Scottish independence

Rolo2010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Basically no chance of Welsh independence. It's hard to even make out what Welsh is.


That the pro independence percentage is so high must mean a very large percentage of cultural Welsh want out.


Possibly a better chance of Cornwall getting independence.

It's pretty much only the Welsh speaking areas which want out.

Capt'n Midnight

Like Scotland Cornwall is a Celtic nation.

More importantly it serves as a good example of how England has treated the regions. Cornwall went under that Big Red Bus right after it voted because it was no longer needed.


Here's how fast and far funding has dropped in Cornwall since Brexit started. It can be used as an counter example to every Tory promise.


From 2016 The county has received £1bn of aid over the past 15 years with more than £400m in the pipeline until 2020 because of its relatively weak economy.

From 2017 The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has awarded the region £18m in its latest round of "growth deal" investment.[/QUOTE]

Now it's there are fears that the county could get as little as £1.8m in the first year. :eek:

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Like Scotland Cornwall is a Celtic nation.

It’s kind of cute that people like to think of it like that.

Genetically, the Cornish have far more in common with Devon than they do with Wales.

The whole Celtic Nation spiel is just romantic nonsense that no one outside of Ireland really cares about.

Imreoir2

Aegir wrote: »

It’s kind of cute that people like to think of it like that.

Genetically, the Cornish have far more in common with Devon than they do with Wales.

The whole Celtic Nation spiel is just romantic nonsense that no one outside of Ireland really cares about.

What in the name of god has genetics got to do with anything? I hope you are not a blood and soil ethno-nationalist, are you?

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What in the name of god has genetics got to do with anything? I hope you are not a blood and soil ethno-nationalist, are you?

quite the opposite actually, which is why I dislike talk about things like Celtic Nations.

Water John

A Celtic identity isn't an extreme nationalism, just a sort of brotherhood. No need to get agitated. Cornish people for example had a major impact on the far end of West Cork with the copper mines in Allihies. Identifying different cultures, show us how they merged over time.
Cornwall had a distinct language as has Brittany.

In terms of strong nationalism, going as far as physical confrontation I wouldn't agree with, even that of 1916.

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

It’s kind of cute that people like to think of it like that.

More importantly it serves as a good example of how England has treated the regions.

Only 5% of EU funding is being matched by Westminster.

And even that 5% won't be happening next year.

And who knows if this government will actually deliver on those promises or whether it will be the old trick of announcing "new" money that has already been announced.


There are a lot of what-if's about Scottish independence that have already been answered with examples. IMHO the treatment of Cornwall servers as a good example of what could happen to Scotland.

Charles Babbage

I noted elsewhere someone wondering how much fishing water would an independent Cornwall have? Perhaps they could join with independent Wales.

Capt'n Midnight

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I noted elsewhere someone wondering how much fishing water would an independent Cornwall have? Perhaps they could join with independent Wales.

They'd have all of the South West Offshore Marine Plan area 68,000Km2 and most of the corresponding Inshore area of 16,000Km2 , so call it 80 thousand Km2 and it's a third of of the English waters.

Wales only has 30 thousand Km2 and more importantly neither are getting independence any time soon seeing as how both elect over 90% of their MPs from the main English parties. Only 4 seats out of 40 went to Plaid Cymru and they were all in 'Gealtacht' areas.

The only 'Gealtacht' area that didn't vote Remain was a certain island with nowhere to park the trucks from the ferries. If you ignore the fact that the voters were lied to it looks like the same sort of karma as the North East of England with all the car plants. - Again this is something to be highlighted in indyref2 , how many areas that voted for Brexit got shafted afterwards.

The fact that Cornwall has safe Tory seats defies belief at first glance.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

It’s kind of cute that people like to think of it like that.

Genetically, the Cornish have far more in common with Devon than they do with Wales.

The whole Celtic Nation spiel is just romantic nonsense that no one outside of Ireland really cares about.

"Celtic" is a linguistic term, not a genetic one.

