Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    Why is there so much discussion over scottish independence specifically? I never see anyone suggesting even remotely that Wales or NI should become independent, and equally I have never heard of, for instance, an American state discussing independence, so what is it about Scotland?
    You've never heard of breaking off NI? Ahemm where've you been for 40 years?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    lol.. This is no different to most other countries in the world. Paris supports French GDP, New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, etc. support US GDP, Tokyo supports Japanese GDP, etc.

    I don't think there is a rational reason to oppose Scottish independence. IMO, most English persons should support independence for England.
    Do you think there is a rational reason for opposing independence for Quebec, Cornwall, Catalonia, Basque Country, etc.? What if a small town started campaigning for political independence?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As far as I see it if the Scottish people want independence they should be given the chance to have it. But, I would rather see the Union stay together.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J.M.B)
    As far as I see it if the Scottish people want independence they should be given the chance to have it. But, I would rather see the Union stay together.
    If the people of my town wanted independence, should they be given the chance to have it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    God Save the Queen.
    Long live the UNITED Kingdom
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    If the people of my town wanted independence, should they be given the chance to have it?
    Theoretically yes they should, practically no as its a silly idea.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'd be interested to see what would happen to RBS under this. Could Scotland afford to keep it, live without it and would they even want to remain?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Its just the way we are brought up.

    If the normans had been victorious in Hastings (its been 6yrs since I studied that so sorry if its wrong) and modern France was mainland france, england scotland, wales and ireland (the french would of treated us like people, not rats, so there I doubt there would of been an effective fenian movement). And all the decisions were made in Paris not london, and Sarkozy was your leader you would be wanting independance to.

    You clearly take your indepenace for granted. Prehaps you should be a little bit more greatful and stop crying when those of us with no independance want to taste it.
    It really has been a while, squire. The Normans did win and still hold Britain today. The only difference was that we (ie, the Anglo-Normans) got kicked out of Normandy and our other territories on the continent by the French.

    If we were still part of an Anglo-Norman state, I wouldn't care a jot. I'd be very proud of it indeed, because I don't use politics as a way to shore up insecurities about my identity.

    (Original post by J.M.B)
    Theoretically yes they should, practically no as its a silly idea.
    Whether it's silly or not isn't really for you to say. So, instead, I shall attack the theory.

    If areas of a country are able to secede whenever they disagree with the central government, the central government ceases to have any authority whatsoever. Even the threat of seceding carries with it the ability to essentially blackmail the central government too.

    In reality, there would be plenty of people who would want to declare little islands and so forth independent, set up tax havens and - notably - sponge off the remainder of the UK knowing fine well that the UK won't let them be invaded and so forth. Remaining EU citizens, they could still happily pop over to what remained of the UK and work, use hospitals and everything else besides.

    You're essentially supporting anarchism.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    They can have independence as long as it is true independence. Fund themselves completely, and no Scottish MPs in our parliament.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It really has been a while, squire. The Normans did win and still hold Britain today. The only difference was that we (ie, the Anglo-Normans) got kicked out of Normandy and our other territories on the continent by the French.

    If we were still part of an Anglo-Norman state, I wouldn't care a jot. I'd be very proud of it indeed, because I don't use politics as a way to shore up insecurities about my identity.



    .
    Either do I.

    Ahh, thats right, its coming back faintly now. And then the normans came to ireland, or was that before 1066.

    Ashamed to call my self a history student at this present time
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Scotland would not fare too well on its own in my opinion, it is stronger if we stay as the UK. Scotland has the benefit though that Scottish MPs can vote on solely English matters, while English MPs cannot vote on solely Scottish matters.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calanon)
    Scotland would not fare too well on its own in my opinion, it is stronger if we stay as the UK. Scotland has the benefit though that Scottish MPs can vote on solely English matters, while English MPs cannot vote on solely Scottish matters.
    that is because there (basically) are no solely scottish matters.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    Either do I.

    Ahh, thats right, its coming back faintly now. And then the normans came to ireland, or was that before 1066.

    Ashamed to call my self a history student at this present time
    It was after.


    (Original post by jms)
    that is because there (basically) are no solely scottish matters.
    So what is the Scottish parliament for?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)


    So what is the Scottish parliament for?
    i thought we were talking about Westminster?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Give us more devolved powers for now and see it that goes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jms)
    i thought we were talking about Westminster?
    Well there are basically no solely Scottish matters in Westminster because the Scottish parliament deals with them instead. That's the issue people have, Scotland has it's own government to deal with matters that only affect Scotland, but England doesn't have a government to deal with matters that only affect England.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The whole concept of Scottish independence is rather stupid. It usually rests upon two things, number one that it'll give Scotland 'it's own voice' and number two that the nation will be economically better off because of it's lower population and oil reserves.

    Dealing with number one first. Scottish independence would reduce Scottish influence not increase it. Scotland would lose it's place on the UN Security Council, it'd lose it's place in the G7 and G20, it'd no longer be a power in the EU just another small country like Ireland or Latvia. It'd also lose the vast majority of it's armed forces and be reliant upon the UK for it's defence anyways. Remember that 2 out of 3 of the last Prime Ministers have been Scottish and Scottish politicians always feature disproportionately in British cabinets. To go along the road of independence would be removing all this influence to becoming a nation along the lines of Ireland.

