Scottish Independence yea or nay

bpb101

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Better together for everyone.



I'm glad to see despite the lies being peddled and spinned by the nationalists most Scottish people are not going to throw the future stability of their country into jeopardy.

1) A Big economy dosent mean it more stable but more easy to fall.


2) yes campaign claim the opposite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWFrCIrLgEI

3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlC2uSI-rbQ

4)embassies will be set up over time
5)the scots dont want to be declaring war. Terrorists arent declaring war on Scotland. If you dont pick fights. you dont need an army(expect for peace keeping or ceremony)
6) American for example dont pay a licenses fee and their tv seems okay.
sure take itv. They produce better shows(imo) and give more money out in prizes for tv shows and they are commercially funded. Also nobody abroad pays for the iplayer
7) the university are thriving due to Scottish decision for free fee
8) yes but the benefits are of this green energy is spread to lower the rest of the 55milions uk people bills
9) ill accept that as a benefits but these special centre could be easily added to Scottish hospitals. However it works both ways with special treatments in Scotland not in uk
10) the pound is a freely trade-able currency.

Finally. if scotland are thus burnern on the uk and they are bailing them out and trowing money at them for free education and a better nhs ect why does the uk want to keep Scotland. Why dont they let them cut the cord.

Iwasfrozen

bpb101 wrote: »

1) A Big economy dosent mean it more stable but more easy to fall.

Oh really? That doesn't seem to hold up to reality. The European countries suffering the most suring the economic crash are small upon economies. Portugal, Greece and Ireland. Even Spain which would be the smallest of the "big" economies is suffering more relative to France and the United Kingdom.

2) yes campaign claim the opposite

They deny Scotland receives £1,200 more per head in spending than England? That would be a straight out lie.

3

An independent Scotland will not have access to the European single market straight away. They can apply for it but the application process will take time if they ever get it.

In the mean time companies in England will look for new suppliers. Trade could work out fine in an independent Scotland (potentially) but potentially it could be a monumental disaster and markets hate uncertainty.

4)embassies will be set up over time

Scotland's diplomatic reach on the international stage will never be as strong as the UK. Scotland will lose its veto in the UN and lose its leadership role in NATO.

An independent Scotland will lose all influence in the world stage, they will have no stronger voice than Ireland and look how we were pushed around by the EU during the troika negotiations.

5)the scots dont want to be declaring war. Terrorists arent declaring war on Scotland. If you dont pick fights. you dont need an army(expect for peace keeping or ceremony)

The Scots don't want to be declaring war? Do you speak for all Scots? A strange thing to say. Britain uses its military to advance its influence in the world stage. An influence Scotland would lose.

6) American for example dont pay a licenses fee and their tv seems okay.
sure take itv. They produce better shows(imo) and give more money out in prizes for tv shows and they are commercially funded. Also nobody abroad pays for the iplayer.

American tv channels are rubbish. They produce some diamonds ut most of it is garbage. But America is the worlds biggest economy and not a good comparison. A better comparison would be Ireland. Scotland will lose the BBC and be stuck with a Scottish version of RTE.

7) the university are thriving due to Scottish decision for free fee.

They are thriving due to UK investment. Free fees don't produce world class universities, they produce a degree factory.

8) yes but the benefits are of this green energy is spread to lower the rest of the 55milions uk people bills

Lower energy bills in the rest of the UK? Green energy is less efficient than fossil fuels.

9) ill accept that as a benefits but these special centre could be easily added to Scottish hospitals. However it works both ways with special treatments in Scotland not in uk

The UK has a much greater capacity to provide healthcare, both in terms of expertise and equipment than Scotland does.

If independence takes place the Scottish capacity to provide healthcare will be very similar to Ireland. Irish healthcare is shít. To make no fine a point.

10) the pound is a freely trade-able currency.

Yes, so? That's not relevent to anything the picture said.

Finally. if scotland are thus burnern on the uk and they are bailing them out and trowing money at them for free education and a better nhs ect why does the uk want to keep Scotland. Why dont they let them cut the cord.

Both Scotland and England are stronger together than they would be apart. the UK is more than the sum of its parts.

A Dub in Glasgo

On the first 2

1. That graphic shows the better path is devolution, funny that the same people at the time of the devolution referendum were campaigning against it and similar scare stories were peddled by them. Most Scots that I know want more devolution but that was denied to them by the UK Government (and Better Together) decision to exclude devo max from the referendum question. Now it is about the status quo (possibly worse) or independence.

