Seeing that the Scots are to have a referendum in two years time, which is likely to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom, which will I have no doubt lead to a similar vote in Wales, I wonder if it is a good or bad thing that the United Kingdom should disappear from the world map. What advantages are there for the Scots, the Welsh and the English, if we return to the ancient kingdoms again. Even if the kingdom does not break up, should the English have our own parliament to represent only English voters? And what would happen to Her Majesty. Will she remain queen of Scotland and Wales, or just of England?
The whole thing is a con trick, it is not possible for Wales or Scotland to live on their own but the politicking will persuade the people to vote for separation. The only people who will benefit are the Nationalist leaders who will get to be mini kings over their serfs, who will be hugely less well-off, especially in Wales where their only asset is water. And the UK barons will have less critical sheeple to round up at harvest time.
Actually, the Price report showed that not only would it be possible for Wales to go it alone, but that it would actually be significantly better off financially if it did so.
A lot of people in Wales are very excited by the events in Scotland.
As for the royals, the sooner they disappear the better!
There is no reason that Wales could not separate yet still have a new monarch of it's very own
I am not aware of what is in the Price report but I am aware of the huge sums of money that pass into Wales through various schemes that pay anyone who owns land and anyone with specific kinds of business. Without it the sheep would take over the government as the majority in Wales and nobody would notice !
A con trick, eh. We'll wait and see. Scotland contributes more to the pot than it gets back. That means that we help to finance England more than we do ourselves. Perhaps that's why we want to be a nation alone again!!!
I think the Scots will be more circumspect about going it alone now the EU has all but collapsed. Scotland is stronger connected to England than not. I would be very sad to see the kingdom divided up once more. Scotland is already recognised as its own nation, it has its own language, own traditions and its own food. They just want to be separate for no other reason than they hate the English. What kind of reason is that?(My husband is all for the split, the scoundrel.)
Mind you, it might be good to finally boot the Scots out of Pariament. Blair, Brown and Darling made a right mess of things while they had the chance. Probably did it on purpose, the rotters.
You are kidding right???
I have seen some nonsense spouted but this takes the biscuit.
As a lifelong Scottish Nationalist I am delighted we have come so near and hope the YES vote wins.
I was so proud to learn that my father was among those Glasgow University students who stole the Stone of Destiny from London in the 50s.
Of course Scotland can go it alone, and of course we don't hate our English neighbours.
The politics of the UK are not fair under the current system.
The London government is more concerned about the south east than the rest of the country.
When London's economy overheats, and house prices spiral out of control, they raise the bank interest rates to cool it, to the detriment of the rest of the country.
You see a greater level of poverty in northern England and Scotland than you do 'down south'.
Maggie's government shut all the heavy industries in Scotland and northern England and most of those jobs have never been replaced.
I could go on...
Scotland has to be the only country in the world to have discovered oil and become poorer as a result.
Now Scottish oil is going to pay the Social Security bill for not only every man woman and child in England, but all the scroungers who are arriving by the boatload from abroad.
We have a border. Close it!
Politically speaking, England will almost certainly be stuck with a right wing government for ever without us. You reap what you sow.
Even without the oil, Scotland has a huge tourist industry and the finest whisky in the world, not to mention the hi-tech industries in Silicon valley.
And with a population of less then 6 million, we could go far.
It is only 300 years since the enforced joining with England. We retained our own separate education system, legislation system, laws, as well as the food, language and traditions you mentioned.
Not so big a change to go it alone.
Well it goes both ways doesn't it? The English are paying for the Scots to have free university education, while they have to pay for their own. I'm sure independence will happen though. I don't think the Scots will fare as well as the English, but time will tell.
I don't mind having a right-wing government. It will be a while before we have one of those again. It ain't there yet.
Wait! Wait! Where do you get that?!?! From what I can see, they don't care any more for south east then any other part of the country. From what I can see, they only care about lining their pockets. Where is your proof that they actually care about anyone but themselves?
From what I have seen and heard, every single country to discover oil becomes poorer out of the deal. A few individuals become insanely rich and wind up ruling, but the country itself ends up totally impoverished. This is a trend that happens when any thing of real value is found in an area, it usually becomes war torn, with dictators robbing everyone blind and enslaving the population in one form or another. The entire continent of Africa is a great case in point. More diamonds and other precious resources are found there then anywhere else, and it is the poorest continent just about. Has the most wealth of natural resources and the worst poverty. It sickens me really
I think Scotland should have its independence because everyone knows that the Queen of England is not the Queen of Scotland as she is not allowed to wear the crown jewels of the country. The real royal of Scotland is Princess Sophie who is the real heir to the throne of Scotland.
This is interesting Calpol, because I always thought after the Union of the Crowns in 1707 that the lineage still makes Queen Elizabeth our queen.
She is QEII of England, but only QEI of Scotland.
Still, I'm not much bothered either way. Not a Royalist and wouldn't mind a Scottish republic.
Hi Izzy I hope so too, One thing though I need to ask you, do you think if Scotland becomes a republic, they will take back Carlisle? I hope that they take Carlisle back, it is rightfully theirs. My family are all of Scots decent yet we are forced to be English. Though we do not consider ourselves English here in the borders as we are proud of our scottish heritage. The London government has left us to rot here, whilst they sort out the financial and rich. My city is slowly becoming a ghost town almost half the population of my city is on the dole, there are not enough jobs to support us all - no matter what people say in the papers the fact is we have been left to rot.. I believe if Scotland takes us back they will help us far more than the English.
I wouldn't say it's likely to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom. The polls have been consistent, only 1 in 3 would vote for independence. The Queen would still be head of a Scottish state.
I would be sad to see Scotland go, we have fought together, died together, loved and lived together. And all because of the ego of a few politicians the union is to be pulled apart.
A few things I would like to address though.
At the time that oil was discovered in the North Sea we were part of a union therefor the oil is all of ours just as North Sea gas is (which is mostly situated in the English sector), I believe though that the Barnett formula recognised the fact that Scotland had a greater need for higher recompense than the rest of the untied kingdom due to the difficulties within its economic system.
Undoubtedly if Scotland choses to leave the union a large portion of the oil fields will be seeded to the new Scotland, rightly so.
Scottish education is not free it is paid for by the taxpayer, how the Scottish government chose to pay for this in future is entirely up to them.
There have been many discussions about how much Scotland's economy would depend on North Sea oil (in the early years at least) with wild claims from politicians stating that the Scots will be either living in the lap of luxury or flat broke, I think neither would be the reality of independence, the Scottish people will find a way to make independence work no matter how good or bad it is.
My own personal viewpoint is that we are stronger together, that we work well together and that despite what politicians say there will be very little change either way for the normal man in the street.
I see not evidence of Wales having a separatist movement in the scale of Scotland.
In terms of Scotland I have no strong views either way. If they do, obviously each will have their own parliament, specifically the Scottish MPs will just sit in their own house and not the UK house as well--which is not such a big deal in the greater scheme of things.
I think Scotland and others should have the choice and freedom to decide their own destiny. I for one would be outraged by the whole royal system that is a constant money drain on the economy. Instead of supporting the Queen and possibly Charles before all is said and done, they should suspend the Royals, give them a livable stipend and security and move them out of the castles for tourism. The Brits may be able to recoup some money from the tourism inside these residences.
Thank you for your support of our right to self-determination
While the UK government made it clear it was for the Scottish people to decide, they have pulled the strings of every single media outlet in Scotland, thus ensuring the Scottish people are fed a continuous stream of lies and sheer nonsense.
The campaign is being fought by a mixture of a growing grass roots movement towards independence through word of mouth, and social media. It will be a close-run result, not because so many people want to stay in the union, but because people are being frightened off the notion that we can stand on our own two feet. The No Campaign, called Better Together, actually coined the phrase 'Project Fear' to describe their own campaign!
I have no doubt that if the eyes of the world were not watching, there would be tanks on the streets right now.
The UK has a record of causing wars over oil (think the Malvinas and Iraq) so they are not about the let the will of the Scottish people lose them their biggest cash cow.
