This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/world/europe/many-questions-arise-from-scottish-independence-vote.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Many Questions Arise From Scottish Independence Vote Q. and A.: What Would an Independent Scotland Entail?
(1 day later)
Voters in Scotland will decide on Thursday whether to continue a 307-year partnership with England or declare independence from the United Kingdom. How did a seemingly fruitful union, more than three centuries strong, reach the breaking point? Here’s a look at the referendum and the issues at stake. Scotland has been England’s junior partner in the United Kingdom since 1707. But three centuries is no time at all in the view of many Scots, who regularly re-enact 14th century sword battles they had with the English and have insisted on self-determination, on and off, ever since. That prospect is now nearer than ever. Scottish voters will decide on Thursday whether to become independent once again.
What exactly will voters consider? Here’s a look at the referendum and the issues.
The Scottish independence referendum will ask simply, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” What will voters consider exactly?
The language, approved in a deal in 2012, requires voters to cast a yes or no ballot, and the two campaigns have organized themselves on either side of the essential question. The question on the ballot is simple: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
The “yes” campaign is led by Alex Salmond, whose Scottish National Party won a surprising victory in the Scottish Parliament in 2011. His efforts are fueled by Scottish pride, nostalgia and a distaste for the center-right government in London led by Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative. Scots have traditionally been more left-leaning than their English neighbors. How did a seemingly fruitful union reach the breaking point?
The Better Together camp that advocates a “no” vote encourages Scots to remain part of Britain to preserve a cultural, political and economic partnership that its supporters promise would grow stronger. The “no” supporters had maintained a notable lead in the public opinion polls until recent weeks. But as the Sept. 18 referendum approaches, polls show the contest is tightening, prompting politicians to offer alternatives to independence-minded Scots, should they choose to remain part of Britain. It was Prime Minister David Cameron who insisted on a vote in a deal in 2012, excluding a third option of giving the Scots more autonomy (which he is now offering anyway).
Who’s who?
The pro-independence campaign is led by Alex Salmond, whose Scottish National Party won an unexpected majority in the Scottish Parliament in 2011. He is promising Scots that they can keep everything they like about the union — the queen, the pound, the BBC and free health care — and get rid of everything they do not like, like austerity and the Conservative Party of Mr. Cameron. Scots have long leaned more to the left politically than their English neighbors.
The anti-independence camp, which calls itself Better Together, is a coalition of British political parties. It politely advocates a vote of “no thanks,” appealing to a shared sense of history and Britishness. It is spending much of its time telling Scots that if they vote for independence they can never share the pound — or go back.
What is at stake?What is at stake?
The referendum may appear to be a question of national identity, but economic issues dominate the debate: What currency will Scotland use? How will revenue from North Sea oil reserves be divided? Who will shoulder the burden of outstanding public debts? One might expect the referendum to be a question of national identity, of men in skirts and whiskey and “Braveheart” nostalgia, but hard economics have dominated the debate: What currency will Scotland use? How will revenue from North Sea oil reserves be divided (or will it)? Who will shoulder the burden of public debt?
If Scotland votes “yes,” it will take 18 months for independence to come to fruition. There is likely to be continued negotiation over a number of money matters. If Scotland votes to separate, it will take 18 months of negotiations before independence is declared. And judging from the tone of the campaign, it will be a messy and acrimonious divorce.
Business leaders and economists worry that an independent Scotland will not be able to prosper alone: its economy relies on revenue from North Sea oil, which has been falling sharply, and its per capita government spending is higher than the rest of Britain. Though Mr. Salmond has said that Scotland would continue to use the British pound as its currency, his opponents in England say that is unacceptable. And the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, has said it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible” for Scotland to join the European Union. Scotland already administers many of its own affairs. After a referendum in 1997, it set up its own parliament and controls health, education, housing, justice and a portion of taxation. But some economists say an independent Scotland would be too poor to keep up its welfare state, let alone expand it.
Business leaders are taking the prospect of dissolution seriously, and the uncertainty has hurt the British pound on currency markets in recent weeks. In fact, some businesses have already signaled their intention of abandoning Scotland should voters choose independence. Major financial institutions such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, and the insurance giant Standard Life, have indicated they would move their registered offices from Scotland and incorporate in England. Though many jobs will stay in Scotland, some observers worry that unemployment in Scotland will rise and tax revenue could be lost. And as if to give a taste of the economic uncertainty that would come after a yes vote, the pound has slumped in recent weeks and several banks and businesses have threatened to flee south of the border should voters choose independence.