2. Scots have higher spending because they put in higher amounts. It is almost cost neutral for Scots

A few years old


image sharing

Fratton Fred

What's the story with Scottish regiments? I presume Scots men and women serving in the armed forces would get a vote. What do the polls say about them?

Ralphdejones

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's the story with Scottish regiments? I presume Scots men and women serving in the armed forces would get a vote. What do the polls say about them?

Exactly the same as the flute bands and orange order views I would have thought

losthorizon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I hate to admit it as a republican, but we're now an independent country. I would not be against joining a true economic partnership with the UK. I'm not saying I'd join the UK necessarily though.

WE already ready are -its called the EU.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's the story with Scottish regiments? I presume Scots men and women serving in the armed forces would get a vote. What do the polls say about them?

They can vote if they are ordinarily resident in Scotland and registered with their local council

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/armed_forces.aspx

bpb101

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpb101
1) A Big economy dosent mean it more stable but more easy to fall.

Oh really? That doesn't seem to hold up to reality. The European countries suffering the most suring the economic crash are small upon economies. Portugal, Greece and Ireland. Even Spain which would be the smallest of the "big" economies is suffering more relative to France and the United Kingdom.

Im not saying that small countries dont fall. but in fairness it could be argued that we got our-self knowingly into debts with the bank bailout.
USA for example as a big country and broke beyond belief. They try and hid it but they are.


Quote:
2) yes campaign claim the opposite

They deny Scotland receives £1,200 more per head in spending than England? That would be a straight out lie.

yes campaign claim that they lose 1500 per person
Quote:
3

An independent Scotland will not have access to the European single market straight away. They can apply for it but the application process will take time if they ever get it.

In the mean time companies in England will look for new suppliers. Trade could work out fine in an independent Scotland (potentially) but potentially it could be a monumental disaster and markets hate uncertainty.

they have 18 months to apply. They will be auto accepted into eu because they have tons of fish and that is shared with other eu states like spain

Quote:
4)embassies will be set up over time

Scotland's diplomatic reach on the international stage will never be as strong as the UK. Scotland will lose its veto in the UN and lose its leadership role in NATO.

An independent Scotland will lose all influence in the world stage, they will have no stronger voice than Ireland and look how we were pushed around by the EU during the troika negotiations.

2 points here so ill address 1 by 1

1) yes it will lose its leadership role in nato, if they chose to go into nato. Which they may not. Imo , Nato is not a great idea to join atm. nobody is going to start attacking scotland. however if **** hit the fan (more) with Ukraine and Russia, nato may declare war . Thats not going to be cheap for nato countrys

2)we get pushed arround becuase we let ourself. When greece kicked up about their bailout they got a large part taken off. We just sit at home and complain about it .

Quote:
5)the scots dont want to be declaring war. Terrorists arent declaring war on Scotland. If you dont pick fights. you dont need an army(expect for peace keeping or ceremony)

The Scots don't want to be declaring war? Do you speak for all Scots? A strange thing to say. Britain uses its military to advance its influence in the world stage. An influence Scotland would lose.

i dont speak for any scots . War cost money. a lot of money. The cost of running wars for a small country like scotland would be is far far to high.

Quote:
6) American for example dont pay a licenses fee and their tv seems okay.
sure take itv. They produce better shows(imo) and give more money out in prizes for tv shows and they are commercially funded. Also nobody abroad pays for the iplayer.

American tv channels are rubbish. They produce some diamonds ut most of it is garbage. But America is the worlds biggest economy and not a good comparison. A better comparison would be Ireland. Scotland will lose the BBC and be stuck with a Scottish version of RTE.

They wouldnt lose bbc, the same way as we dont lose bbc.
the bbc produce low quality programming compared to the usa.
the point is that tv does not have to be funded by a licenses fee but can be funded through commercials

Quote:
7) the university are thriving due to Scottish decision for free fee.

They are thriving due to UK investment. Free fees don't produce world class universities, they produce a degree factory.

by charging 10,000s they are producing degree factory for rich kids

Quote:
8) yes but the benefits are of this green energy is spread to lower the rest of the 55milions uk people bills

Lower energy bills in the rest of the UK? Green energy is less efficient than fossil fuels.