In general, national idenity is build on cultural foundations, not genetic oness.

There's a debate about the extent to which Cornish can be taken to be a national identity, and you can argue the matter one way or the other. But the fact that Cornish have more genetic commonality with Devon than they do with Wales is supremely irrelevant to that debate.

rock22

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Celtic" is a linguistic term,....

Although this idea is quite common from English sources, any examination would show that Celtic is far more than a linguistic term.

Peregrinus

rock22 wrote: »

Although this idea is quite common from English sources, any examination would show that Celtic is far more than a linguistic term.

It is fundamentally a linguistic term, the Celtic peoples being defined as those communities who speak or used to speak one of the Celtic languages. "The Celtic nations" is usually understood to refer to the nations where one of the Celtic languages is or was recently spoken. As a result of this language-based understanding, there is a broader cultural/artistic commonality between the Celtic nations - e.g. we can meaningfully talk of Celtic musical traditions, Celtic religious traditions.

Genetically, though, not so much. Icelanders and Faroese have a good deal in common, genetically speaking, with the Irish and the Scots respectively; certainly more so than the Bretons do with either nation. But Iceland and the Faroes have never been considered Celtic nations because they have never used a Celtic language.

The Celtic nations never at any point formed any kind of overarching political community or alliance. There were some political structures that embraced parts of Ulster and parts of Scotland, but I think nothing on any larger scale. And the notion that in modern times they might come to do so in the way that, say, the Nordic countries do, strikes me as a bit of romantic wishful thinking. Politically, what five of the six Celtic countries have in common is that their most important external relationship is with their larger immediate neighbour, England, but the very different relationships which they have with England means that there isn't much room for co-ordinated action even on that question.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Stick with Scottish independence please.

forgottenhills

Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc.

The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term.

Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.

Markcheese

forgottenhills wrote: »

Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc.

The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term.

Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.

Well the brexit vote was largely emotive , and reason doesn't always trump emotion ..
Also its scotland currency system too .. they may negotiate to leave sterling .. but they already issue their own paper currency ... doesn't mean there wasn't be a run on bank a/cs being transferred south of the border ..( or north if brexit goes completely pear shaped )

A Dub in Glasgo

forgottenhills wrote: »

Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc.

The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term.

Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.

There are lots to think about but that is the same for any country that wants independence

If your last sentence relates to GERS, well there is very little transparency in their build up and how the UK Treasury allocates income and spend and it was specifically introduced to act as a tool to use against the 'enemy'



In any case, as Deloitte observed in 2017

Capt'n Midnight

Markcheese wrote: »

Well the brexit vote was largely emotive , and reason doesn't always trump emotion ..
Also its scotland currency system too .. they may negotiate to leave sterling .. but they already issue their own paper currency ... doesn't mean there wasn't be a run on bank a/cs being transferred south of the border ..( or north if brexit goes completely pear shaped )

Scottish banks already have to hold reserves of English Sterling equal to the amount of Scottish money they have in circulation.

Keeping the link to Sterling is a complete no brainer as long as most trade is with England.

Water John

forgottenhills, your points have already been well aired. Don't think anybody involved underestimates the task in hand if Indy Ref is to be successful and planned. On the other hand, many countries have been down this road.

Capt'n Midnight

forgottenhills wrote: »

Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc.

The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term.

Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.

Currency is guaranteed as it's backed up by Sterling deposits.

Nuclear subs - see treaty ports.

Allocating the UK dept is the big one. How much spending and how much of the debt was to pay for the nuclear deterrent ? Or HS2 or other English construction projects. There are good few items that should be crossed off.

UK police forces and NHS and civil service etc all all regional so that's already done. Scotland has a separate legal system. Is there any particular area you are aware of that is not done regionally ??


The entire UK is subsidised by London and some of the home counties to the West of it. Not paying for Trident and Son Of Trident will save billions. A lot of the revenues from fossil fuel went south of the border. Comparing Ireland north and south, the only real competitive advantage of the south was that we could make our own rules. Being in the UK has meant that NI went from having 90% of the islands manufacturing industry to not having 90% of it. An independent Scotland wouldn't face a 30% tariff in the US on Whisky. Direct Foreign investment should improve.


