Scottish Independence Referendum

less deployments to Hadrian's wall

Certain amount of historical baggage there, especially given their full party name.

Altho that said, Labour never let their party name get in the way of anything...

What, so any tanks the government happened to have in Scotland at the time of the referendum would become Scotch?

I suppose all the North Sea gas and oil infrastructure would become Scotch as well?

I know Dev, it was a mistake I made on purpose.

Just kidding, that was a C+P from a Stormfront forum.

Surely Scottish independence could never happen? Would it not mean they would have to set up their own health system, army, post office, transport, etc. or would they hold on to a 'union' with england? I don't get it.

Maybe then conversations will go like this:

"Right so you've voted yourself independent...now lets talk about internationalism"

The practicalities of it are baffling and in terms of capitalist economics it would surely be bad for Scotland (unless they join the euro and we all cut england out of our trade ). I mean all the londoners taxes pay the scots dole, no?

Aye the SNP haven't got a fucking clue. For years they've banged on about independance not thinking anyone would pay them a blind bit of notice to them. Now that a load of folk have said "come on then" they don't know what to do.

again.
Personally I doubt I, along with most people, will bother voting. I don't think that even if there is a yes vote anything will change. The SNP simply haven't got a clue about what independance means aside from rhetoric.

Post-Independance you could still have Scottish Regiments in the British Army, there still is an Irish one which recruits from the Republic as well as from the North....and there was plenty of people from ROI who served in the British forces during WW2, despite independance and neutrality.

Coulport and Trident don't relate to the "the capacity of the British ruling class to engage in imperialist adventures internationally" - they don't do that sort of thing with nuclear missiles do they?

I don't think the British state has much in the way of an independant capacity to engage in "imperialist adventures internationally" anyways AFAIK it is gonna be dependant on either its partner across the Atlantic or its partners in the EU for the like of that, has been that way along time really - Falklands being the only exception which comes to mind.

So at most it would make for more of an integration with EU structures or NATO or the like.

He may have changed his mind, but he used to be very strongly pro-independence.

Apparently an independent Scotland would be socialist, and anarchists would be the main opposition.

I'm not even making this up.

looks like the plan is to keep using old british cars, pimp the country to 'revolutionary' tourists and have William Wallace poster sellers on every corner.

I'm not sure, but I don't really think this is the case, the relevant parts of the British state would just be loped off and become part of the Scottish state.
Maybe it is a more centralised situation, but when the Republic, or Free State as it then was, became independant, AFAIK that is what happened...so the parts of Royal Mail north of the border just become Scotish Mail and so forth. I would also imagine any Scottish state would have relativly more resources at its disposal than the Republic in the 1920s or than all those new states set up in Central and Eastern Europe of late.

Yeah subsidises might be more of a problem, they could always mount cross border raids to steal livestock though, and I can see a thriving future as the private military contractor centre of the world.

There's a range of poll results but personally I think it's higher than that with support greatest in younger people, which is significant.

It's very likely Scotland will become independent eventually - the ball's rolling, and at present we've got something that was almost unimaginable at the beginnings of devolution: an alliance of unionist parties, including the conservatives no less, who are seeking more power for the executive and administration. Even just with the success of the SNP, the country's been diverging from the UK in many respects in the civil service, support from public and businesses and the nature of national politics. The latter is nibbling away at the reserved power of Westminster and has the confidence to make headway into foreign policy itself.

Concerning the referendum, it will only ever be successful after years of campaigning and a more deeper change at the level of popular politics. Then again that's what the SNP is trying to do and whatever the result at the end of the term, it seems likely that it will remain the new dominant party. Backing for it exceeds conscious support for independence, which means that it has the opportunity to bring people round over time.

-

Anarchists should recognise the interests behind separatism (bad for some of the bourgeoisie, great for others) and not be mixed up with the hype. The SNP, remember, was bankrolled by millionaires like Tom Farmer and Brian Soutar, infamously against the repeal of Section 28 - concerning homosexuality in sex education. It wants to follow the Irish Republic example, reduce business tax and create a more favourable 'investment climate' in competition with the South East of England. It certainly can and has introduced reforms at odds with the banality of Labour policies and yet at the very same time is a capitalist party who's 'alternative' of economic viability is no alternative for the working class but another attack upon it.