As to the queen, I don't personally care much either way whether she stays or goes. She is officially the queen of Scotland (Queen Elizabeth 1 of Scotland, but 2 of England and Wales) due to the Union of the Crowns in 1603.
not only should the UK stay together, the American's should apologies for their treasonous rebellion and the Empire should be reformed!
I would think that the English would be relieved that they finally have their Parliament back. Aren't most moneymaking ventures in England? I thought they supported the rest of the kingdom.
I think most English people don't care either way. As the population of England is approximatley 50 million, whereas Scotland and Wales combined is approximately 10 million, then the majority of taxes are raised in England and the financial centre is in London. Scotland, would probably have the money from North Sea oil though. Wales has a longer association with England though, and probably would find it harder to raise money from taxes.
You have that backwards. Money earned in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales goes to benefit England
I agree UW, The English have always taken from the other countries.
Carlisle once belonged to scotland and is still divided here because the english took it, then the scots took it back, then the english took it. Throughout history there have been many battles fought here over where the border line should be.
It would be very difficult for Labour to form a Government without the Labour seats from Scotland and Wales. On the other hand, much easier for Labour Governments in Scotland and Wales to come closer to socialism without being sabotaged by a Conservative central government in London.
And what happens to the Nationalist parties once Independence is achieved?
That is something I always wondered too. I remember asking years ago in the Party, and they said then that they would split into their natural left and right wing divisions because once independence was achieved, they will have fulfilled their aims.
Not so sure that would happen now that the Nationalists actually have a taste of power. No-one ever wants to give that up, it seems.
The fear-mongering about separation is unfounded, as researched by Fact-Check:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac … alone/6524
None of the economists FactCheck contacted thought there was a serious risk of an independent Scotland failing to survive.
As David Cameron signalled this week, Unionists need to move past “threats or by saying that small countries can’t make it”.
Control of North Sea oil has been a constant refrain for the SNP, but our experts think it may be a mistake either to bank on oil or to assume that an independent Scotland would fail without it.
The latest opinion polls mean Mr Cameron may have a harder job convincing English and Welsh voters that they need Scotland, despite analysis that shows that the contribution Scotland makes to the rest of the UK has been underestimated.
By Patrick Worrall"
I think it is always better to break yourself away from any binding contract with an Empire. Further separation of power is always a good way to avoid tyranny. Hopefully an independent Scotland would be a great role model for liberty by devolving the police state and staying out of the EU. The very least that should be done is ensure that MPs from both countries are only responsible for their own constituencies. There is nothing overly nationalist about that, it is just common sense.
It's kind of ironic that Scotland wants its own referendum - they're more likely to ensure independence by having a UK wide referendum, as shown by the latest polls.
I think that in some ways the people of Scotland are in a better position than the English when in comes to finances, for example to do with educating a child through university, or in the care of the elderly. I think but am not sure that they get free prescription medicines too.
They already have their own laws to do with the sale of houses etc. . They have the oilfields off the coast of Scotland.
Maybe we should move up North and let the London politicians get on with whatever it is they are doing.
More tribes imagining that they are so clever and classless and free. I am indifferent.
Culturally, Scotland will remain under the yoke, just as Ireland has.
I don't know about you, but I really like comments from people who have at least some idea of what is actually going on in Britain. I don't need to agree with them, but a little knowledge is helpful
Agreed Izzy x
Will - Scotland will never be forced to remain under the yoke, because the English forget that the Scots are a fighting people and will not give in, why do you think the romans built Hadrians Wall???
They knew that the Scots could not be defeated.and never ever will be!
We ur pure dead MENTAL, se we ur!
Scots battalions are always frontline in any wars. The English knew how to use us mad Scots too.
The jokes about the red hair and tempers to match aren't entirely unfounded.
Onward to F R E E D O M!!
Exactly and some English people seem to forget this lol
I am blonde but have the temper of a redhead lol strange as it may seem heheh
My Grandmother was a red head she originated from the isle of Mull as did most of her family line but she had one hell of a temper, and hated the English with a passion.
I believe united we stand divided we fall, But I have to agree with IzzyM about the North South divide. It is ludicrous, how all the industries are crammed into the south.
Even when there are far too many traffic in our air space we are still building more airports or increasing the flight volume in the South, while the folks from the North must travel all the way down South if they wish to fly long-haul.
The Olympics will bring London to a stand still, because once again the Lion's share of events has to be in London. Good luck to the Scottish people I hope they get what they want, but I can't help but believe we will all be worst off for it.
With just 7 months to go to the referendum, the momentum for the Yes vote is picking up. It is time to revive this old thread which was started along the same vein.
Scotland was never subsidised by England, as they would have us believe.
I have now read the McCrone Report. This was written by Gavin McCrone, a cabinet civil servant in the 1970s.
His report was so outrageous (for Scots) it was marked secret and hidden for 30 years.
Here it is: http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html
For those that feel an 18 page document is too long to read, have a gander at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9BgbQ8fo6A
This is an excerpt from a program recorded in Gaelic by BBC Alba, but never translated into English because they knew the vast majority of Scots would be outraged.
Thankfully, some kind soul subtitled it in English and it is an eye-opener.
We now KNOW the Westmonster (deliberate spelling error) politicians lie to us, and have been lying for years.
Wake up everyone in the rest of the UK. These people are out to line their own pockets (23 of the current 27 cabinet members are millionaires in their own right). They have no thought nor care for the common man.
At least we in Scotland have the chance to break away., although at this stage independence is far from guaranteed.
When a government controls the Press it is hard to break through.
Your chance will come next. Change is needed.
It is not because of "the ego of few politicians", as you put it, that the UK is being pulled apart.
It is down to simple democracy.
Westminster consistently passes laws which suit the majority of the population, most of whom live in South East England, to the detriment of the people in outlying areas, Scotland included.
Our votes have never counted! We never get the political party we voted for. Ukip and the Tories, the popular parties in England, are intensely disliked in Scotland.
Devolution is working well for us, but Scotland could be so much better if we took control of the purse strings, instead of having to go cap in hand to London for handouts.
Did you know that even with the oil, Scotland with a population of 8.4% of the UK's total, pays in 8.7% total revenue to the Chancellor, but only gets 8.4% back.
With oil, the whole picture is further enhanced, even though the previous figures should show you that we can survive perfectly well without the oil.
I don't know where you got the idea that the oil belongs to the UK because of when it was discovered.
Geographically it belongs to Scotland because it is in Scottish offshore waters.
The UK govt sneakily moved the sea border in 1999 so that they now take in an extra 500 miles of Scottish waters and several oil platforms, which are, as you say mostly gas producing.
That still leaves about 93% of the oil fields in Scottish territorial waters, and Scotland intends to take full control of these.
We are also going to get rid of Trident, and open up the West Coast oilfields that Maggie prevented from being drilled after oil was discovered there in the 1980s. The MOD advised her to not allow drilling in waters where their nuclear submarines were exercising.
I hope the Scottish people vote Yes come September.
We will still be neighbours and friends afterwards, hopefully. The break-away has nothing to do with the people of England, many of whom are suffering until the current right-wing policies of the Tories too.(New Labour are just as bad).
It is all to do with taking control of our own future to make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren, and to see a fairer distribution of wealth.
It is disgraceful that in modern times we have families dependent on food banks just to get enough to eat. Staying in the Union will mean more of the same. The English NHS is being privatized. Benefits for the poorest people are being slashed.. The bedroom tax is a travesty. The list goes on, and Labour seem to agree with these policies.
This is not the kind of society I agree with or want to live in. Hopefully neither do the vast majority of people in Scotland.
I know absolutely nothing of English politics, but some thoughts/questions:
You're complaining that Scotland pays out 8.7% of it's income, but only gets back 8.4%. Who do think should pay for the military, government, and other expenses that the Scots are sharing in? It sounds to me like you get back more than you should already.
You complain that your votes don't count, that you never get "your" party. Our states are the same; always complaining that the national vote didn't go as their state wanted. That's the nature of a large country, isn't it?
You complain that the policies of the central government benefit mostly the majority - isn't that the right thing to do? Should those decisions consistently benefit mostly a small minority at the expense of the majority? Minorities need protected, yes, but not the the point that most decisions align with their wants.