Plans
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0042/00422987.pdf


tl;dr version an independent Scotland could follow Norway.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The entire UK is subsidised by London and some of the home counties to the West of it. Not paying for Trident and Son Of Trident will save billions. A lot of the revenues from fossil fuel went south of the border. Comparing Ireland north and south, the only real competitive advantage of the south was that we could make our own rules. Being in the UK has meant that NI went from having 90% of the islands manufacturing industry to not having 90% of it. An independent Scotland wouldn't face a 30% tariff in the US on Whisky. Direct Foreign investment should improve.

The drop in GBP value (75p to 91p) since the Brexit Ref has made this much worse because the wages, social welfare has not taken account of it. The subsidy (if you call it that - subvention might be better) has been reduced and the differences are now huge.

If Scotland were tied to GBP it would limit their fiscal freedom - UK inflation in the 1970s was worse for us and had a very bad effect on us - and we could do little about it. That held us back until Mar 1979 when we joined the EMU, and broke the link with GBP. Since then we have prospered - well, eventually.

forgottenhills

Water John wrote: »

forgottenhills, your points have already been well aired. Don't think anybody involved underestimates the task in hand if Indy Ref is to be successful and planned. On the other hand, many countries have been down this road.

Yes the points are well known but did the SNP go into the last referendum with a concrete plan for currency, balancing the budgets, working out a relationship with the EU? No it didn't to my mind and Brexit will make having such a plan more essential next time around.

forgottenhills

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Currency is guaranteed as it's backed up by Sterling deposits.

Nuclear subs - see treaty ports.

Allocating the UK dept is the big one. How much spending and how much of the debt was to pay for the nuclear deterrent ? Or HS2 or other English construction projects. There are good few items that should be crossed off.

UK police forces and NHS and civil service etc all all regional so that's already done. Scotland has a separate legal system. Is there any particular area you are aware of that is not done regionally ??


The entire UK is subsidised by London and some of the home counties to the West of it. Not paying for Trident and Son Of Trident will save billions. A lot of the revenues from fossil fuel went south of the border. Comparing Ireland north and south, the only real competitive advantage of the south was that we could make our own rules. Being in the UK has meant that NI went from having 90% of the islands manufacturing industry to not having 90% of it. An independent Scotland wouldn't face a 30% tariff in the US on Whisky. Direct Foreign investment should improve.


Plans
https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0042/00422987.pdf


tl;dr version an independent Scotland could follow Norway.

I don't think that anyone doubts that Scotland could make a go of it in the long run but the medium term will be very difficult.

Has any 1st world country made a huge constitutional change in recent decades, in a world made much more complicated by complex social welfare, rigorous borrowing requirements and closely interconnected trading arrangements that have to be redefined? Perhaps Eastern Europe is closest after 1990, but they didn't really come from a 1st world baseline and expect standards to be maintained. And when we set up a state in 1922 the world and the nation state were a great deal less complex structures. Think even about the IT system changes involved in a state change for one thing - daunting.

Peregrinus

forgottenhills wrote: »

Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc.

With respect, there’s no suggestion that Scotland should vote for independence and then declare independence the day after. You’re attacking a straw man of your own devising here.

forgottenhills wrote: »

The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term.

Quite. And those of us who are older than about 12 can remember the 2014 referendum, in which the Scottish government published a detailed white paper some months before the referendum outlining how it proposed the Scotland should transition to independence, what its position would be on hosting the UK’s nuclear deterrent, how the UK national debt might be apportioned, what defence forces an independent Scotland would maintain, its fiscal policy, its currency policy, etc, etc.

So, not only the Awful Example of Brexit, but also past experience, suggest that the Scots won’t be invited to vote on independence without a joined up plan for how it is to be delivered.

forgottenhills wrote: »

Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.

