingdom. With political identities UK becoming Welsh, Scottish, English, even Mannish (Is there a Cornish nationalism?), where does that leave the Ulster Scots (who generally don't go by that demonym)?

Confusing.

Maybe it will confuse some sense into the situation.

seems unlikely that either of those regions will wish to leave the union, as unlike Scotland they are both heavily subsidised by England (to the tune of about half of their budget).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com