Finally, are you sure that Scotland is ready to become a country? (That IS what the discussion is about, isn't it?) Are you ready to protect your shoreline from foreign countries or even pirates? To hire ambassadors to every other country? To produce and control your own currency? I daresay that Scotland is far from self sufficient in a wide variety of ways - are you prepared to handle the new countries needs there, both financial and political as well as products you don't make?
The state of Texas often threatens to secede from the US, but could never support itself even with it's oil revenues. Scotland sounds much the same (and I emphasize again I am really ignorant here).
Scotland's position within the UK is in no way comparable to the US States.
We were an independent country in our own right up until the Act of Union in 1707, and that Act remains to this day a source of resentment to the Scottish people who were "sold out" by a few overlords.
To this day, we have kept our own legal and education system which is quite different to the rest of the UK.
We rubbed along OK for 300 years but the separatist movement has been pretty strong since the Second World War. Thatcher broke the agreement of the Act of Union when she imposed the hated Poll Tax in Scotland a full year ahead of England. Breaking the agreement should have made it null and void but nothing was done.
We already pay our share of the military and defence budgets and are ready for the opening of new Foreign embassies etc. it's all covered in the Scottish government's white paper.
We are not anything like a US State. We are a small nation of 5 million people who happen to live in a beautiful country rich in natural resources, and not just oil. We produce 25% of Europe's renewable energy in the form of wind, water and tidal power. We have a thriving engineering, electronic, forestry, financial sector, food and drinks industries not to mention a hard-working and intelligent people with no fewer than 5 universities rated among the top 30 in the world.
Yet the hardship, deprivation and lack of inward investment is obvious everywhere you look.
Money has consistently flowed south, to the benefit of the majority living in the south east Home Counties instead of being spent here in Scotland.
Scotland is ready to take control. Unfortunately getting the Yes vote is difficult with the lies and misinformation, threats and intimidation coming from the establishment at present.
Older Scots like myself well remember the Devolution vote of 1979. We had the same lies and threats. In the end the vote was 52% in favour of devolution, then Thatcher moved the goalposts and brought in the 50% rule. This meant that all non-voters were counted as a No vote, thus ensuring Devolution couldn't happen. It took another 20 years to get it.
In the intervening years, Thatcher got her revenge on the Scottish people by closing our heavy industry base - the coal mines, the steel industry, the motor vehicle industry thus confining thousands to the scrap heap.
The people who lived through these terrible times will never forgive her, or Westminster for allowing it to happen. It was during these years that North Sea oil output was at its highest. It peaked in 1999 and has been in decline ever since.
LOL, you knew it, but still decided to step in it. This should be enlightening.
Democracy? When a huge amount of Scots wont be allowed to vote because they live outside Scotland? Lets face it they will be made foreigners without a vote!
The UK has many MP's who originate from Scotland in fact the labour party would never get into office without the help of the Scots.
Are there any SNP MP's in Westminster? Why not? Because they are a minority nationalist party.
I did say that the Scots would make it work, but I doubt that they would be better off for a long time and in the short term would be worse of because of the uncertainty about currency and EU membership.
My own personal view is that if Scotland bases its economy on oil it may find itself in big trouble. basing the whole economy on wildly fluctuating oil prices is a disaster waiting to happen. As with my previous statement I know many companies north of the border have contingency plans for moving their business due to the uncertainty of an independent Scottish economy.
Scotland is part of the UK, they have benefitted from being part of the UK. The oil was discovered in UK waters recognised by the international community as such, so at the time of the discovery it was the UK's oil, but as I said it would have to be seeded to the new country and would be enforced by international law.
"Recent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. The study by Kemp & Stephen showed that hypothesised Scottish shares of North Sea oil revenue over the period 1970 to 1999, varied to as high as 98% dependent upon the price of oil and offset against taxable profits and the costs of exploration and development. However the application of the Convention (UNCLOS III) on baselines and the North Sea continental shelf case of 1969 is by no means cut and dried and by international convention maritime boundaries extend along the line of the land border. Looking at the Scottish English land border this heads north east from Berwick pointing towards Bergen in Norway rather than east towards Denmark as envisaged by many. A large proportion of the North Sea oil fields would under this scenario therefore belong to England not Scotland." (Wiki)
I have heard nothing about the west coast fields so I shall not comment.
I am sure Scotland will vote however it see's fit to vote and both the Scottish people and the rest of the UK will have to deal with it.
Neighbours indisputably, friends on a personal level yes, but I fear there will years and years of political arguments and disputes all costing the people huge amounts of money.
I doubt that voting for the SNP will give the Scottish people the socialist utopia that seems to be your dream however I wish them all the luck in the world, for the sake of the people if nothing else.
I still think they we are better together but its not my call and as I don't have a vote it wont be up to me either way.
The only people allowed a vote are those who are on the voter's roll in Scotland at present. It would have have been nice to offer ex-pats a vote but that would have been an administrative nightmare, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Scotland has had a huge influx of English, Irish and Welsh people over the years, not to mention foreigners from Eastern European countries. They will all hold a vote. Many English folk living here are voting Yes because having lived here, they see for themselves the inequalities of a supposedly equal union.
The economy''s future plan is not based on oil alone. Perhaps I didn't make my figures clear earlier.
Scots earn 8.7% of the total Uk income. That is money that flows to London from here.
We get only 8.4% back.
So if we were independent we already have that extra .3% even without North Sea oil. That equates to 100s of millions of pounds.
Despite all the fear mongering that is going on just now, I am sure that in event of a Yes vote, the UK government will capitulate and agree a currency zone because that is in the best interests of business on both sides of the border.
The Scots have had more per beaf spent on them than any other part of the UK amf although there jas been a slight fall under the Barnett formula they still get the most.
After the politicians and the governer of the bank of England stating there would be no currancy union you still believe it will happen, this puzzles me a little, if an idependent Scotland is going to be so wonderful whu would it need the UK pound. What possible advantage would there be to the UK to allow someone else to have influence over its currancy like Scotland undoubtably would?
Surely Scottish people loving in England are not considered ex pats!
Of course Scottish people living in England are ex-pats. Scotland is a sovereign nation in its own right.
I think you will find that Scotland does not have more spent on them per head. THat is a myth.
There will be a currency union because without one, the pound, already teetering on the brink, will sink without trace without the North Sea oil revenue backing it up. The Scottish government want a currency union because it is not in Scotland's interest to see our closest neighbour go under. Of course, in terms of benefits it is a two-way street. A shared currency is a lot cheaper for businesses on both sides of the border.
DIdn't you read the report by Standard & Poors? They said Scotland would get a triple A rating and that starting our own currency would be in Scotland's interest. Why should we go to the expense of starting a new currency? We already own the pound. We had the pound before 1707, and by not agreeing to a currency union, England plans to steal the massive gold deposits placed by Scotland in the Bank of England.
WIthout the sterling zone, Scotland can quite legally walk away from its share of the debt. THe debt is just like an asset. It belongs to the UK. If England doesn't want to share the assets, which include the pound, the defence forces, the BBC among others, then the UK will go under because we will walk away.
I dont want to see this. Wars have been started for less.
But think of it this way, if we were really such a burden to rUK, why are the Better Together campaign playing such dirty tricks?
Standard Life threatens to pull out of Scotland if a currency zone is not agreed. BIG news everywhere, saying Standard Life threatens to pull out in event of Yes vote (not qute the same thing).
British Airways came out in support of a Yes vote. 30 second mention on the news.
The leader of Scottish Labour said on live TV debate that 'scottish people are not genetically disposed to taking political decisions' and the Press does not mention it.
I have never seen the Press and the BBC show such biased reporting. Someone is pulling strings to strongly encourage a No vote.
Think about it, if Scotland is such a drain on the UK, why are they trying so hard to keep us within the Union?
I think your last question could be answered in the same vain as your point about the rest of the UK going under, we wouldn't want to see it happen to Scotland.
And its OK if Scotland don't want to pay its part of the debt because as you say we have all your gold (?).