A common trope among unionists, but in fact untrue. Which is not to say that independent Scotland wouldn’t face some tough budgetary questions. But if you frame the questions on the assumption that Scottish public expenditure is paid for by English taxpayers, you have misunderstood the problem.

It's true that public expenditure per head in Scotland is higher than tax revenue per head in Scotland. So. yes, the Scots are running a massive deficit, as you say.

But it doesn't follow that the English are paying for this and, in fact, they're not. Because public expenditure per head in England is also higher than tax revenue per head in England. So, if the tax paid by the English doesn't even cover expenditure in England, how can we argue that English taxes are paying for expenditure in Scotland? They're not.

How is this miracle achieved, you may well ask? If the Scots are spending all this money on themselves that they're not raising in taxes, and that they're not getting from the English, where are they getting it? For that matter, where are the English getting the money that they spend on themselves that they're not getting from tax revenues?

The answer is simple and familiar; the UK is running a budget deficit. They are borrowing the money that they are spending that isn't covered by tax revenue. And they are borrowing money to spend both in England and in Scotland.

But are they borrowing more (per head) to spend in Scotland than they are in England? That depends on how you account for tax revenues - how you allocate them between tax raised in England and tax raised in Scotland. And, as with most accounting decisions, more than one view is possible on how it ought to be done.

The clever chaps at the Treasury treat oil royalties neither as taxes raised in England nor as taxes raised in Scotland. Instead they put them in a category called "national output" which they invented for the purpose. This increases the apparent excess of expenditure over tax revenue in both countries. Your Scot, however, takes the view that this is duplicitous Sassenach accounting trickery. If Scotland and England were independent of one another, he points out, and oil royalties were accounted for according to in whose territorial waters the oilfields lay, then a bit more than 90% of the oil royalties would flow to Scotland. And if you redo the excess-of-public-expenditure-over-tax-revenue figures on that basis, then the (per capita) deficit in Scotland and England look a lot closer. Both countries would be running a deficit, but not a hugely different deficit, per capita.

The Scottish fiscal situation would be more volatile, certainly, since oil royalties would represent a much greater proportion of Scotland's revenue than of England's. Oil prices bounce around quite a lot, and oil revenues accordingly. But in principle, at any rate, that could work out well or badly for the Scots. They'd also have the medium-to-long-term problem that oil resources are finite, and at some point the oil revenues would decline and eventually disappear.

That's not a trivial problem, but it's not an immediate one. Scotland isn't currently receiving a massive subvention from English taxpayers that would disappear if they became independent. Scotland is not Northern Ireland, in short.

bob mcbob

Peregrinus wrote: »

With respect, there’s no suggestion that Scotland should vote for independence and then declare independence the day after. You’re attacking a straw man of your own devising here.


Quite. And those of us who are older than about 12 can remember the 2014 referendum, in which the Scottish government published a detailed white paper some months before the referendum outlining how it proposed the Scotland should transition to independence, what its position would be on hosting the UK’s nuclear deterrent, how the UK national debt might be apportioned, what defence forces an independent Scotland would maintain, its fiscal policy, its currency policy, etc, etc.

So, not only the Awful Example of Brexit, but also past experience, suggest that the Scots won’t be invited to vote on independence without a joined up plan for how it is to be delivered.


A common trope among unionists, but in fact untrue. Which is not to say that independent Scotland wouldn’t face some tough budgetary questions. But if you frame the questions on the assumption that Scottish public expenditure is paid for by English taxpayers, you have misunderstood the problem.

It's true that public expenditure per head in Scotland is higher than tax revenue per head in Scotland. So. yes, the Scots are running a massive deficit, as you say.

But it doesn't follow that the English are paying for this and, in fact, they're not. Because public expenditure per head in England is also higher than tax revenue per head in England. So, if the tax paid by the English doesn't even cover expenditure in England, how can we argue that English taxes are paying for expenditure in Scotland? They're not.