Thats a different debate son. however if thats your case. Scotland has oil.

Quote:
9) ill accept that as a benefits but these special centre could be easily added to Scottish hospitals. However it works both ways with special treatments in Scotland not in uk

The UK has a much greater capacity to provide healthcare, both in terms of expertise and equipment than Scotland does.

If independence takes place the Scottish capacity to provide healthcare will be very similar to Ireland. Irish healthcare is shít. To make no fine a point.

There is many many problems with the irish healthcare system. Its not because were a small country. Hospitals pay far far far too much for drugs simple because they will. It was only recently that pharmacy were legally allowed to give the generic tablets for example.
If only big countys can give the best healthcare. look at the us health care.

Quote:
10) the pound is a freely trade-able currency.

Yes, so? That's not relevent to anything the picture said.

The point is that they can still use the pound if the become independent.
And before you say anything about interest rates they haven't got control of interest rates as it stands nor will they have if they join the euros

Quote:
Finally. if scotland are thus burnern on the uk and they are bailing them out and trowing money at them for free education and a better nhs ect why does the uk want to keep Scotland. Why dont they let them cut the cord.

Both Scotland and England are stronger together than they would be apart. the UK is more than the sum of its parts.

Having scotland is best for the uk and thats why they want to keep them.

.

Fratton Fred

Of course the Scots don't set interest rates, only English ministers like Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown get to do that.

A Dub in Glasgo

You are confusing doing something for the benefit of the UK and for the benefit of Scotland, they are not the same thing therefore it is irrelevant if Darling and Brown are Scottish

Ralphdejones

I wonder what's now known as "the Republic of Ireland" would be like now, if it had stayed with the UK ?

Iwasfrozen

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You are confusing doing something for the benefit of the UK and for the benefit of Scotland, they are not the same thing therefore it is irrelevant if Darling and Brown are Scottish

What's good for Britain is good for Scotland. It's nonsense to think otherwise.

Its Only Ray Parlour

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I wonder what's now known as "the Republic of Ireland" would be like now, if it had stayed with the UK ?

Abortion might be legal if it was.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You are confusing doing something for the benefit of the UK and for the benefit of Scotland, they are not the same thing therefore it is irrelevant if Darling and Brown are Scottish

So is that a good reason why Cork should get it's independence then?

Sam Russell

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I wonder what's now known as "the Republic of Ireland" would be like now, if it had stayed with the UK ?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's good for Britain is good for Scotland. It's nonsense to think otherwise.

I think it is obvious that if we had remained in the UK, our economy would be much worse because all our industries were killed off in the 19th century and we would be reduced to an offshore food basket.

Scotland is a forgotten part of the UK which is geared to providing the best for the South-East of England, and particularly the City of London. Coal mining is dead, the car industry was ruined by corrupt and incompetent government interference and industry, as far as the British Government is concerned, is for foreigners. In the last 50 years, sterling has fallen to less than 20% of the German currency. The economy has been a dismal failure for the last century, living on constant high inflation to fund deficit economics.

Why would Scotland want to continue with a back seat in this tail spin of a country run by toffs from Eton.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think it is obvious that if we had remained in the UK, our economy would be much worse because all our industries were killed off in the 19th century and we would be reduced to an offshore food basket.

Scotland is a forgotten part of the UK which is geared to providing the best for the South-East of England, and particularly the City of London. Coal mining is dead, the car industry was ruined by corrupt and incompetent government interference and industry, as far as the British Government is concerned, is for foreigners. In the last 50 years, sterling has fallen to less than 20% of the German currency. The economy has been a dismal failure for the last century, living on constant high inflation to fund deficit economics.

Why would Scotland want to continue with a back seat in this tail spin of a country run by toffs from Eton.

There really should be an IQ test before being allowed to vote in politics.

A Dub in Glasgo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What's good for Britain is good for Scotland. It's nonsense to think otherwise.

Evidently not

bpb101

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Abortion might be legal if it was.

That's a different thread. Take it else where.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Evidently not

Why is that?

tbradman

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think it is obvious that if we had remained in the UK, our economy would be much worse because all our industries were killed off in the 19th century and we would be reduced to an offshore food basket.

Some might state that, that is the current state of Ireland, and the main cause is corrupt Irish politicians, incompetent Irish banks and dodgy Irish developers... But lets not talk about Ireland.