There are many unanswered questions on all sides, luckily the rest of the UK doesn't have to make such an uninformed decision.
To correct my own mistake, repeated twice for the sake of clarity above, Scotland actually produces 9.7% of the total UK income and gets 9.4% back, not 8 something.
We do still only have 8.4% of the population.
I seem to remember that Thatcher was opposed to an independent Scotland because it would be the most successful left wing country in the world.
[She actually said "socialist" but like many others didn't actually understand what socialism is.]
As one of those rebels across the pond, I hate to chip in to this fascinating discussion about a subject of which I was so unaware. But this discussion is fascinating to an outsider. We Americans are always so consumed with ourselves and forget other countries have their own issues. Both sides have contributed to my education and I'm now going to watch with growing interest in how this historic situation gets resolved.
Besides, I'm a Cochran, straight from the Cochran clan of Scotland. So make me smart about this, my cousins. Where should I stand on the independence of my historic homeland? I'm thinking I should be for it, yeah?
How wonderful you are taking an interest!
A good place to start is http://wingsoverscotland.com/
The British Press are very much against independence for Scotland, and so it hard to find the truth behind all the lies and spin that are being printed.
Yes Scotland also has a very active Facebook page in which loads of intersting links are printed as well as a running commentary of events as they unfold.
Thanks to the internet and Social Media, we can read the truth between the lines.
You don't know the half of what is going on in Scotland just now. 16 year olds are getting the vote, but schools in Labour-controlled councils have barred the topic from its classrooms, even in Modern Studies classes.
On schools' wifi systems, pupils can access the Facebook Better Together campaign pages, but the Yes Scotland pages are barred.
No newspaper dares publish anything positive about the campaign, its all negative and about how we should stay in the union.
Whether you agree with independence or not, surely you can't agree with the tactics used?
It smacks of fascism, and many people will vote no because they are ill-informed (seeing you mentioned it).
The Nhs is being privatised in England, right now. That on top of benefits cuts by companies who line the pockets of Tory MPs make life a very sad place for a large sector of the community. There was a report this morning of a man starving to death because he was not left with enough money to live on.
We don't want a Con-lib government, nor UKip either, but looks like we might get them, forced to withdraw from Europe, isolated from the world while Britain continues to think there is a 'Great' in front of its name.
As to your suggestion that rUK might want to save us, you are having a laugh, aren't you? They would have dropped us long ago if oil hadn't been found.
Talking about tactics I was reading something about what Professor Louise Richardson had said that the SNP were intimidating other university heads into not talking about independence, it seems both side are not adverse to using the same tactics.
I think you may be right about the NHS, it has become the concrete boots of our society, for whatever reasons the cost cutting and poor management has brought it to a point where it is now the whipping boy of either side of the political divide. I think that you will find it wasn't and isn't only tory MP's who have their pockets lined by big companies and organisations.
So your answer to UKIP and the Tories wanting to take us out of Europe is to vote for independence and take yourselves out of Europe (puzzled).
Why would we want to drop Scotland? England had tried to join them as one nation long before the 1707 act.
I would have thought that Mr Salmond's white paper would have answered all the questions asked about independence for Scotland, unfortunately it hasn't.
We want to stay in Europe. That has always been SNP's intentions to become an independent sovereign nation again, within the EC. If we stay with rUK and the English vote to come out, then we, as part of Britain, would have to come out too.
The EC has been good to our farmers if not our fishermen. Unfortunately, the farmers have not received their subsidies in recent years because the British government re-deployed it elsewhere. I could find you a link to that if you are interested.
Scotland has extraordinary needs due to difficult terrain and many islands. Did you know that the Scottish coastline is greater than the whole eastern seaboard of the US?
I am surprised at what you said about Alex Salmond and the universities. I know there is a senior education Yes group. I will check into that.
I thought the white paper covered everything.
What else was it you wished to know?
Well as far as I can ascertain Scotland wont get automatic entry, which is a bit of a worry but I am sure they will try to convince the yes vote (as they already have done) that they will get it.
The EC has decimated UK fishing and will continue to do so. I couldn't find much about the farmers but it seem all UK farmers have suffered at the hands of the EU.
I did actually know your point about the coastline and indeed it will difficult as it is now to keep it secure.
Unfortunately I don't think the white paper gave enough information about the economics, mostly because it was based on assumptions and there is no plan B. Such things ad income tax rates in the new Scotland were not mentioned, I would have thought that would be an important issue.
However after a little research and thought I inclined to agree, it would be better for Scotland and the rest of the UK to separate, but then I also think England should have its own parliament too. I do think though that the political arguments will go on long after the independence referendum.
No not automatic entry to the EC, but considering we have already been EC members for the last 40 years, I don't think a re-entry to a sovereign oil-producing nation would be much of a problem, s
In view of Scottish fisheries, and speaking as a person living in a town where the fisheries have been decimated, there might well be an argument against wanting to re-enter.
The white paper is pretty expansive, IMO, but again does not give day-to-day detail about how people's lives will change, which is what some people seem to be demanding.
In my view, the best change would be none in the immediate aftermath. Taxes, cost, prices, payments should all remain the same. People are frightened of change, even when it is positive.
But staying in the union does not give guarantees either, except for more cutbacks. There is talk of Scotland's budget being cut back another half a percent, or £4.5 billion. The end of free further education, free prescriptions, free school meals for children.
I know I'd rather take my chances with independence. Oh and by the way I've never been a member of CND nor joined in any protest, but I really did not know until recently that Trident at Faslane does not carry a full safety certificate.
The UK govt says they cannot move it to Devonport because there are 11,000 people living within the area that would be immediately affected in event of a nuclear accident.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/ … d-plymouth
There are 3 million people within the area that would be affected here by a Trident nuclear accident, including myself.
And given the UK government's past lies (see McCrone report ) I would not be at all surprised if there has already been an accident. I have buried two people special to me in the past week - both riddled with cancer previously undiagnosed.
If England wants to rise up against the government and demand more self-autonomy, I would support you all the way. We have been lied to, bled dry, and now it seems, killed for giving them our trust, instead of having a locally elected parliament of people willing to stand up for what we believe in.
I see Salmond has been at it again, trying to dictate the terms between a new independent Scotland and its neighbours without any concern to what the people of the rest of the UK think.
Maybe we should have a vote on how our relationship (currency/free movement/trade/politics) should take form.
He seems to think that we (the rest of the UK) don't count when it comes to what he (Scotland) wants.
Don't believe anything you read in the papers!
Scotland does not wish the rest of the UK ill-will, but you'd be hard-pressed to believe anything different according to the media, which is not govt-controlled. Not at all. Not in any way.
From the horses mouth, we have nothing against the English, Welsh or Irish. We just want the right to self-determination. To have the government we voted for, to have the policies we voted for.
To have our voice heard would be pretty unique, because in the last 60 years, if the whole of Scotland stayed in bed on election day, we would not have changed the outcome of a general election except on maybe a couple of occasions.
Alex Salmond has been made out to be a demon in the press, Scottish included because of course the Scottish press is UK govt controlled.
I like the guy! I think what he has done for Scotland is brilliant! Of course when he encourages trade, the whole of the UK benefits until such time as Scotland is independent.
We have a politician here who is willing to get up off his arse and go chasing trade. He has opened up the Chinese market to Scotch. No mean feat in a copycat country.
Did you know that the GERS report does not include the taxable income from the multi-national supermarkets?
It does not include Scottish goods (ie whisky) leaving the UK through English ports.
It was designed by Margaret Thatcher, FFS. She hated the Scots with a vengeance. It was designed to not show Scotland's potential, and it still doesn't.
I never got that from the SNP, who as governing party, actually do have moral stances to take, as was shown tonight on a BBC2 Scotland live debate. John Swinney was challenged to state his opinion in the BBC bias question, and he refused to answer on the grounds that he was a (Scottish) government minister and elected parliamentarian.
He could have got tore into them. He could have called them out, after all the studio audience did, but he stuck to the line that he couldn't comment, and I admire his discipline.
I have my pulse on the social media aspect of the indy debate. What is it you wish you know?
You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist Izzy.
