Do You Support Scottish Independence?

I have nothing against the English, we just shouldn't be the same country.

Should the French and Germans be part of the same country?

No.

Why Scotland and England?

The first point is nonsense. The 1801 union incorporated Ireland into the United Kingdom.

I'm not sure what a "natural state" is, but it sounds positively disturbing as a concept. I suspect the idea owes some debt to the nationalistic battling of the continent over the centuries. Something I am not keen to emulate.

You clearly are an ethnic one if you believe there is something "natural" about your construct. To suggest a person of another identity cannot represent you is not civic, it is ethnic - and it's racism.

Scotland is not an independent nation, it is part of a country called the United Kingdom. Really, some of this is getting quite bizarre. Scotland is not a colony, it is an integral part of this country.

Or it could be like Somalia, it would depend on the policies pursued by the government. What I do not doubt, however, is that Scotland would be materially disadvantaged from such a move and indeed would have been a far poorer country in spirit for adopting the backward ideology of nationalism.

And yes, Scotland wasn't subjugated like Wales was thanks to the bravery of my ancestors, we just got sold out by the nobles of the day.

Scotland is treated like a colony. I think it is the same attitude that was taken towards Ireland, towards Kenya and the rest of the Empire. The union was the union of empire (of which some Scots sold out and pursued riches in), but we must return to our past and reclaim our nation state.

Don't be silly. We could have set up a wealth fund and spent the money in Scotland and not propped up Thatcher's (who then went and crapped on Scotland) economics. It makes me angry to think of all the Scottish money from oil that fuelled English industry in the City of London. THAT is colonialism with the rubber stamp of an English dominated HoC and a biased Unionist press that talks Scotland down.

As bad as things are right now in Ireland she is still 100% better off then when occupied by the English.

Um not exactly we put in as much as what we get out really stripping out oil profits we run a deficit larger than the rest of the Uk. However including we include North Sea oil we run pretty much a balanced budget. When oil prices are high then we contribute slightly more than we get out. However these claims are on the basis that Scotland would get 90% of the Oil and Gas fields which is pretty silly as up to 50% of oil and gas fields could be situated in english waters. Also the whole issue of whether The Shetlands would want to be part of a independent Scotland is debatable and the ownership of Rockall is another diffcult issue aswell. The idea though that Scotland would be richer is a bit stupid if we run a balanced budget with 90% of the oil which we will most likely not get anywhere near 90% then how would be be able to deal with diplomatic,Milatary,Bail outs, International Aid,IMF and how in god's name would we be capable of saving £1 billion a year for an oil fund it's just not feasible. The union may have it's faults but the vast majority are happy with it and i don't think thats going to change anytime soon.

I can come to some level of agreement: GERS showed Scotland's revenue/expenditure divide to be less than the UK's as a whole. However the very notion of 'subsidy' is nothing more than deliberately provocative language used to disguise some rather distasteful divisive instincts. I don't wander up to working class people and tell them that I 'subsidise' them - I'd get thumped on the nose, and quite rightly so. In this case it's particularly galling as Scotland's economic position is built not on solid economic policies or even the ingenuity of its people, but rather by finding some oil off the coast.

Scotland would not be richer as an independent country. Any surplus Scotland has generated whilst oil prices were high is entirely off-set by the deficit it has had when they are low. The cost of public services we run collectively would increase and the quality would decrease.

I also wouldn't trust Scottish Labour or the SNP - both being predominantly composed of left-wing dinosaurs - to run an economy. Even UK Labour is vaguely acceptable - but north of the border, they're just unreconstructed ********s.

And of course, Ireland was not "occupied", it was part of the United Kingdom. An independent Scotland could indeed emulate good economic examples - much like an independent United Kingdom already does, just with far greater economic security!

Whilst I accept most of what you say I do have a couple of things to ask;

1 - Why do you think the quality of public services would decrease while the cost would increase?

2 - The SNP has a low corporate tax/pro business stance in many respects; is it not innacurate to characterise them as left wing?

3 - Based on the arguments above, surely Scotland is no worse off whether it is in or out of the UK, as the salient points about the base of the economy and the defecit/surplus thing hold for both situations?

I think you'll find it was occupied from about the 13th dentury. It was later incorporated into the UK, but the incorporation followed from about 600 years of English, and later British occupation.

Cromwell? Black and Tans? Bloody Sunday? Easter Rising?

You clearly don't have any love for Scotland.

The vast majority of Scots love Scotland, and we want to be a free and independent country.

No. An English person could represent an independent Scotland, because then they would be working for Scottish interests. However, those who represent the United Kingdom (whether English or Scottish) are working for their London party masters, and don't have the Scots in mind. Poll Tax and the nuclear weapons in the Clyde is an example.