    Secondly the economic argument. Alex Salmond was often quite happy to cite Iceland and Ireland as examples of what Scotland could be if it was independent. Those arguments have dissapeared now those countries have gone the tubes. His comparision to Norway will also falter when North Sea oil begins to run dry and Scotland can't continue funding it's welfare schemes without English help. Furthermore the big Scottish banks couldn't have been saved by an independent Scotland, it's only because of the strength of the union that RBS and HBOS and much of the Scottish economy was saved. Independence for Scotland would actually reduce it's economy prosperity and wealth of it's people in the long run.

    In essence it's a bad idea.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Each nation in the UK should have independence. Each nation should be able to govern itself entirely and completely.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    uestion 1:

    Everyone tells us that Scotland is too poor to stand on its own feet and we will always require an English subsidy.

    Fact Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population yet raises 10.41% of all UK tax revenues. (Source Treasury red Book 2002) Go figure it out for yourself. Exactly who is subsidising who?

    Question 2.

    Scotland could not survive without the Barnet formula handout from England.

    The Barnett Formula is nothing more than a device which gives Scotland some of its own pocket money out of Scotlands pay packet which is taken by England. In 2002, Scotland contributed £42.7Billions to the UK Exchequer and received £18.1 Billions doled back in return via Barnet. It would be a much better idea to keep the £42.7 Billions as an Independent Country.

    Question 3.

    North sea oil is running out fast and soon there will be nothing left……

    According to Professor Alex Kemp, of Petroleum Economics at the University of Aberdeen. North Sea Oil and Gas production will still be present in 2050. There is as much known oil left yet to be extracted than has already been exploited

    Question 4.

    Britain is becoming a net importer of oil and natural gas.

    False. Scotland is a net exporter of Oil and Gas. Fact: An independent Scotland with 17.5% of Europes Oil reserves will be a net exporter of oil and gas for at least 25 years more years. Properly invested the proceeds will make Scotland the second richest nation on earth for its size. There will be huge social and economic benefits for all Scotlands Citizens and public services.

    Question 5.

    Scotland is too poor and small to afford to defend itself.

    Why not? Switzerland uses just 1% of its GDP to provide a modern efficient Army and Air force. Norway spends 1.9% and can defend itself adequately. The UK spends 2.32% of GDP on its armed forces (Including Trident) Scotland can afford 1.6% of its GDP and still have modern professional armed forces half the size of the present UK.

    Question 6.

    We have a huge balance of payments problem, Scotland cannot possibly hope to pay her way.

    False. The UK as a whole has Balance of Payments deficit of £35 Billions per annum. Scotland however actually contributes a Surplus of £2.3Billions.

    Question 7.

    Scotland could not compete against the mighty economic muscle of England.

    Untrue. Denmark has an economic superpower to her south (Germany) and she does very well indeed. Switzerland is surrounded by three great economic superpowers, France, Italy, and Germany, yet she is the most prosperous nation in Europe. Singapore is a tiny island of 4 million people right next door to Indonesia with a population if 201 Millions yet is the powerhouse driving the SE Asian economy. Scotland has more than enough expertise to compete and prosper.

    Question 8.

    Scotland is too far away from the centre of Europe to prosper.

    Iceland with a population of only 400,000, is situated far to the north by the arctic circle yet has the third highest standard of living in Europe.

    Question 9.

    The City ofLondon is too powerful a financial centre for Scotland to compete against. Scotland is one of Europe’s top ten financial centres, supporting employment for in the region of 200,000 people. Financial Services accounts for 8% of Scotland’s GDP and generates more than £20 bn annually for the economy. Scotland is reckoned to be the 12th leading global financial centre.

    Question 10.

    Scotland does not have the financial expertise to run its own affairs.

    Who says so. Its strange that the late British Empire relied on a preponderence of Scots to run their affairs. Scots bankers, economists and Accountants (reckoned to be the best in their fields) are to be found at all levels of Government. Therefore the expertise is there.

    http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/f...1-0-0-asc-.php

    For me Scottish Independance is a non-brainer, Scotland should be independant,nevermind the economics. But I do think it is OBVIOUS that Scotland would be economically better off as well.

    Those that say Scotland cannot survive as a country are bordering on RACISM in my book. WHY should Scotland not be able to do what many countries have been doing for hundreds of years and what European peoples are still demanding today in Slovenia , the Czech Republic , Slovakia , Bosnia , Serbia ,Latvia , Estonia etc etc etc….
    throwing it into the mix
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So basically the argument is that Scotland will be fine because Iceland is doing well (it's not), because 150 years ago Scots were prominent in the Empire and thus make great bankers 150 years later (doubtful and the argument isn't that they don't run banks well but that they couldn't afford to them bail them out) and finally that Scotland's economy is so whizz bang it can survive on it's own and oil reserves will last forever (it's not, it's dependent on oil to run surpluses and the oil reserve levels are highly contended).

    You might aswell have not posted that.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.