I said and many would agree that Salomnd sounds like he is trying to dictate the terms of any future relationship with the rest of the UK, not through the media but by the media.
I am not against Scottish independence, in fact the more I read about it the more I am convinced that the normal man in the street in the UK will be better off financially as long as we maintain control of our currency, our trade and our boarders, something Salmond thinks we should relinquish because he says so.
In a time where the US aims at the disintegration of the unity of a country why would England remain unified especially if its components aim at freedom?
"Why would England remain unified"???
Since when was Scotland a unified part of England? We are a sovereign nation in our own right and anything that happens over here has nothing to do with US politics. You have "States", not countries.
Your situation is...emm.... your situation..shrugs...I stay out of US politics.
The language to start with. And I'm pretty sure that if I dig deeper, I'll find traces of unification. Myself I see England formed with different ethnicities but not different countries on the same island.
Unfortunately then England is not made up of several countries, it is one country neighboured by two others, Scotland and Wales, which never been and never will be a part of England.
Why would I shed a tear on the future of England if the future of any middle eastern country or any country out of the powerful western block is ignored, despised?
Don't shed a tear for England Max we will be fine.
Shed your tears for the middle eastern countries that have been killing each other well before the western block was in existence.
Would it be called the country of Scotland or the country of England. Still sounds good.
Why not just unite the whole country by calling Wales a state, Ireland a state, Scotland a state, Cornwall a state and England, a state: The United States of Britain! (yes, get rid of archaic royalty…) implement electoral college style elections, votes, governors, senators, a president and an efficient democratic republic would emerge to promote greater fairness, equality and enable the God given right of Individual pursuit of happiness. Also, defense of this new nation would be revitalized and become stronger to the benefit of all these "states."
So what? Let them change into states!
Oh tradition, history , culture... What am I thinking?
They already function pretty well as countries. And none of them want to be states. So what problem would that solve?
The only question In the mind of the Scottish people is whether Scotland should be somewhat more independent, or completely independent. IMHO they already do many things better then they would as a "state" (in the areas of education and direct democracy). But public health or regulating currency--that would be a problem.
...and in defense. As states they could better defend the entire territory of United Britain.
But what do I know? I'm just an American. And looking at this country, mankind may not be cut out for liberty and self determinism yet. No a queen (MOM) would be better
Traditionally when not in the union Scotland and England were at war, however if the Scots decide to go it alone I doubt if that will happen this time, they are our cousins, our brothers and our partners and have been for 300 years, the relationship may become a little strained at times and I am sure the politicians will make trouble when ever they can but I am sure we will get on together.
I personally think the NO vote will win by a very small majority, this is when the trouble will really start.
I suspect they could sort out a defense transition as some pretty importance bases are on their land, and many serving personnel at all levels are Scottish.
So little tiny Scotland could resist the eventual aggression of Russia/China?
By that logic about 190 of the current 196 countries shouldn't exist.
They have had help from others. What if England wants to take back Scotland by force?
I doubt that any one would care to help Scotland in that case. "You're on yer own, lads!!"
(Could Scotland win a war against England?
As would Scotland. Even if they seceded they would be intimately connected to the UK. England won't sit by and ignore an invasion of the tiny land mass they share with Scotland. In that way they would remain immensely more safe than New Zealand, for example, or the Ukraine. England will remain their conjoined twin in terms of defense even if they technically become different people.
Maybe or maybe not. There is no guarantee. I guess I am for Scotland remaining with England. My Grandfather's genetic line comes from the town of Dunbar. He could care less, as he was an American. I don't really care either. Or would a split impact US?
mark. the history is wars. and english overlords being generally mean. This was not the case before the Norman Invasion of 1066. And things were pretty much separate back then. It sounds like Samond the trouble maker wants to get rich quick from the oil. But I think an English company own it. Or most of it.
Interesting to see what will happen. and if it will cause more conflicts and wars.
Why do you call Alex Salmond a trouble maker? He is arguably one of the best politicians ever, and is the only leader in the UK with an outright majority.
All the oil and gas in the North Sea is privately owned by companies based all over the world, particularly the US and Canada. Thatcher privatised our one and only oil company - BP.
The revenues the UK government currently derive from North Sea oil are in the form of taxation and the granting of operator licences, 90% of which would come instead to Scotland after independence.
We still have the sea boundary to sort out. In 1999, the Uk government moved it north and eastwards, taking in another 6000 square miles of Scottish waters.
The tide is turning on the indy debate, despite the negativity from the media. The Yes campaign, which is made up of activists from across the political spectrum, have been busy knocking on doors, and spreading the word to make up for the lack of media information.
The working class from the central lowlands is firmly behind the yes camp. Independence here we come!
His majority at the moment is 2, it was 4. he is deluded to think he can set all the parameters of independence.
In 1999 the government set the sea boundary along the Median line methodology recommended by the UN convention of law of the sea (UNCLoS) which defines international maritime boundaries - each point on the line is equidistant from the nearest points of the English and Scottish coasts.
If you read up on it from the international law viewpoint you will see the government of the UK (of which Scotland is and was a part of at the time) did nothing other countries have dome to set their internal water boundaries.
As for sorting it out how will an independent Scotland do this without going to the UN?
All the polls even the Scottish ones I have seen still see the yes vote trailing, I hope people will make their decision on an unbiased basis but the BS coming from both sides will cloud the real issues.
His majority is 2.
Sounds like a close run thing until you realise that with 69 seats out of 129, Alex Salmond's party won more seats than the Labour, Tory and Lib-dem parties added together. In fact, he won 4 more seats than the combined opposition.
That is a landslide!
Oh and I might add, the Independence movement embraces all political parties and persuasions in Scotland. Alex Salmond may have been the 'enabler', but he is not the leader of the Yes campaign, though you might be mistaken for thinking he is due to the 'personalisation' of the Better Together campaign in the media.
I assume you're looking to oil revenues for a good bit of your income.
The UK licensed those oil wells - what is to keep them from claiming ownership and requiring license holders to continue royalties to the UK? And when Scotland then claims ownership, the UK ignores them and parks a warship in the middle of the oil field, protecting their investment? Not asking whether such action would be right or wrong, but what Scotland would do about it?
No, Scotland's economy is not based on the oil. That's just the cherry on the top. Oil only accounts for 16% of our GDP and as we produce more oil than Kuwait, it just goes to show what a healthy economic outlook we have overall.
I worry a little bit about what rUK will do about it. Would they try to keep the oil by brute force. Would the UN intervene?
There is a pretty big oil reserve in England, in the south east. They think there is about a third again of what the North Sea has. Only trouble is, it is underground and will require fracking to get it out. Would they dream of allowing fracking near to London? They might have to, who knows.
They probably won't have to...if they maintain ownership of north sea oil. And with the uproar over fracking, they just might do that in order NOT to take the fracking road, and next door to London at that.
Yes but it's OK to frack in the North of the country!
I have no idea of the oil politics or reality of the region, but do you mean where there is only a small percentage of the people, compared to London?
Given that fracking is necessary, that would seem appropriate.
Birmingham is the UK's second biggest city, and Manchester is pretty massive too.
But most people live in London area, and more than 50% of those in London itself are foreigners.
Only a small percentage of the population!
You do have a pretty weird perception of us and the place we live.
"but do you mean where there is only a small percentage of the people, compared to London?"
I guess the answer was "No", then? Or you just trying to divert attention by not being truthful with a "Yes"? I ask the question because I don't know - not as something rhetorical. Izzy says here that over 50% of the people live in the London area - does that mean that 1% lives where the fracking might happen?
The population of greater Manchester is 2.6 million, the population of Merseyside (which includes Liverpool) is 1.3 million. probably another million or so living around these areas The population of England, 63 million. I think that is a little more than 1% especially as at least one fracking site is within a few miles of the centre of the city of Manchester.
Ok, now back to the original question.
London (area) has 50% of the population of the UK. Manchester has 4% and Merseyside (presumably a thousand miles away, you don't say) another 2%. Where does it make more sense to carry out fracking, necessary to the economic health of the nation (you haven't addressed that either, but it is a given or there is no question anyway)? Where 32 million live, or where 4 million might have their water supply ruined?
