I think Scottish independence would be.........
Poll: I think Scottish independence would be.........
Total Members Polled: 280
Discussion
I was listening to an interview on Radio 4 this afternoon with Salmond outlining the SNP's plans for a referendum on Scottish independence, followed by a comment that all the main opposition parties would vote against such a referendum being granted.
Now, I must admit I've not done any real research into this, but I have to say I really don't see how Scottish independence could be a good thing for Scotland under any circumstances?
As I understand it, significantly more UK tax is spent in Scotland than is raised there. Independence would mean no more lovely English tax money, so they'd presumably be screwed?
Flip it round, and I cannot see a single benefit to England of continued union with Scotland.
What do people think? Is the whole thing absurdly misplaced Nationalist pride, or is there actually any chance that Scotland could prosper as an independent nation?
Now, I must admit I've not done any real research into this, but I have to say I really don't see how Scottish independence could be a good thing for Scotland under any circumstances?
As I understand it, significantly more UK tax is spent in Scotland than is raised there. Independence would mean no more lovely English tax money, so they'd presumably be screwed?
Flip it round, and I cannot see a single benefit to England of continued union with Scotland.
What do people think? Is the whole thing absurdly misplaced Nationalist pride, or is there actually any chance that Scotland could prosper as an independent nation?
A couple of points.
First, the Scots can generally smell the roses, even if Alex can't. They receive more than they pay in to the UK treasury, so they would generally be worse off. Please nobody bung in the "Scotland's oil" old chestnut - there ain't much left.
Secondly, if they retain the £ then the Bank of England will effectively maintain overall control of their finances. If they decided to ditch the £, would they invent a new Scottish currency, or would they join the Euro
I suspect the very thought of the Euro would wipe a few more percentage points off the "yes" vote
First, the Scots can generally smell the roses, even if Alex can't. They receive more than they pay in to the UK treasury, so they would generally be worse off. Please nobody bung in the "Scotland's oil" old chestnut - there ain't much left.
Secondly, if they retain the £ then the Bank of England will effectively maintain overall control of their finances. If they decided to ditch the £, would they invent a new Scottish currency, or would they join the Euro
I suspect the very thought of the Euro would wipe a few more percentage points off the "yes" vote
) I think its a bad thing but does it really matter now that we are so close to becoming just another bunch of regions in the united states of europe?rs1952 said:
First, the Scots can generally smell the roses, even if Alex can't. They receive more than they pay in to the UK treasury, so they would generally be worse off. Please nobody bung in the "Scotland's oil" old chestnut - there ain't much left.
Oil 'would make independent Scotland rich'Oil reserves 'will last decades'
HRG said:
Well if the opposition parties have already stated that they'll vote against it surely it's just Salmond spunking taxpayers hard earned money?
He can't have his referendum without the additional party votes- if the SNP put it foreward and the rest vote NO, then there will be no referendum. They can't act on the referendum results directly, anyway; the question is likely to be "Should the Scottish Executive begin a process of discussion with the British Government that will lead to Independence".I can't understand the opposition from other parties to be honest- I don't see there being a massive chance of it being heavily in favour of Independance. Unionist advertising/scaremongering/politicising would easiy outstrip anything the Nat's could manage, leaving even fewer than current supporting it. If they got something like 20%, then the issue could potentially be buried for decades. So why oppose a refurendum? Ever? Over £9M?
As to the poll question; I'm unsure, TBH. I feel that, economically, it would be initially very bad (for both, but esp Scotland), but would pick up later after lots of hard work. Scotland initially suffered a lot economically immediately after the union as all the wealth moved south. Post-Independence, I'm unsure if much wealth would be inclined to drift north short of some Tax-haven policies, which might not help Scots much.
Socially, though, I feel it might have benefits. My opinions might be skewed by living in Brum for the past while, but England looks like it's potentially going to have lots of cultural problems not too far in the future; Scotland doubtless has similar comming, but the Scottish Parliament seem much more vulnerable to the powers/interests of democracy than the British government currently do- we'd never have went into Iraq, for example. Combined with a slightly more positive "brand" of nationalism than seems present elsewhere, an appeal to Scottish enlightenment ideals, etc and combined economic uncertainty could lead the country to do quite well for itself.
It could, of course, be dragged down by its underclass and politically sabotaged from without and within in both directions, becomming a rubbish place to be. I guess it depends on if you've much optimism or not. Either way- I think losing Scotland would be bad for England/the rest of the union. I'm less sure on how it would work out for Scotland, but I'll err on the positive for the purposes of this poll.
Edited by glazbagun on Monday 30th November 20:28
[quote=rs1952]A couple of points.
First, the Scots can generally smell the roses, even if Alex can't. They receive more than they pay in to the UK treasury, so they would generally be worse off. Please nobody bung in the "Scotland's oil" old chestnut - there ain't much left.
