UK politics if Scotland votes Yes

[Funk]

There's chatter that Cameron would have to go in the event Scotland leaves, which in the mind of an MP is reason enough to vote for the thing that will keep you in a job.

[Siscar]

Hilts said:

I'm absolutely fking sure this has been answered in one of the myriad threads on here.

I've not read it obviously.

But can someone explain in a paragraph or two if Scotland is such a drain (if they are) on the UK that the Govt, and opposition are so desperate to hang on to the Union?

Make your reply wine friendly.

Is anyone outside Scotland that desperate? The effort put in by the UK Government has been pretty minimal really - left to the people of Scotland to decide, has been the excuse.

Generally here in England those who have thought much about it think it is a bad move for Scotland and an irritant to the rest of us. Not sure any of that qualifies as desperate to hang on though.

[///ajd]

Hilts said:

I'm absolutely fking sure this has been answered in one of the myriad threads on here.

I've not read it obviously.

But can someone explain in a paragraph or two if Scotland is such a drain (if they are) on the UK that the Govt, and opposition are so desperate to hang on to the Union?

Make your reply wine friendly.

I think in short there is not much in it, even with the oil. Hence it is doubtful what benefits independence would bring.

On the other hand a split would cost billions - which the SNP white paper seems keen to share with the rUK - a good example being the SNP wants to keep most of the oil revenues from now on, but expects the rUK to fund decommissioning of existing rigs......

More simplistically, the rUK would have to move whole departments of civil servants and is being threatened with relocating trident. Billions. Now if the SNP was going to fund that relocation, then waving bye to Scotland might start to be more appealing, but it seems likely it would just be a totally messy "we deserve x (insert unrealistic SNP demand)", "no you can't have it, will you pay to move our civil servant jobs", etc. Its an obvious lose / lose outcome for the UK as a whole. I can't see any winners, hence why the rUK is not very keen on a Yes.

Infact the only thing that stands to gain anything is Salmonds ego. Not really a good enough reason, and given he is demonstrably incapable of being a statesman and running a real country, I suspect even he doesn't really want a Yes - he just wants some sort of devo max.

[Hilts]

Siscar said:

Is anyone outside Scotland that desperate? The effort put in by the UK Government has been pretty minimal really - left to the people of Scotland to decide, has been the excuse.

Generally here in England those who have thought much about it think it is a bad move for Scotland and an irritant to the rest of us. Not sure any of that qualifies as desperate to hang on though.

Perhaps desperate is a strong word but definitely Cameron and Miliband even Alistair Darling are at least very keen to hang on to the union.

[Hilts]

///ajd said:

Hilts said:

I'm absolutely fking sure this has been answered in one of the myriad threads on here.

I've not read it obviously.

But can someone explain in a paragraph or two if Scotland is such a drain (if they are) on the UK that the Govt, and opposition are so desperate to hang on to the Union?

Make your reply wine friendly.

I think in short there is not much in it, even with the oil. Hence it is doubtful what benefits independence would bring.

On the other hand a split would cost billions - which the SNP white paper seems keen to share with the rUK - a good example being the SNP wants to keep most of the oil revenues from now on, but expects the rUK to fund decommissioning of existing rigs......

More simplistically, the rUK would have to move whole departments of civil servants and is being threatened with relocating trident. Billions. Now if the SNP was going to fund that relocation, then waving bye to Scotland might start to be more appealing, but it seems likely it would just be a totally messy "we deserve x (insert unrealistic SNP demand)", "no you can't have it, will you pay to move our civil servant jobs", etc. Its an obvious lose / lose outcome for the UK as a whole. I can't see any winners, hence why the rUK is not very keen on a Yes.

Infact the only thing that stands to gain anything is Salmonds ego. Not really a good enough reason, and given he is demonstrably incapable of being a statesman and running a real country, I suspect even he doesn't really want a Yes - he just wants some sort of devo max.

I think without Salmond this wouldn't even be happening.

[Siscar]

Hilts said:

Perhaps desperate is a strong word but definitely Cameron and Miliband even Alistair Darling are at least very keen to hang on to the union.

Milliband and Darling, perhaps, Cameron - hard to tell, he has Scottish heritage but then it's in his party interests to spilt. As it is he's not done much about it but then none of the national politicians have.

[powerstroke]

pcvdriver said:

IroningMan said:

In the immediate past Scotland provided a lot of ministers that we could have done without.

I fully concur, both Rifkind and Darling were/are odious little men.

Can I add Gordon the economic iliterate that fked pensions and gave our gold away and sold us out to the EU oh and
Both the Alexander tts too....

[fluffnik]

Hilts said:

But can someone explain in a paragraph or two if Scotland is such a drain (if they are) on the UK that the Govt, and opposition are so desperate to hang on to the Union?

The Union is a drain on Scotland and Trident is too dangerous to host in England.

It is pretty much that simple.

[simoid]

fluffnik said:

The Union is a drain on Scotland and Trident is too dangerous to host in England.