You've given the facts, now can you find the correct answer?
Greater London has a population of just over 8 million. So the population density in the area of the North West affected by fracking is about 25-30% the size of the population of Greater London.
Why is fracking necessary to the economic health of the nation? And why are 4 million people dispensable, don't forget the associated earthquakes.?
London population - I just go on what Izzy said. That over half the UK lives there.
Why is fracking necessary? I have no idea. I don't know what your economy is like (except liberal and playing Robin Hood) or if you need the oil. That's why I said I presume it is necessary - because I don't know and if it isn't then don't do it!
Why are 8 million dispensable? If you must disrupt peoples lives it seems best to make it the minimum number necessary. It's the capitalist way, after all!
Did I say that London had more than half the UK population?
No what I said was that over 50% of the people that live in London are foreigners. Maybe the way I wrote it was confusing.
The whole south east from the Wash downwards is where the bulk of the population live, but it is not as high as 50%.
Northern England has a pop. of 14.5 million according to one site I looked up, but the NW is listed as 6.5 million, I think.
David Cameron admitted on camera that the spending always goes to the highest populated areas, which is just unfair.
The Scottish Borders got flooded. Not mentioned in the main news, and no help offered. Two weeks later, SW England flooded. Big news story, but nothing was done to help the victims.
Then two weeks after that, the Home Counties flooded.
Cameron was there in a flash, bringing the army in to help the clear-up, and saying on TV money was unlimited to help the residents.
They tried to frack in the SE before, but listened to the protesters and stopped it. They are forging ahead with allowing fracking in the North and in Scotland, despite opposition. It will cause earthquakes (already has) because Britain is built on fault lines.
Sorry, Izzy. I took your statement that "But most people live in London area" to mean that over half live there. My bad.
But it really doesn't matter. It comes down to what I said; if fracking is necessary then it should be done where the minimum number of people are at risk. If that means they are Scottish instead of English, well, that's the way it goes when all are considered one big happy group.
Or you can play the NIMBY game - Not In My Backyard. We see it all the time here in the states, where no state wants the bad stuff, where politics matters more than common sense and people do.
Nimbyism is exactly why there is fracking in the North West but not in the home counties.
I wouldn't know. I DO know I have repeatedly ask what the relative populations are, but no one will give a straight answer. I assume that it is much greater around London, which is a satisfactory reason to go fracking somewhere else. Nothing to do with NIMBYism.
If fracking is wrong, it is wrong no matter where it is done. If it was a good thing, everywhere would want it and be happy they lived above oil or gas shale deposits.
Now if the UK really needed the money, they could stop being the puppets of the US, and get rid of Trident . £100 billion (and the rest) on weaponry that can never be used. It is hardly a job creator either with just 500 non-military jobs dependant on it staying based in the Clyde. Their nuclear subs are disasters just wafting to happen. Just Google "accidents nuclear subs" and maybe get your eyes opened. I well remember when one of them snagged the nets of a trawler and pulled it and its 4 man crew underwater. They were so top secret they did not even inform the emergency services until more than 10 hours later, by which time it was too late.
I love the way the nationalists keep harping on about the oil being the cherry on the cake when the figures predict that there will be a shortfall and a reduction in oil revenues year on year.
the latest figures for the Scottish budget are quite damming.
In 2012-13, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £47.6 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £53.1 billion (9.1% of UK total public sector revenue).
In 2012-13, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £65.2 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.
The total revenue from north sea oil was £6.5bn in 2013 and is predicted to fall to £3.5bn by 2020.
Salmond also seems to think that there will be no job losses but in reality there could be as many as 100,000 in the few years before the change over to full sovereignty.
Read this - http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/re … ds-wealth/
Worth also adding that the GERS reports ( set up by Thatcher to quell independence) does NOT include VAT collected on all goods sold in Scotland, nor the petrol at the pumps tax, nor whisky or other Scottish exports sent overseas through English ports.
All in, the economic future looks quite rosy.
From all the data I have seen Scotland would have to depend on a currency union with the UK to be stable and as a result would basically be the same economically. Without a currency union (which the UK government and bank of England have ruled against) Scotland could be considerably worse off.
Of course if there is an issue with EU membership (which has been mentioned many times by other EU members) Scotland would be outside the EU economic zone and could suffer even more hardship.
All the experts (on both sides now it seems) think a currency union would be the best option. I'm not bothered. We already have Scottish pound notes and we can simply peg that to sterling. How would we be worse off without one?
Now if the papers had reported it, senior figures from the EC (those who, unlike Barroso actually know what they are talking about) you would know that it will only take a minor amendment to the rules to re-admit Scotland as an independent nation.
Again, the UK is voting to come out of the EU anyway, so what does it matter? I'm sure the fishermen will be delighted to not have Spanish trawlers in our waters. We can join the Nordic Group instead. Can't remember their exact title, but membership of their group entails automatic entry to the EC markets, but without all the crazy Brussels rules.
And to get any idea of why Scotland is disgruntled, just try using a Scottish issued pound in London. They act like you just handed them something you drew with a crayon.
Experts? Which ones are they then because as far as I know its the government and the bank of England that will make the decision. There are reasons for their decisions and I suppose its these experts that have given guidance.
The EU will think very carefully about Scotland's entry into the EU, it seems reasonable but there are so many questions about automatic entry still unanswered and even the EU cant answer it until after the referendum.
As I said I believe the no vote will win by a very small margin and this will give rise to the SNP to shout for greater powers to the Scottish assembly.
And yet we do all kinds of things that are wrong. Nuclear power plants, or coal burning ones. Automobiles. GMO's. Blacktop over the landscape. Use pesticides and herbicides, as well as fertilizers.
We do all of this, but we try to limit harm when we do it. Same with fracking, seems to me. I cannot comment on the necessity of the procedure in the UK, but someone apparently thinks it necessary to produce oil that way. And Izzy, complaining that you do not agree with nuclear deterrent policy isn't going to change the economics of fracking. The two are not related.
"The two are not related".
But they are, in a way.
Both are potentially life-changing policies forced on an unwilling electorate.
We have this big scrum of people living close to the UK power centre who happily vote in governments that will keep them in a safe wee bubble while the rest of the country goes to the dogs.
There is a huge north/south divide in the UK that is getting wider daily.
Scotland is the far and distant north to the London powerhouse, but they treat the northern English, Welsh and N. Ireland people with disdain, quite frankly.
Having a second powerhouse in Edinburgh will help more than just Scotland. Those regions sandwiched in the middle will see some economic benefits and slow the London gravy train.
The governor of the BoE has already stated that a currency union is indeed possible if both governments agreed to it.
The more I read about what EU membership entails, the more I think Scotland should become like Norway and stay outside.
One positive about the EU is the free movement of it peoples.
While England is becoming almost racist in its vitriol against incomers especially those from Eastern European countries, Scotland welcomes them. With just 5.3 million inhabitants, and one third of the British land mass, we desperately need to start replacing those lost through the hated Highland Clearances and the successive brain-drain.
Silly me, on my iPad and meant this reply to Silverspeeder and not myself.
The three parties believe Carney created the conditions for them to issue their warning when he said a currency union would involve the loss of some sovereignty. However, Carney added that the decision was entirely a matter for politicians in Edinburgh and London.
There is simply no reason for the rest of the UK to have a monetary union with Scotland without a fiscal union thus Scotland would have to cede some of its new found sovereignty.
The UK is and has been one of the most tolerant countries in the world and will continue to be so whether Scotland stays or goes, it is a sad state of affairs when someone could be called racist because they have concerns about the number of immigrants being allowed in the country. Are Scots racist because they hate the English more than any other nation on earth?
I agree that Scotland does need more people but to get those people they will have to supply employment, education and housing. This may be hard for a new independent Scotland as we are still not sure how employment will be affected in the interim period between a possible yes vote and independence.
The three parties united against a currency union because they knew it would work. England does not want to let go of Scotland. Read my previous posts as to why. Read the links I provided.
It is still perfectly feasible. Carney did indeed say there would have to be a certain amount of loss of fiscal sovereignty on both sides. Scotland and England would have an equal say. Westminster, the powerhouse, did not like this and said so.