Countries can split from each other amicably, the best example is the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I'm sure if Scotland does split from England the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west i.e. the world won't end, but it will require hard work from the Scottish people. It would be in both countries interest to ensure they have a friendly neighbour, ideally with Scotland still in the Commonwealth.

Some things will work well for Scotland while others will not be as simple as they think. They will have 100% control of Scotland's budget, but will have a reduced amount to spend. Like all small economies it will be a juggling act between Education, Health, Social Welfare, Justice and Defence. If they do get the North Sea oil and gas, will they follow Norway's path and nationalise it for the good of the people or Irelands path and do sweetheart deals with big multinationals to give it away for a few coloured beads?

They will probably need to reapply to join the EU, but it might be worth waiting to see if England chooses to leave first.

An independent Scotland seems to be an argument from the heart, remaining in the UK is an argument from the wallet. With all the misdirection going on, I'm not sure if I've heard an argument from the head.

Ralphdejones

At least the Scottish people didn't have all their oil and gas revenue rights signed away by corrupt politicians.

bpb101

It's actually amazing how stupid we were (well not the people , the politicians) when they sold over 400bn worth of oil for effectfully nothing.

I'm trying to avoid ireland but i think one big point should be made. Ireland lose nearly 90% of their fish to other eu countries (ireland only get 10% of eu set quotes for fish in irelands waters ) this is mainly because countries like Spain Germany Belgium don't have fish. We must share our ressorces (however we dont get the Belgians coal) anyways my point is that the reason Norway and Iceland (mainly norway) aren't in the eu is because Their fish stock would be raped. Do remember if Scotland didnt get taken into this great eu there would still be benifts. Besides being rich in oil Scotland is rich in fish however like ireland we lose the majority of our fish.

The eu will jump to accept Scotland because fisherman in Spain and other countries live of ireland scots and English fish
Also do remember they have a year and a half to apply . However they as far as I can see they would need to do another referendum to be part of the eu

Ralphdejones

There is at least one huge difference between the Irish and the Scottish. The Irish people were always happy to be shafted by corrupt gombeen politicians, just as long as they have Irish accents. The Scottish won't lie down for it no matter what their leaders accent are.

bpb101

interesting video

What would the uk do without Scotland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv3jcAnOjEE

of course ian pasly trying to but his head in.

Ralphdejones

bpb101 wrote: »

interesting video

What would the uk do without Scotland

Interesting video, I wonder how it would effect Ireland north and south, politically and economically.
The effects and stability are certainly more predictable if the union remains.
The unknown ripples and unintended consequences for Ireland of an independent Scotland are much harder to predict.

A Dub in Glasgo

More waffle and misinformation from 'Better Together'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVwGbwcP1Ac

Ralphdejones

I really am undecided what way I'd vote if I had one. It's hard to know.
Also for Ireland the implications of a yes vote will be 'interesting'
I'm not sure I want to live in 'interesting' times

the_syco

Although the jobless rate is around 7.1% I think, how much of the employed is by the government itself, and can those figures be kept when it's cut from the rest of the UK?

Oh, and will the blue be removed from all flegs up north?

bpb101

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I really am undecided what way I'd vote if I had one. It's hard to know.
Also for Ireland the implications of a yes vote will be 'interesting'
I'm not sure I want to live in 'interesting' times

I dont think that a yes for scotland will effect n.ireland politically (expect maybe more people elected to Westminster, but that depends whether its a set number of mps or 1 mp per so many thousand)
I cant see any other effect socialy no more than the rest of uk.

I totally understand you dont want to live in interesting times but i think that Scotland would be better off outside the union. People dont ever say Scotland when the mean Britain , they say usually English when they mean Britain. Even take football matches, the English wave British flags even though britian aren't in it.

It is completely 100% up to you(if you had a vote) of course and its not an easy call to make , but scotland will stand out more by voting to be indepdent. However i think one thing is that by voting for independence you arent blanking uk out. Its not like you will ignore them. When you want to drive down to London you will be allowed. there wont be border control but what it means is you wont be force into wars. Your government will decide your polices but finnaly you be able to stand on your own two feet and not be reliant on the uk.

bpb101

the_syco wrote: »

Although the jobless rate is around 7.1% I think, how much of the employed is by the government itself, and can those figures be kept when it's cut from the rest of the UK?