Scotland administers many of its own affairs since a 1997 referendum on devolution of powers from London, including health and education services, the justice system, its housing policy and some taxation powers. But there are worries that a truly independent Scotland would fall short, and its exit could hurt Britain’s competitiveness and undermine its continued partnership in the European Union. Britain also has a lot on the line: If Scotland and its more pro-European voters leave, Britain might leave the European Union.
Who can vote?Who can vote?
In a compromise struck between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Salmond, the referendum will be open to voters as young as 16, even though the national voting age is 18. But to cast a ballot, one must be a resident of Scotland. Those who live outside of Scotland — Scottish citizen or not — won’t have a say. That hasn’t kept expatriate Scots or interested Britons from supporting independence or encouraging a continued union. The actors Sean Connery, Brian Cox and Alan Cumming support independence. Rock stars like Mick Jagger, Sting and David Bowie, along with J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, and the former soccer star David Beckham are among those who are calling for Britain to stay together. Teenagers! In a compromise struck between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Salmond, the referendum will be open to voters as young as 16, even though the national voting age is 18. Only residents of Scotland can vote. But that has not deterred expatriate Scots or really anybody else from joining the fray. The actors Sean Connery, Brian Cox, Alan Cumming and separatists from Texas to Kurdistan are among those cheering for independence. Mick Jagger, Sting, David Bowie, David Beckham, Pope Francis and President Obama are among those urging Britain to stay together.
Queen Elizabeth II, as she is on all matters of politics, is neutral. However, as she was leaving church on Sunday near Balmoral, her Scottish estate, she encouraged voters to “think very carefully about the future” before they cast their ballots on Thursday. Her remarks were embraced by the “no” camp as potentially helpful to its cause. Which side is winning?
Will the queen have to give up Balmoral if Scots vote for independence? Until recently, the anti-independence campaign maintained a comfortable lead in opinion polls. But as the referendum approaches, the two sides are neck and neck.
No, the queen will not be evicted from her summer retreat, nor will she give up Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh, the official royal residence in Scotland. And the queen will remain the head of state of an independent Scotland, like she is head of state of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, other independent countries once part of her realm. But in the future, Scottish voters could elect parties to their independent Parliament that would make Scotland a republic, forsaking the monarchy. Will the queen have to go?
Scotland and England have been united under a single monarchy since the Scottish king, James VI, inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth in 1603. More than 100 years later, under the Act of Union of 1707, the two countries voluntarily entered a political union when their Parliaments merged, though Scotland kept control of some of its own affairs and still maintains its own legal and educational systems. Mr. Salmond, the Scottish National Party leader, thinks Queen of the Scots is a “fantastic title” and has promised fellow Scots that they get to keep Elizabeth II as their head of state, Canadian-style (although future Scottish voters could always change that).
Who will govern Scotland? This seems to work for Scottish voters, who remain in favor of the monarchy albeit by a much smaller margin than their English counterparts. The queen herself, meanwhile, who has reigned over the disintegration of the British Empire, seems less impressed. After news reports suggesting that she was horrified by the prospect of her kingdom being further dismembered, she urged voters, somewhat cryptically, to “think very carefully about the future.”
Scotland, which had its own Parliament from the 13th century until the Act of Union in 1707, had been working toward establishing greater autonomy as recently as 1997. The Scotland Act of 1998 transferred some powers previously held in London back to Scotland, where a Parliament and provincial government have administered devolved matters. Scotland and England have been united under a single monarchy since the Scottish king, James VI, inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth in 1603. The queen, whose own mother was Scottish, spends a week every year at Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh, the official royal residence in Scotland, and her summers at Balmoral Castle.
There are 128 members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish National Party holds 65 seats after its victory in elections in 2011. This body is expected to take up the governing of an independent Scotland. What would Britain look like without Scotland?
What would a new Britain look like without Scotland? When Billy Bragg, an Englishman who is a staunch supporter of Scottish independence, sang “Take Down the Union Jack” and it climbed up the British music charts in 2002, the year Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating 50 years on the throne, few would have thought that it could become a legitimate call.