It will hurt rUK more than us if there is no currency union. Alex Salmond made a generous gesture by offering one. I am not so sure I want one anymore. If rUK are not willing to share the pound, which is a joint asset, then what hope is there that they will be prepared to share other assets?
I agree with Salmond on this. If Scots vote for indy, Westminster will capitulate. This is a scare tactic. A means of telling pensioners their pensions won't be paid. Which they will of course.
But in truth, Scotland does not need a currency union!
Scotland's GDP without oil is similar to London's. Our unemployment rate is a full percentage point lower than most regions in northern England. We are not a nation of welfare scroungers, despite what the Daily Mail says.
The Scots, myself included, do not hate the english.
That is a myth perpetuated by the the media who have ulterior motives.
I hope that an indy Scotland will become the vessel that prevents the London neo-liberalists from wiping out the lower working class. They are succeeding already.
How many more people have to commit suicide before they realise ATOS is wrong?
The Euro has shown currency unions don't work, one country would have to underpin the the economy of the other if there was a problem. Its common sense really.
It wouldn't hurt the UK at all and Salmond was hoping for one because any independent Scotland couldn't survive without one either with the UK or any other country or group of countries.
I doubt very much Westminster will capitulate, it will seek to consolidate its fiscal position and remove the uncertainty of Scotland's economic program that may harm the pound.
Scotland's GDP is where it is because of London and if you cant see that then that is obviously part of the problem. In actual fact Salmond is part of the problem, his assumptions that everything will be OK may come back to haunt the Scottish people, but don't worry because the rest of the UK will accept the Scots with open arms the way it has with the other peoples of smaller new nations from all over the world. or do you really think independence will stop the brain drain and economic migration?
Of course the pensions will be paid, we pay the pensions of all UK citizens (who are entitled to it) all over the world.
And the truth really is the rest of the UK does not need a currency union with a newly independent Scotland, there really is no need for it from our point of view.
I think you have an idea that Scotland will become some kind of socialist paradise after independence when in reality the ruling classes in Scotland, Salmond included will just take over where Westminster leaves off.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 … keep-pound
"A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign."
There will be a currency union for the following reasons.
Scotland exports more than it imports, which is the ideal situation for any country.
England imports more than it exports. Not so good.
Not only that, but the pound used to be tied to the gold reserves held in the vaults of the Bank of England.
Thatcher sold a good deal of it off, at a loss but it became Russia's gain, because they bought most of it, then a few years later, Brown sold the rest off.
See, England has been running a deficit for years. They needed the money!
So they tied the pound to the oil reserves, comfortable in the knowledge that at least during their years of government (they only ever think up to 4 years ahead) the Scots would not find out about the McCrone report which they marked Top Secret and buried for 30 years.
There is the option of downloading a pdf file of the report here - http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html
The 30 years that damning report was tied up for was up in 2004. We have now read it. So can you.
Page 7 "The country (Scotland) would tend to be in chronic surplus to a
quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in
Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner."
He then went on to discuss moving the sea boundary north eastwards so that England could just take some of these oilfields in event of independence and they did in fact do that, quite sneakily, in 1999 on the eve of the opening of the Scottish parliament, and did not allow the Press to know of it at the time.
While the rest of the paper makes fascinating reading, the conclusion at the end is worth noting.
This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely
overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish
nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive
surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the
proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time
into the future.
Going back to the first point in the report that I mentioned, the Scottish pound is likely to harden, in section II A policy for Development he goes on to say
"An exchange rate of £1 Scots to 120p sterling within two
years of independence therefore seems quite probable. "
Obviously as a country which is a net exporter, we do not really want a hard currency as this would make our goods more expensive to our main buyers, which happens to be the UK.
They will find the pound in their pockets virtually worthless, because sterling is tied to the oil revenues, which will be cut by 90% when Scotland leaves.
This will raise interest rates and devalue the pound as the UK's credit rating drops through the floor.
A currency union, on the other hand, will allow the UK to keep the oil in its balance of payments, even though it is only figuratively-speaking because it will be controlled by Edinburgh instead of London.
Whispers in a newspaper is not proof that the UK will agree (in event of a Yes vote) but I think they will.
What do you think?
I think you have been hoodwinked by a 30 (40) year old report. oil revenues have consistently dropped over the past 5 years. Since the financial crash the Scottish banking industry has been devastated, to the point where large companies are hesitant to confirm that they would stay in Scotland or not.
Since the report the government have moved many jobs north of the boarder, these would not be able to be maintained in an independent Scotland.
I thought I explained the situation with the boundary, it was changed in line with the UN guidelines, I know the Nationalists will try and dispute it in their favour but if the split is all about honesty and what is right then there should be no problem.
As I said the Scots will make their own decision and that is right and true, but if the nationalists are making decisions on a 30 (40) yr old report they really are not living in the reality of what may come if they get their way.
No no you are missing the point! It is not the revenues from that report, but the lies.
We have been lied to for years. You have too! They've said for years that the oil is running out. They are still saying it today! It was supposed to run out in the mid-80s, then in the mid-90s and still it kept on flowing.
It reached its peak in the mid-90s, and has been waning since, but the rise in the price of oil has more than made up for the shortfall.
I just learned that only last year the govt sold off another 130 odd licences for oil exploration and drilling on the west coast of Scotland. They had a bloody cheek knowing that the referendum was underway. Scotland would quite like to be like Norway and actually OWN the oil, not sell it off the private companies to exploit.
Whose fault is that? Who de-regulated the banks? If there was closer monitoring of their lying, cheating and stealing they would never have been allowed to get into so much debt when it all came tumbling down.
One or two big banking institutions have vaguely threatened to leave in the case of independence, that is true.
If you look into their chairmanship, you will find close ties with David Cameron on a personal level.
We will ignore them because the exact same companies made the exact same threats before devolution, and hey they are still here!
According to Standard & Poors, we are a little top heavy with banking institutions, and it would benefit us to have less.
We will see. I have read that the rUK think they can not only take that and more, but we will see.
If anyone in England is feeling hard done by, or that the Scots are going to leave them short-handed, you may be pleased to know that there are huge undersea coal fields under the English North Sea, the value of which may exceed all the oil in Scotland, and for which they now have the means to exploit. Good luck
Not missing the point at all, there has been a considerable drop in oil production from the north sea and revenues have dropped considerably, since 1999 by almost 40%. Cost of extraction has risen considerably and the rise in the price of oil is all that has kept exploration going although a new independent Scotland would have to invest considerable amounts into the industry to garner a decent return in years to come.
As Scotland is still part of the UK the sale of licences in the west of the country is not only legal but prudent, if indeed independence is gained a Scottish government may have a legal course for recompense.
Norway has a 40yr start on the UK when it comes to using its oil money wisely and I must admit the UK has wasted an opportunity to secure the future for generations to come but contrary to what the nationalists would have us believe Scotland has had a share of what is at the moment the UK's oil.
I believe the greatest deregulation came under a Scottish chancellor! And the UK wasn't the only country to deregulate or sell of some of its gold.
As for the banks the decision to move will be made on financial grounds and not who is mates with someone somewhere. I suppose it will all depend on a currency union and as such there is huge opposition to the union. Most of the polls show the rest of the UK oppose a currency union so it would be political suicide for a rUK government to allow it to happen.
The government set the boundaries and I am sure it will seek to maintain them.
England is not hard done by and all the economic forecasts are good, some are even better if Scotland decides in favour of independence.
Izzy, the whole problem seems to be that "unwilling electorate". The "electorate" includes all the peoples of the UK, not just Scotland, and the group as a whole appears to want something other than what you do. A small subsection of the electorate does not get to define policy for the whole, or at least it doesn't in the US and it sounds like it doesn't there, either.
Whether Scotland will agree with you and show themselves to be a part of the "unwilling" group along with you remains to be seen. In general I would think it a very bad thing to break up a "United" anything, and would have to really carefully project all kinds of things, from the number of cops needed to where the radishes will come from to how national security will be maintained or paid for, before making any kind of call like that.