Oh, and will the blue be removed from all flegs up north?

i just want them to stop saying TEAM GB at every little thing :pac:


as for jobs, id say they say around the same( until Scotland polices kick in then lower unemployment)

Fr Tod Umptious

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I really am undecided what way I'd vote if I had one. It's hard to know.
Also for Ireland the implications of a yes vote will be 'interesting'
I'm not sure I want to live in 'interesting' times

I think that an independent Scotland would be bad economically for the Republic of Ireland.

I'd assume they would cut their corporate tax rate to attract FDI.
So Ireland would have a FDI competitor on its door step, with better infrastructure

tbradman

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think that an independent Scotland would be bad economically for the Republic of Ireland.

I'd assume they would cut their corporate tax rate to attract FDI.
So Ireland would have a FDI competitor on its door step, with better infrastructure

You got there before me, I was just about to say the same thing. It would make sense for Scotland to follow Irelands Corporate Tax regime (but without the dodgy loopholes). It would have to do this before attempting to re-join the EU as the EU would never allow it.

I don't think it could fail to have a knock on effect for Northern Ireland and possibly reinvigorate Welsh nationalism.

Also, would Scotland want to join NATO? If it didn't, it could leave a bit of a gap in Englands northern flank...

bpb101

tbradman wrote: »

Also, would Scotland want to join NATO? If it didn't, it could leave a bit of a gap in Englands northern flank...

Thats England and the rest of the uk problem

Fratton Fred

bpb101 wrote: »

I totally understand you dont want to live in interesting times but i think that Scotland would be better off outside the union. People dont ever say Scotland when the mean Britain , they say usually English.

So Scotland would be better off because some people outside of Scotland are a bit stupid?

That's one of the problems with this thread, there are two many posters who have no understanding of the UK and how it works and are posting based purely in their perception of it.

bpb101 wrote: »

It is completely 100% up to you(if you had a vote) of course and its not an easy call to make , but scotland will stand out more by voting to be indepdent. However i think one thing is that by voting for independence you arent blanking uk out. Its not like you will ignore them. When you want to drive down to London you will be allowed. there wont be border control but what it means is you wont be force into wars. Your government will decide your polices but finnaly you be able to stand on your own two feet and not be reliant on the uk.

Scotland isn't reliant on the UK now, it is a significant component of it.

Fyi, it was a Scottish prime minister who took the UK in to the last two wars it was involved in, so maybe an independent Scotland would mean England, Wales and northern Ireland won't be dragged in to wars.

tbradman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Fyi, it was a Scottish prime minister who took the UK in to the last two wars it was involved in, so maybe an independent Scotland would mean England, Wales and northern Ireland won't be dragged in to wars.

Yeah but they were only piddly little wars, it was English Prime Ministers that got Scotland into two World Wars...

Ignorant etc.

English people have stated that independence should be no soft option for the Scottish and that the Scots shouldn't be able to keep the pound etc. They're 100% right. If Scotland votes yes, the UK should have absolutely no sense of a need to help an independent Scotland get on its feet. Its also hard to disagree with them opposing the farcical situation of Scotland and Wales having devolved governments but Scottish and Welsh MPs having a say on England-only laws. If Scotland votes yes, it should be simply a case of "ok, bye, good luck now".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044574/English-reject-Alex-Salmonds-plan-to-share-the-pound.html

I'm not saying that the rest of the UK should act with any sense of aggression to an independent Scotland. Indeed, it should look to build upon, what should be, already good relations. However, any posturing by Scotland going to the rest of the UK wearing the poor mouth and looking for handouts should be turned back. That's the hard choice of independence. Also, in the long term it wouldn't do Scotland any good either.

Sam Russell

There is nothing to stop English people from looking for devolved government for regions that are quite distinct. The South West (Wessex) and the North West and North East and the Midlands all spring to mind. It is the 'natural' superiority of the English right-wing with their mouth-pieces of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph that put forward such views as Scotland and its people are far too inferior to run their own affairs.

We (the Irish people) were offered 'terrible war' by that great Englishman, Winston Churchill, during the treaty negotiations in 1921. That sounds a bit like the offerings of the NO side in this debate - 'terrible poverty' and 'thrown out of the EU'. However those same right wing organs are the ones promoting leaving the EU.