What are you on about?
As a rough estimate only 40% of oils is recovered from a reservoir, time, new techniques and further development will increase that figure.
There is a few years left in the old dog. Just how much has been generated by the oil revenue?
First, the Scots can generally smell the roses, even if Alex can't. They receive more than they pay in to the UK treasury, so they would generally be worse off. Please nobody bung in the "Scotland's oil" old chestnut - there ain't much left.
What are you on about?
As a rough estimate only 40% of oils is recovered from a reservoir, time, new techniques and further development will increase that figure.
There is a few years left in the old dog. Just how much has been generated by the oil revenue?
I think good for England. If nothing else we'd be rid of Salmond and Brown, and quite probably Labour.
Not so good for Scotland - it isn't clear that the oil would be re-divided at all, there are other nations involved here, or that it would be in Scotland's favour. It is in international waters, remember. I think that the definition was changed in Scotlands favour by Bliar - prior to that your claim was rather dubious.
Not so good for Scotland - it isn't clear that the oil would be re-divided at all, there are other nations involved here, or that it would be in Scotland's favour. It is in international waters, remember. I think that the definition was changed in Scotlands favour by Bliar - prior to that your claim was rather dubious.
SFMXKR said:
rs1952 said:
A couple of points.
First, the Scots can generally smell the roses, even if Alex can't. They receive more than they pay in to the UK treasury, so they would generally be worse off. Please nobody bung in the "Scotland's oil" old chestnut - there ain't much left.
What are you on about?
As a rough estimate only 40% of oils is recovered from a reservoir, time, new techniques and further development will increase that figure.
There is a few years left in the old dog. Just how much has been generated by the oil revenue?
Indeed, there is plenty of oil left, it is in neither the oil companies, or the UK gubberments interests to admit that, as has been revealed in Government papers from the 70's, so I for one will happily take my chances and stop sponging off England's 'green and pleasant land'!First, the Scots can generally smell the roses, even if Alex can't. They receive more than they pay in to the UK treasury, so they would generally be worse off. Please nobody bung in the "Scotland's oil" old chestnut - there ain't much left.
What are you on about?
As a rough estimate only 40% of oils is recovered from a reservoir, time, new techniques and further development will increase that figure.
There is a few years left in the old dog. Just how much has been generated by the oil revenue?
grumbledoak said:
I think good for England. If nothing else we'd be rid of Salmond and Brown, and quite probably Labour.
Not so good for Scotland - it isn't clear that the oil would be re-divided at all, there are other nations involved here, or that it would be in Scotland's favour. It is in international waters, remember. I think that the definition was changed in Scotlands favour by Bliar - prior to that your claim was rather dubious.
True, well almost, but how would you get it to the end user, all pipes lead to Scotland so whatever way it was split up Scotland would make money! Not so good for Scotland - it isn't clear that the oil would be re-divided at all, there are other nations involved here, or that it would be in Scotland's favour. It is in international waters, remember. I think that the definition was changed in Scotlands favour by Bliar - prior to that your claim was rather dubious.
No matter how it wrapped up Scotland should remain part of the union. Just my opinion but the SNP would have us in the European Union faster than we could blink (handing over all power in the process). England would resist and end up marginalised.
grumbledoak said:
I think good for England. If nothing else we'd be rid of Salmond and Brown, and quite probably Labour.
Not so good for Scotland - it isn't clear that the oil would be re-divided at all, there are other nations involved here, or that it would be in Scotland's favour. It is in international waters, remember. I think that the definition was changed in Scotlands favour by Bliar - prior to that your claim was rather dubious.
Not so good for Scotland - it isn't clear that the oil would be re-divided at all, there are other nations involved here, or that it would be in Scotland's favour. It is in international waters, remember. I think that the definition was changed in Scotlands favour by Bliar - prior to that your claim was rather dubious.
SFMXKR said:
True
No it isn't, it is just the usual grumledoak rubbish, Labour would still be in power without Scottish votes and most of the oil is in waters that are already designated as Scottish and is produced under Scottish regulations, for example SEPA controls environmental issues in the Scottish sector( I know, I have to deal with the w
kers).SFMXKR said:
No matter how it wrapped up Scotland should remain part of the union. Just my opinion but the SNP would have us in the European Union faster than we could blink (handing over all power in the process). England would resist and end up marginalised.
If the Scots were independent, I don't really see how they'd be better off. On the other hand it would probably be a good chance for the rest of the UK to rebalance spending and get some electoral reform, which is well overdue.
I suspect the referendum won't actually happen in the near future, so its probably just power play by Salmond.
I suspect the referendum won't actually happen in the near future, so its probably just power play by Salmond.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff