Scottish Independence

Many Scottish people have over the centuries been themselves victim of stereotyping and prejudice by the English neighbours. Discrimination. This is why they are unhappy about it. But to be on the receiving end of something that is historical and for which I have no responsibility for his painful and irksome and makes me feel somehow invisible and unvalued as a person with individuality and a contribution to make to the present moment.

The Thatcher Era negatively influenced the socioeconomic conditions of Scotland for eleven years, during which time Trainspotting is set, which illuminates the impact of Thatcherism on the morale and pride of the Scottish people. During her tenure as Prime Minister, from 1979 to 1990, Margret Thatcher hoped to restore a sense of British pride following the Winter of Discontent, but in doing so, she implemented taxes and limited the creations and power of labor unions. These changes were not received well and profoundly influenced the conditions of the Scottish social system and diminished both their British and national pride (Stewart 13). Although Thatcherism was intended

“Some lawyers have been attracted to the argument that the union legislation placed constraints on the power of the UK Parliament to legislate, and that the UK Parliament might be unable to alter at least its most important terms. While there are powerful arguments against this view, - it continues to have its supporters. It famously received some judicial support from Lord Cooper in MacCormick v Lord Advocate, and has been referred to in several subsequent cases. However, there has been no case in which a Scottish court has questioned the validity of an Act of Parliament on these grounds. Indeed, whether an Act of the UK Parliament is compatible with the union legislation was treated as, in principle, a non-justiciable issue in MacCormick. However, supporters of the argument have taken comfort from the fact that in MacCormick, Gibson and Pringle Scottish judges reserved their opinion on what would be the case if legislation purported to amend 'fundamental provisions', for example, by abolishing the Church of Scotland or the Court of Session, or by replacing the Scottish system of private law with English

However this could be because there is a crèche in the Scottish parliament and the parliament closes at 5 while the UK parliament doesn’t have a crèche and closes when business is done meaning less women would want to be MPS and if Scottish would prefer to be MSPs.

Currently Scotland has its own parliament in Edinburgh which can deal with chosen devolved issues from Westminster. Originating mainly from the YES YES campaign in 1999 headed by the Labour Government. This means that Scotland has control over

Although complete sovereignty wasn’t lost over Scotland, the NO vote did cause parliament to devolve some power it held. This is not the first time sovereignty has been lost through Scottish referendums. In 1998 the Scottish parliament was re-established: The Scotland Act established what matters were to be devolved and what matters were to be reserved by Parliament. Devolved matters included health and social care (for example free nursing care for the elderly) and education (for example tuition fees). Reserved matters included defence, foreign policy and the constitution (the UK still controls Scottish independence, as it has the power to over-rule the referendums) Theoretically, Westminster could repeal the Scottish acts. This imbalance of power can cause some policy divergence, for example Scotland passed a law banning smoking in public places before the UK.

The centrepiece of Labour 's programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly devolution. This was achieved with remarkably few problems. There now seems no likelihood that the new arrangements could be reversed, even by a Conservative administration. The election on 6 May 1999 of a Parliament in Scotland, with extensive powers of primary legislation as well as tax-raising, and an Assembly in Wales, with powers of secondary legislation only, will have a profound impact on governance within the UK. In

Within the United Kingdom, a recurring issue has been raised regarding the political position of Scotland and how the Scottish Parliament could better govern the country. To establish whether the quality of life could be improved for the Scottish people, key events, devolution, and the Scottish Parliament must be evaluated and analysed. The argument for greater power in decision making and the ability to implement change for the citizens of Scotland, has been central to Scottish politics for some time.

Before the individual referendums for Scottish independence and EU independence political interest and election turnout amongst young people was statistically low and steadily decreasing. This changed for the referendums but it is doubtful however there will be a high turnout of young people in forthcoming local and national elections. Young people tend to vote on single topics, for single issue parties and in referendums more than elections. If 16 year olds could vote more needs to be done to gain young people’s interest in politics.

People voting for independence had their reasons for doing so. They believed that now that Scotland’s economy was strong enough now that they could survive on their own. Also if they broke away they might get rid of the monarchy because a good percentage of Scotts are republican and want democracy (theweek.co.uk, 2014). If Scotland were to become independent and didn’t get rid of the monarchy then the queen would become the head of state. This has already occurred in Canada and Australia (theweek.co.uk,

The Labour Party was committed to home rule for Scotland in the 1920s, but it slipped down its agenda in the following years. The Scottish National Party (SNP) was formed in 1934, but did not achieve significant electoral success until the 1960s. A document calling for home rule, the Scottish Covenant, was signed by 2 million people, out of a population of 5 million, in the late 1940s (“Devolution’s swings and roundabouts”). Home rule, now known as Scottish devolution, did not become a serious proposal until the late 1970s. A proposal for a devolved Scottish Assembly was put to a referendum in 1979. A narrow majority of votes were cast in favor of change, but this had no effect due to a requirement that the number voting 'Yes ' had to exceed 40% of the total electorate. No further constitutional reform was proposed until the Labor Party returned to power in 1997, when a second Scottish devolution referendum was held. However, the number of people voting ‘Yes’ once again did not exceed 40% of the total electorate so the vote was thus invalid (“The 1979 Referendums”). A

The condition of Glebeland’s power gaining process is similar to the condition of Scotland’s, which occupies 54 seats in the House of Commons. The legislative bargaining offers Scotland a chance to continuously earn more power under the asymmetric power devolution of the United Kingdom. Followed by the establishment of the Scottish parliament in 1977, the Scottish National Party (SNP) became one of the largest parties in the UK in 1999, and then held power in the Scottish general election in 2007. The power gaining process of Glebeland is parallel to the process of Scottish. Thus, similar to the Scottish government, Glebeland’s government is getting more prepared to lead an independent nation. It is true that one cannot eliminate the possibility that the second independence referendum would fail again. However, with the slippery slope of the power gaining process, this second referendum could still help Glebeland’s government bargain for more power with the central government even if it turns out to have a “No” result. Consequently, it could ensure Glebeland a higher degree of autonomous power.

Scottish devolution was defeated in the referendum and the two biggest parties campaigned for “No”. The SNP considered the results as a victory for devolution but was against the referendum as they were campaigning about the complete independence.

William Wallace is considered a legend in Scotland. For years, England and Scotland were at war, and behind many of the battles for Scotland’s independence was William Wallace. While the information about him, like any good hero, might be over exaggerated by some historians, what’s true is that he gave the country hope that Scotland could be free from English Tyranny. For years after he died, others took his place in saving Scotland from English rule.

The Act of Union of 1707 brought together the two independent nations of Scotland and England to create a new United Kingdom. This new Kingdom in the opinion of the English ensured political and military stability on the Island of Great Britain, neutralizing the Scottish MP’s by absorbing them into the Westminster system.