It cannot be worse for the Scots to be in charge of their own destiny.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

English people have stated that independence should be no soft option for the Scottish and that the Scots shouldn't be able to keep the pound etc. They're 100% right. If Scotland votes yes, the UK should have absolutely no sense of a need to help an independent Scotland get on its feet. Its also hard to disagree with them opposing the farcical situation of Scotland and Wales having devolved governments but Scottish and Welsh MPs having a say on England-only laws. If Scotland votes yes, it should be simply a case of "ok, bye, good luck now".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044574/English-reject-Alex-Salmonds-plan-to-share-the-pound.html

I'm not saying that the rest of the UK should act with any sense of aggression to an independent Scotland. Indeed, it should look to build upon, what should be, already good relations. However, any posturing by Scotland going to the rest of the UK wearing the poor mouth and looking for handouts should be turned back. That's the hard choice of independence. Also, in the long term it wouldn't do Scotland any good either.

Here comes the love

Which is exactly why Scottish people need to vote Yes. For too long, the misinformation has been allowed to fester about how England has been paying for all the services in Scotland

comongethappy

What heavy price?

Hypothetically, should Scotland vote for independence, can Britain force Scotland to take part of its ridiculous national debt?

Is there any legal mechanism compelling Scotland to do so?

Sam Russell

If the Scots vote YES, then there will be eighteen months of negotiations.

Remember, the nukes are in Scottish waters.

A Dub in Glasgo

comongethappy wrote: »

What heavy price?

Hypothetically, should Scotland vote for independence, can Britain force Scotland to take part of its ridiculous national debt?

Is there any legal mechanism compelling Scotland to do so?

You would expect that debt and assets would be under negotiation after a Yes vote. This is where the UK Government and Better Together declared no pre-negotiation and then stated that one of the assets is off limits and the debt is already vouched for as well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25707218

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is nothing to stop English people from looking for devolved government for regions that are quite distinct. The South West (Wessex) and the North West and North East and the Midlands all spring to mind. It is the 'natural' superiority of the English right-wing with their mouth-pieces of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph that put forward such views as Scotland and its people are far too inferior to run their own affairs.

We (the Irish people) were offered 'terrible war' by that great Englishman, Winston Churchill, during the treaty negotiations in 1921. That sounds a bit like the offerings of the NO side in this debate - 'terrible poverty' and 'thrown out of the EU'. However those same right wing organs are the ones promoting leaving the EU.

It cannot be worse for the Scots to be in charge of their own destiny.

I'd love to see you provide a source for your claim Churchill offered a terrible war. But of course, you won't be able to.

I don't read either of the rags you mentioned there, but I've never heard anyone claim the Scots are too inferior to run their own country. Scottish people have had plenty of experience running the UK. Maybe you could point to an article that claims that. But of course, you won't be able to.

Why should different regions of England have devolved governments, when England currently does not have it's own government?

Fratton Fred

comongethappy wrote: »

What heavy price?

Hypothetically, should Scotland vote for independence, can Britain force Scotland to take part of its ridiculous national debt?

Is there any legal mechanism compelling Scotland to do so?

Possibly not. But as the owner of the the two largest financial institutions UN Scotland, the UK parliament is in quite a strong bargaining position.

Ignorant etc.

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is nothing to stop English people from looking for devolved government for regions that are quite distinct. The South West (Wessex) and the North West and North East and the Midlands all spring to mind. It is the 'natural' superiority of the English right-wing with their mouth-pieces of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph that put forward such views as Scotland and its people are far too inferior to run their own affairs.

We (the Irish people) were offered 'terrible war' by that great Englishman, Winston Churchill, during the treaty negotiations in 1921. That sounds a bit like the offerings of the NO side in this debate - 'terrible poverty' and 'thrown out of the EU'. However those same right wing organs are the ones promoting leaving the EU.

It cannot be worse for the Scots to be in charge of their own destiny.

I certainly don't think Scotland would suffer any form of widespread poverty were it to break away. However, it is quite clear that an independent Scotland, as a new country, would not immediately form part of the European Union. There is no reason why it should have any problems becoming part of it, and Sweden, Denmark and Finland would probably be great supporters of it doing so. However, it would not immediately be part of it, though "being thrown out" is incorrect terminology though I haven't heard anyone use that exact phrase.