When Billy Bragg’s “Take Down the Union Jack” climbed up the British music charts in 2002, the year Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating 50 years on the throne, few would have thought that it could become a legitimate call.
But days before the independence referendum, Mr. Bragg’s lyrics sound less preposterous:But days before the independence referendum, Mr. Bragg’s lyrics sound less preposterous:
“Britain isn’t cool, you know, it’s really not that great. It’s not a proper country, it doesn’t even have a patron saint.”“Britain isn’t cool, you know, it’s really not that great. It’s not a proper country, it doesn’t even have a patron saint.”
Certainly, if Scots vote to secede on Thursday, Great Britain will be less great: it will lose 5.3 million residents, more than 8 percent of its population. Certainly, if Scots vote to secede on Thursday, Britain will be less great: it will lose 5.3 million residents, more than 8 percent of its population.
So what might the kingdom sans Scotland be called? And could the Union Jack — a flag that combines the colors of the three patron saints of England, Scotland and Ireland — come down at last as demanded by Mr. Bragg, who is English but a staunch supporter of Scottish independence? As for the Union Jack — which combines the colors of England, Scotland and Ireland — will it come down at last as demanded by Mr. Bragg?
The Flag Institute, a charity, has received many proposed redesigns, with some suggesting that a red Welsh dragon be superimposed. Welsh people think this is a great idea. But there are only three million of them and their 53 million English counterparts may object. Some proposed redesigns sent to the Flag Institute, a charity, suggested that a red Welsh dragon be superimposed. Welsh people think this is a great idea. But there are only three million of them and their 53 million English counterparts might object.
A more subtle approach would combine the black-and-yellow flag of the Welsh patron saint, David, with those of England’s St. George and Ireland’s St. Patrick. But if the white-on-blue saltire of Scotland’s St. Andrew is excluded, should the red-on-white saltire of St. Patrick remain nearly a century after Irish Independence — particularly given the resentment it inspires among Ulster unionists? A more subtle approach would be to combine the black-and-yellow flag of the Welsh patron saint, David, with those of England’s St. George and Ireland’s St. Patrick. But if the white-on-blue saltire of Scotland’s St. Andrew is excluded, should the red-on-white saltire of St. Patrick remain nearly a century after Irish Independence — particularly given the resentment it inspires among Ulster unionists?
The most straightforward idea, replacing the flag’s current blue background with a black one, has a catch, too: “That used to be a fascist flag in the U.K.,” said Graham Bartram, the Flag Institute’s chief vexillologist (vexillology is the study of flags). “It would be like all those sci-fi movies coming true. I can just see all the soldiers marching in their black uniforms saluting a black flag.” The most straightforward idea, replacing the flag’s current blue background with a black one, has a catch, too: “That used to be a fascist flag in the U.K.,” said Graham Bartram, of the Flag Institute. “It would be like all those sci-fi movies coming true. I can just see all the soldiers marching in their black uniforms saluting a black flag.”
Helpfully, the College of Arms, the official register for coats of arms, has said that the flag would not technically have to be changed if the queen remained the head of state of an independent Scotland.Helpfully, the College of Arms, the official register for coats of arms, has said that the flag would not technically have to be changed if the queen remained the head of state of an independent Scotland.
What would the United Kingdom be called? What would the United Kingdom be called without Scotland as a member?
If the flag is a contentious issue, so is the nomenclature of what the British government has awkwardly named the “continuing United Kingdom.” The Scottish government prefers to call it the “rest of the United Kingdom,” or rUK. If the flag is a contentious issue, so is the question of what the kingdom without Scotland might be called. The British government has awkwardly named it the “continuing United Kingdom.” The Scottish government prefers to call it the “rest of the United Kingdom,” or rUK.
Whatever the official name — like the flag, most people bet that it will remain the same — there is a danger that in the world’s perception, at least, Great Britain would become Little Britain.Whatever the official name — like the flag, most people bet that it will remain the same — there is a danger that in the world’s perception, at least, Great Britain would become Little Britain.
What about Scotland?
Who knows. The Scots have a reputation in the rest of Britain for being different. Scotland’s official animal is the unicorn, and its national flower is the thistle. The national dish is haggis, closely followed by deep-fried Mars candy bars.