It is pretty much that simple.

You have shown on various other threads that you have no evidence to back up the claim that "the Union is a drain on Scotland" so you should probably stop using that line.

[Siscar]

fluffnik said:

The Union is a drain on Scotland and Trident is too dangerous to host in England.

It is pretty much that simple.

So you go for an option that is unknown. What currency will you use, any idea? Basic question, basic detail, you have no idea what the answer is. But you don't care, millions will probably be worse off because of it but hey, do you care?

[powerstroke]

fluffnik said:

The Union is a drain on Scotland and Trident is too dangerous to host in England.

It is pretty much that simple.

then we pinch ourselves and wake up .

[Ayahuasca]

Assuming Scottish independence, would it be just MPs from Scottish seats who would leave? What about Scottish MPs in English constituencies? Do they stay or go?

[Funk]

Ayahuasca said:

Assuming Scottish independence, would it be just MPs from Scottish seats who would leave? What about Scottish MPs in English constituencies? Do they stay or go?

A good question. I was about to say that it would only be SMPs who represent a Scottish constituency in Westminster who would go but then if a Scottish-resident MP whose constituency is in England became a foreign national, I'm really not so sure whether they would have to go too.

All that's certain is that the uncertainty is catastrophic and damaging for Scotland.

[Ayahuasca]

Funk said:

Ayahuasca said:

Assuming Scottish independence, would it be just MPs from Scottish seats who would leave? What about Scottish MPs in English constituencies? Do they stay or go?

A good question. I was about to say that it would only be SMPs who represent a Scottish constituency in Westminster who would go but then if a Scottish-resident MP whose constituency is in England became a foreign national, I'm really not so sure whether they would have to go too.

All that's certain is that the uncertainty is catastrophic and damaging for Scotland.

Eg Malcolm Rifkind, born in Edinburgh, who is MP for Westminster.

[simoid]

Ayahuasca said:

Eg Malcolm Rifkind, born in Edinburgh, who is MP for Westminster.

If he's elected by Westminster folk, shirley it doesn't matter what country he's from?

[ninja-lewis]

Funk said:

Ayahuasca said:

Assuming Scottish independence, would it be just MPs from Scottish seats who would leave? What about Scottish MPs in English constituencies? Do they stay or go?

A good question. I was about to say that it would only be SMPs who represent a Scottish constituency in Westminster who would go but then if a Scottish-resident MP whose constituency is in England became a foreign national, I'm really not so sure whether they would have to go too.

All that's certain is that the uncertainty is catastrophic and damaging for Scotland.

No reason for them to have to. Any commonwealth citizen resident in the UK can stand for Parliament so even if they didn't obtain rUK citizenship they would still be eligible simply by becoming resident in their UK (and I doubt there are very many at all who are not either resident in London or their English constituency, not least because only a very stupid MP gives their local press such an easy excuse to bash them).

Incidentally the SNP have six MSPs born in England.

[richie99]

pcvdriver said:

I'd agree entirely with you on that point. Indeed, quite a lot of people South of the border do want precisely that from time to time. I was merely expressing the sentiment that it doesn't matter what the majority in Scotland vote for, as since the 50's the Governments all of the WHOLE UK have got is the one that the majority of people South of the border have voted for.

This is just not true. An English majority has consistently voted for a Conservative Government during a period of landslide labour victories - partly driven by the gerrymandering of election boundaries and partly by the tribal voting of the Scots.

When we add to that, that a a fair proportion of the biggest ministerial wkers we have had to endure were Scots then I think it is fair to predict that a referendum which included England would ensure a vote for independence. If the Salmond really just wanted independence he could have pressed for that but I suppose only flouncing out of the union would suit him. Being unceremoniously kicked out would not have done his fragile ego much good.

[pcvdriver]

Ayahuasca said:

Eg Malcolm Rifkind, born in Edinburgh, who is MP for Westminster.

You can keep him, no problem at all..... no great loss!!!

[pcvdriver]

ninja-lewis said:

No reason for them to have to. Any commonwealth citizen resident in the UK can stand for Parliament so even if they didn't obtain rUK citizenship they would still be eligible simply by becoming resident in their UK (and I doubt there are very many at all who are not either resident in London or their English constituency, not least because only a very stupid MP gives their local press such an easy excuse to bash them).

Incidentally the SNP have six MSPs born in England.

There again, there will always be someone silly enough to take issue about where a person was born. As long as a person acts to the best of their ability to further the interests of their constituents, quite frankly the place of their birth (of which they had no control of) is immaterial.

[richie99]

I think it would be a long time before we got as far down the list as irrelevances like Rifkind. The two men who probably did more damage to England that any others in history, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and James Gordon Brown were both born in Scotland and hence outside the country they did so much harm to. As an interesting double act, Blair concentrated on destroying the reputation of England overseas whilst his special friend Gordon did such a good job of destroying the economy.