Scotland would, however, quite clearly be worse off. First, whether people like to admit it or not, both Scotland and Wales suffer disproportionately from unemployment which is why you find more Scots and Welsh in England than the other way around. Scotland also takes more per head through the Barnett Formula than England does. Scotland is not ripe for an economic boom. It would also have to deal with a new currency and a new tax system which at least initially would put investors off. It would also have to seek credit to start to build its economy, but has no history of meeting repayments.

For the English people to want to seek redress on issues such as the Barnett Formula and for English people to desire a situation in which only English MPs vote on English issues is not unreasonable. Nor is their desire not to share the pound. It would also be lunancy on the part of Scotland to keep the pound after independence, though lunancy and Salmond pretty much go hand-in-hand. Sharing currency would mean Scotland lost a great deal of the independence that it may have voted for. On a lighter note, it would be interesting to see what the Scots would call their currency. I'm in favour of the "Yin", with 100 "Yin" being colloquially known as "the Big Yin".

comongethappy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'd love to see you provide a source for your claim Churchill offered a terrible war. But of course, you won't be able to.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/08/lawrence-james-interview-winston-churchill-human-leader/

How important were Churchill’s negotiating skills in getting Michael Collins to sign the Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921?

"Well, both the British Army and the Irish Republican Army had been fought to a standstill. And Collins was very worried that the British would start another war. Churchill did mutter in negotiations that, if we don’t have an agreement, a terrible war would be unleashed."

Morto buddy.

Smiles35

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

I certainly don't think Scotland would suffer any form of widespread poverty were it to break away. However, it is quite clear that an independent Scotland, as a new country, would not immediately form part of the European Union. There is no reason why it should have any problems becoming part of it, and Sweden, Denmark and Finland would probably be great supporters of it doing so. However, it would not immediately be part of it, though "being thrown out" is incorrect terminology though I haven't heard anyone use that exact phrase.

And here we go... The old intrige of Cnut's eye on the land. Do not keep us awake with this stuff. I dread that.

Fratton Fred

comongethappy wrote: »

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2013/08/lawrence-james-interview-winston-churchill-human-leader/



Morto buddy.

A blog isn't a source any more than Boards.ie is.

The comment was made by Lloyd George to Barton and he fully understood that the terrible war was not a threat of war from Britain, but an immediate and terrible civil war. The quote you posted even alludes to that.

It has since sunk in to Irish republican folklore that Churchill said it and it meant a British invasion, but that is a myth.

Ignorant etc.

Noblong wrote: »

And here we go... The old intrige of Cnut's eye on the land. Do not keep us awake with this stuff. I dread that.

The fact you refer to someone you don't know from Adam as a "cnut" doesn't exactly show you in your best light. If you don't like what I say, ignore it, that is your perogative. However, going at it with a gutter mouth isn't going to win any arguments. Thank-you.

Smiles35

<snip> the Great! Like Abba! Is he comeing down from Scandinavia again? Making plots..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

Ignorant etc.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A blog isn't a source any more than Boards.ie is.

The comment was made by Lloyd George to Barton and he fully understood that the terrible war was not a threat of war from Britain, but an immediate and terrible civil war. The quote you posted even alludes to that.

It has since sunk in to Irish republican folklore that Churchill said it and it meant a British invasion, but that is a myth.

It is also ridiculous to compare war with what the no camp is doing. Saying that Scotland will be cut off from the pound? In all fairness, that's perfectly reasonable. If a sovereign state doesn't want to share its currency with another sovereign state, what's the problem? We've already seen what a disaster the Euro is turning into it. That the UK would want to retain its fiscal sovereignity, and not dilute it, seems perfectly acceptable.

That Scotland won't be part of the EU is a threat? No its not, its a fact. It will be a new sovereign state, it has no more right to accede immediately to the EU than any other non-EU state. I, for one, don't doubt for a second that Scotland would be admitted. There would be no nation with an axe to grind against it, which has been a problem with certain other countries entering, for example, Turkey being vetoed by Greece in the past. In fact, it would have several countries that would back its involvement. However, it is not a threat, it is a simple observation of the facts.

To be honest, if Salmond and the yes camp entered this debate blindly believing that the rest of the UK would want to share its fiscal sovereignity and that the red carpet would be laid down by Brussels, that's a problem caused by his and their ineptness, not a menace from Westminster.