The most successful countries in the world are small nations of less than 10 million people.
You got it n one when you said "a small subsection of the electorate does not get to define policy for the whole" and therein lies Scotland's problem.
We are the subsection. Have been for the 40 years of my adulthood. Records tell us it has been so for a lot longer.
The last time we fought for our own independence was in the Battle of Bannockburn 1314.
Now, 700 years later, the battle is at the ballot box and Scottish nationalists have already been banned from attending the ancient battlefield in its centenary celebrations.
We are controlled. We are not the people 'Braveheart' depicted.
United does not always mean something good, Wilderness. It can also mean repressed, especially when your neighbour and 'equal' partner has a population of 60 million to your 5.
Tiny nations that are so "successful" all have a resource that they capitalize on. Kuwait's oil, perhaps, or Monaco's money laundering system. And inevitably they all depend on other, larger nations to defend them, just as Kuwait did.
It most certainly can mean repressed. California, for instance, refuses to allow power plants to be built in the state, and national law requires that they be able to purchase power from the system at will. So the dirty power plants are in MY state, selling to Californians and raising my rates as they do so.
We are currently supposed to be a 'United' Kingdom Izzy, but as you have just said only 5 million get any say in a decision that is going to make a huge difference to the lives of all of us.
These 60 million people, the rest of us, only get to look on from the sidelines. Is that democracy? Give us all a vote I say.
After all there are many Scots living in the rest of the UK and many of us, myself included, have Scottish blood flowing in our veins. I also know many couples where one is Scottish and the other is Welsh, English or Irish.
Personally I don't want the United Kingdom to split; I think it will be a very sad day that will not benefit any of us, although I respect the fact that you want Scotland to go it alone and your reasons for wanting independence.
But the thing I hate the most is all the bile, hatred, racism and rude comments that are being flung around by all sides. ,Oh and the ancient history - when are we going to start concentrating on the current situation and let the past be where it should be, in the past.
To anyone who didn't know about the English oil - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … cking.html
They are trying to frack in two places (so far) in Scotland, in Falkirk and East Dumbartonshire, despite public opposition, and as John says, in the north of England (I don't have the details of where exactly) but basically everywhere the former coal mines were (all closed by Thatcher who was pretty much hated by everyone north of Watford and especially in Scotland).
In most cases they are after shale gas but the real money is in oil. And of course the oil is very close to London, the dark star that is drawing the life blood from the rest of the UK, and is deep in the Tory heartland.
This will be a huge test for the people in the Home Counties. They've been living quite well off Scottish oil revenues where most of the money ended up getting spent, and fair play to them, I am delighted they have their own oil. It is especially good for the people north of Watford and south of Carlyle. But will they endorse fracking in their own backyard?
This site gives most of the north west fracking sites.
its depends on the people of UK and their chose . if people want they can do so.
Damn my fingers. They wanted to reply when all I wanted to do was crawl away from ravings that don't and won't affect me.
Yes of course the cost of extraction has risen. Quite apart from the new technology learned, the oil industry, while not quite scraping the bottom of the barrel, has discovered how to extract the hard-to-get-at oil.
That is why they got massive tax breaks, to invest in new infrastructure to reach this hidden depths
Damn, we in Scotland do not need the ~ "broad shoulder of the UK" to tell us how to manage it.
So it is more expensive to extract. It requires new technologies.
Just tell me one thing, when the oil finally runs out, as is expected to do so within the next 200 years, will England support Scotland then? Or will you tell us to 'get a life'?
Damn, we in Scotland do not need the ~ "broad shoulder of the UK" to tell us how to manage it.
No but you need us to say you can keep the pound.
You need us to say you can keep the government jobs.
You need us to agree a new border with you.
You need us to move Trident.
You need us to agree to everything you say.
And you say it doesn't affect you?
And even Salmond knows he needs us. He also knows he needs the support of the no vote after the referendum what ever the result.
My friend from Isle of Skye says that if Scotland wants to be its own country all it has to do is have the majority agree to it through voting.
That's very true Kathryn. But this isn't really about independence for Scotland this is more about a power grab amongst political elites.
If the Scots want to go it alone that's all well and good but my particular dislike is that if they gain independence they believe we should bow to all their demands, demand which are assumptions which the political elite of Scotland have based their claim for independence call on.
This would not be good for the rest of the UK as we may be paying for the Scots dislike of us for a very long time.
And what if the vote goes against the nationalists? They will demand more devolution which again will cost the rest of the UK.
The political elite in Scotland really are in a win win situation.
When Scotland entered into a political union with England, after hundreds of years of wars, we were meant to be an equal partner.
300 years ago, democracy hadn't been invented, so it was a few landed gentry making agreements over something they had no right over.
It was sorely protested at the time, and (in some of us with the right genes) has been a cause of contention ever since,
A good number of Americans today are of Scottish descent, their forebears having been sent to the New Lands during the Highland Clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries.
All after the Act of Union, which we supposedly benefitted from.
Back to 20th century Britain, it should all have settled down, the past forgotten.
Then Thatcher imposed the Poll Tax on Scotland, one full year ahead of England, in direct contravention of the terms of the Act of Union 1707.
Today, we have 55 MPs in a Parliament of 600+ English MPs, roughly 8%. Then again, we are only roughly 8% of the entire UK population.
We have no say.
We demand our say; in fact we want to go our own way, because England will always stand up for England.
Nearly half the population feel the same way.
We are a nation, a country in our own right, and for you to bring it down to the level of saying we have power-grabbing politicians is an insult to our whole being.
Its very interesting to hear history with a slant from other peoples point of view and that is exactly what it is.
The land grabs were by mainly Scottish nobility and those families still live and own land in Scotland today.
Of course Scotland (or rather the Scottish elite) benefitted from the union, they were broke and the Scottish barons needed the stability of the English crown to subjugate the people.
Your point about having no say isn't really the truth is it? You have your own devolved parliament who make decisions based on the people of Scotland's needs, that is why you have free higher education, free prescriptions etc,etc. These are made possible by the higher per capita spending from the UK government in Scotland than anywhere else (under the Barnet formula).
"England will always stand up for England" comment says more about your personal hate for the English than it does for the UK government. The UK government is made up of Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, English and others who have come from many ethnic diverse backgrounds.
If it was truly half the population there would be no reason for the SNP and other nationalist supporters wouldn't be campaigning so hard with spurious information and miss information.
Let me make it quite clear, I have nothing against the Scottish people, my own great grandmother was a McDonald, my cousins and nephews and nieces are in actual fact Scots and I love them all dearly, but I do hate the politicians and the nationalists (of any persuasion) who denigrate a great nation such as ours.
Has the Yes vote campaign run out of steam?
The SNP offers the Labour party (of Scotland) a love in.
At the SNP conference today Alex Salmond made his play for the nationalist cause by offering a love in to voters of other parties, it seems he has realised that to win a yes vote he will need the help of the voters from the other parties to vote yes on September 18th.
But contrary to what he has said a yes vote would be a death knell to the Labour party in Scotland if not the whole of the UK, why would an independent Scottish electorate vote for a half fat socialist party when they could vote for the full fat SNP socialists one?
by rhamson3 months ago
With a huge turnout and in the wake of a controversial killing of a MP the UK people voted to leave the EU. Many cited the control of its' borders as the main reason. A handful of other members are also considering a...
by Britishblondie4 years ago
I'm an English citizen and I would love to know...Is there a difference of a USA tourist's perception of the UK in relation to the reality of their experience of visiting?Are you from USA?Have you visited the UK?What...
by Solaras3 months ago
Brexit seems to be the UKs answer to the US question: How do we get our mojo back?Donald Trump is our Brexit. A promise to take us back to simpler times, when we could rule our destiny and blah, blah blah. He is...
by beautyrose7 years ago
I don't know how will you react to this. But it has been my observation that American guy are more friendly and open compared to the British or people from united kingdom. no offensement
by karl2 years ago
It seem that the EU is adamant that it will appoint Jean-Claude Juncker as president. He is a federalist who is likely not to encourage any reform but to demand closer ties and centralisation of power. David Cameron is...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes....
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.