Scotland is treated like a colony. I think it is the same attitude that was taken towards Ireland, towards Kenya and the rest of the Empire. The union was the union of empire (of which some Scots sold out and pursued riches in), but we must return to our past and reclaim our nation state.

Don't be silly. We could have set up a wealth fund and spent the money in Scotland and not propped up Thatcher's (who then went and crapped on Scotland) economics. It makes me angry to think of all the Scottish money from oil that fuelled English industry in the City of London.

The SNP has never had a policy in favour of tax cuts. Indeed, the only time they campaigned in support of tax changes was to support a tax rise - a penny increase in income tax. In government, they've been far from pro-business in tax terms. I see no reason to believe that, handed the powers, they'd use them in any sort of radical centre-right fashion.

Firstly, economies of scale apply in terms of public services. How many diplomatic staff we deploy, how many administrative staff involved in Treasuries and tax collection, the integration of our organised crime prevention bodies and so forth are significant matters. Why do I think quality would drop? Because I think with the British military, the British security services and even - yes - the British tax authorities we have long-established bodies who are exceptional in their fields. The SNP proposes we, at best, divide those bodies or, at worse, completely destroy them.

The SNP has never had a policy in favour of tax cuts. Indeed, the only time they campaigned in support of tax changes was to support a tax rise - a penny increase in income tax. In government, they've been far from pro-business in tax terms. I see no reason to believe that, handed the powers, they'd use them in any sort of radical centre-right fashion.

That is, in itself, debatable. In legal theory, Ireland was an entirely independent that shared a monarchy (and thus, in those days, its executive authority) with England. The legal relationship between England/Britain and Ireland was as a result of Ireland's own laws.

Now, you might well say this was because of invasion, supplanting the local aristocracy with another. But this was not an English aristocracy - it was a Norman one. The same process, of course, happened to England in 1066. Was England occupied? No.

One interesting theory I have heard, and is why the working class Scot who brought it up is not voting for independence, is that if Scotland became an independent state - that a centre right or right wing party is quite likely to come to power. Scotland is in many respects a conservative country, and I don't think it is too radical to suggest that an independent Scotland could yield an economically 'right wing' party that won elections.

Well, the conventional wisdom holds that Scotland is generally much more "socially democratic" and "left-leaning" than its southern counterparts. I'm not sure how much truth there is to that hypothesis.

If Scotland was to become "independent" (it's questionable how truly "independent" it would be if it retained the Queen as its head of state and remained within the EU) chances are the SNP would factionalize and eventually dissolve altogether. Then, hopefully, a right-wing, pro-family, fiscally and socially conservative, anti-immigration, ethnic nationalist party would be formed and be voted into government. No, I'm not referring to the tories, the only thing that's conservative about them these days is their name.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any parties in Scotland, or the UK for that matter, which have the political outlook I described above. Even if there were, they wouldn't stand much of a chance at elections as so many people in Scotland have been brainwashed to associate any vaguely right-wing ideology with the tories, Thatcher, fatcat bankers et al.

It's fairly unlikely that any ethnic nationalist/anti-immigration party would get many votes in Scotland (Though it's probably possible it might garner some support in the greater GLasgow suburbs). Partially because most people don't like the idea of involving race in politics (the BNP and UKIP always get soundly drubbed up here) and partially because Scotland is relatively pro-immagration; needing migrant labour to keep the economy functioning.

The only reason it hasn't happened is because Scotland is 98% white.

If we did see large ethnic & cultural changes like England the exact same thing will happen.

England is much less inclined to vote these parties than Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Italy and so on.

Nuclear weapons are more needed now than they were before, Does Iran or North Korea ring any alaram bells ?

Ah now, Cromwell was a bad'un. As were the Black and Tans. The British state has, at times, oppressed the Irish. But it's also oppressed the English too - the Peterloo Massacre, for example. Indeed, all states do that to their own people, especially in pre-democratic eras.

The poll tax stuff in relation to Scotland is well known myth; nuclear weapons are on the Clyde because that is the most suitable geographic location for them - and they provide thousands upon thousands of jobs.

You suggest politicians in the UK are, uniquely, incapable of representing the people and that their political parties somehow have no interest in representing the public. This is blatant nonsense.

Scotland is not treated like a colony, it is an equal part of the United Kingdom and elects members to the UK Parliament.

Thatcher used oil money to keep taxes low, leading to greater investment. We have the Scottish financial services industry, high tech manufacturing and a great deal else to thank that for. The money was invested in our economy - unlike most oil funds, who are happy to invest in foreign businesses for a return.

Scotland has had disproportionately high public spending in it for generations now and indeed finds itself economically better off than most English regions. It is utterly pathetic to cry oppression - indeed, it makes you sound unhinged.

Scotland is not an equal partner. It has less MPs and is treated as second to England.