How is this miracle achieved, you may well ask? If the Scots are spending all this money on themselves that they're not raising in taxes, and that they're not getting from the English, where are they getting it? For that matter, where are the English getting the money that they spend on themselves that they're not getting from tax revenues?

The answer is simple and familiar; the UK is running a budget deficit. They are borrowing the money that they are spending that isn't covered by tax revenue. And they are borrowing money to spend both in England and in Scotland.

But are they borrowing more (per head) to spend in Scotland than they are in England? That depends on how you account for tax revenues - how you allocate them between tax raised in England and tax raised in Scotland. And, as with most accounting decisions, more than one view is possible on how it ought to be done.

The clever chaps at the Treasury treat oil royalties neither as taxes raised in England nor as taxes raised in Scotland. Instead they put them in a category called "national output" which they invented for the purpose. This increases the apparent excess of expenditure over tax revenue in both countries. Your Scot, however, takes the view that this is duplicitous Sassenach accounting trickery. If Scotland and England were independent of one another, he points out, and oil royalties were accounted for according to in whose territorial waters the oilfields lay, then a bit more than 90% of the oil royalties would flow to Scotland. And if you redo the excess-of-public-expenditure-over-tax-revenue figures on that basis, then the (per capita) deficit in Scotland and England look a lot closer. Both countries would be running a deficit, but not a hugely different deficit, per capita.

The Scottish fiscal situation would be more volatile, certainly, since oil royalties would represent a much greater proportion of Scotland's revenue than of England's. Oil prices bounce around quite a lot, and oil revenues accordingly. But in principle, at any rate, that could work out well or badly for the Scots. They'd also have the medium-to-long-term problem that oil resources are finite, and at some point the oil revenues would decline and eventually disappear.

That's not a trivial problem, but it's not an immediate one. Scotland isn't currently receiving a massive subvention from English taxpayers that would disappear if they became independent. Scotland is not Northern Ireland, in short.

Yes however the Scottish Government is investing heavily in renewables to offset the impact of the decline in oil -

It is estimated that Scottish waters have the potential to generate around 10% of Europe's wave power and possess 25% of the potential European offshore wind and tidal resource. Scotland has almost 40% of the total UK resource.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-marine-atlas-information-national-marine-plan/pages/49/

Looking at offshore wind for example -

Currently Scotland has 5.6GW of consented offshore capacity, of which 1GW is operational.

The Scottish Government has set a new ambition to increase offshore wind capacity to 11 gigawatts (GW) of energy installed by 2030 – enough to power more than eight million homes.

If this happens Scotland will be a major exporter of green electricity to Europe in future.

https://www.gov.scot/news/increased-offshore-wind-ambition-by-2030/

A Dub in Glasgo

There is a direct correlation between this announcemnt two months ago

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1313232875110662147

and this

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1286250551760637953

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There is a direct correlation between this announcemnt two months ago

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1313232875110662147

and this

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1286250551760637953

Is there?

Not everything is about Scotland

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

Is there?

Not everything is about Scotland

No it's not - it's all about England.

Also, the handling of the Covid is a devolved matter and so it demonstrates the benefit of independence.

In that tweet lies a lie.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

Is there?

Not everything is about Scotland

Where do you think England is going to get their renewable energy from?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Where do you think England is going to get their renewable energy from?

Boris said wind, not just renewable.

The world's four largest offshore windfarms are in the UK England and more are currently being built.

https://doggerbank.com/
https://hornseaprojectone.co.uk/
https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/lines-business/flagship-projects/east-anglia-one-offshore-wind-farm
https://walneyextension.co.uk/
https://londonarray.com/

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

Boris said wind, not just renewable.

The world's four largest offshore windfarms are in the UK England and more are currently being built.

https://doggerbank.com/
https://hornseaprojectone.co.uk/
https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/lines-business/flagship-projects/east-anglia-one-offshore-wind-farm
https://walneyextension.co.uk/
https://londonarray.com/

Well I guess England shouldn't be too worried about Scotland becoming independent from an energy security pov.

Well done England.