Should Scotland be independant from the rest of the UK

[Gav]

The idea that Scotland doesn’t benefit economically from the Union is wrong on two levels. Firstly there is the obvious fact that you cannot give any evidence that a split would benefit Scotland more than being in the Union. Secondly, and more starkly there are obvious economic benefits.

blah blah blah blah blah blah

[snipped for clarity]

Scotland has been independent before and is likely to be so again. I cannot point out what would happen now - for obvious reasons. Although I dislike nostalgic peering into the past (see Rogue's post for current thinking along those lines) we could peer into the past and say that at various points Scotland competed favourably with the English. Although times have changed. I'd be willing to part with some Barnet cash if it meant that Scotland could decide it's own future. This is a political decision - not a strictly economic one.

Be grateful! And as far as not supporting Scotland, we both know it is pure anti-English sentiment, don’t blame the media. Also whilst Scots might be ribbed for being stingy or eating deep fried mars bars or other Glaswegian stereotypes of knives, heroine etc. Scots tell you to F*** of out of their country- and really mean it!

Ah yes. I take it you mean England?

Leaving the typo aside.

I've had my cash refused on several occasions in England - basically because it's a different colour - it's no different from English currency. I have been told to **** off out of England by yobbish types that would probably look not dissimilar to the ones you met. I've been accussed, at different times, of being; a 'scottish gypo', a Jock, tight-fisted and basically all the things that you mention and probably more. Why should I accept it? Is English bigotry somehow less obnoxious than Scottish? I've had to put up with upper class English twats who basically think that the Scottish are nothing more than their serfs - and you think that this level of condescension and bigotry is acceptable? I've been attacked for no other reason than because I am scottish. I've had to put up with londoners who basically think that Scots are just vagrant drunks.

Even the national anthem builds on this - or weren't you aware?

Shall I list some more?

My point being that there are unpleasant people north and south of the border.

Give me a break.

Edit: Re-reading what I wrote it may appear that I have a problem with the English. Not at all. I have a problem with the English complaining about scottish bigotry when it appears, to me, that it appears the English equivalent is just as bad (more so in some instutional circles).

I'm also very unromantic about Scottish prospects outside of the union. I don't buy the Oil idea - especially as we are trying to move away from it and oil production is in decline. What chance Scotland may have had at being oil-rich has past. Don't let anyone tell you different.

It cannot be denied that many Scots, particularly of my generation, feel that that the UK parliament does not represent us. In my case especially the present bunch - who are Tory by another name. This feeling of under representation, whether justified or not, fans the flames of nationalism. Whether the tennants of No 10 or 11 are Scottish has no bearing on the Nationalist movement.

[pigeonmeister]

I've had my cash refused on several occasions in England - basically because it's a different colour - it's no different from English currency. I have been told to **** off out of England by yobbish types that would probably look not dissimilar to the ones you met. I've been accussed, at different times, of being; a 'scottish gypo', a Jock, tight-fisted and basically all the things that you mention and probably more. Why should I accept it? Is English bigotry somehow less obnoxious than Scottish? I've had to put up with upper class English twats who basically think that the Scottish are nothing more than their serfs - and you think that this level of condescension and bigotry is acceptable? I've been attacked for no other reason than because I am scottish. I've had to put up with londoners who basically think that Scots are just vagrant drunks.

My point being that there are unpleasant people north and south of the border.

Give me a break.

Well when you put it like that, I gues that is pretty harsh. English bigotry is clearly up their with the worst of them. Come to think of it my Dad went to Scotland week before last and came back with some Scottish £20 notes. He went to buy some wine from a shop with them and they refused, he told them it was obviously legal tender, they still refused and Dad walked out of the shop (even though he could have paid by card). Fair enough.

Look I totally agree that there are unpleasant people north and south of the border, I myself have never seen the kind of attitudes you have come across, but then I am not Scottish. The point I was making is that I think it would be a shame to break up the Union, I think it works well. But, by all means, if Scotland wants Independence let Scotland have independence. But what I fundementally disagree with, and the point of my post, was your assertion that there "has been no perceived profit in the Union for Scotland for some time" That, in economic terms at least, is patently not true. You say you are willing to give up these economic benefits for political sovereignty, that is fair enough. I just think it might be a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face, especially when Scotland has such a high degree of national identity, political devolution and cultural assertiveness. I honestly think we are both stronger united (sorry for the soundbite)

[Epee_Pox]

Nationalistic balkanization is rarely a good idea. I, for one, am puzzled why Ireland and North Ireland are two different things.

England, Scotland and Ireland have more in common with each other than do Massachusetts, North Carolina and Nebraska. Their shared cultural history goes back at least a millenium. Together they would be greater than the sum of their parts.

So why on earth would one insist on independence? Much better to unify and make certain everyone's voices were represented fairly, than to separate.

[Inquartata]

England, Scotland and Ireland have more in common with each other than do Massachusetts, North Carolina and Nebraska. Their shared cultural history goes back at least a millenium. Together they would be greater than the sum of their parts.

So why on earth would one insist on independence? Much better to unify and make certain everyone's voices were represented fairly, than to separate.

You know, exactly the same things might be said of the Jews and the Palestinians...if you leave out that whole "hate each other with a white-hot virulence" thing.

[pigeonmeister]

You know, exactly the same things might be said of the Jews and the Palestinians...if you leave out that whole "hate each other with a white-hot virulence" thing.

Not really a fair comparison, as I’m sure you’re aware!

For one Scotland already has its own education system, Church, legal system, and parliament and taxation powers. Its territorial borders are not disputed. It is not underrepresented, not under military occupation and other countries stopped funding its militias over 250 years ago. I’d like to think that cries of ‘death to England’ don’t rise up over the Glasgow night—well maybe in a few pubs!

[pigeonmeister]

I, for one, am puzzled why Ireland and North Ireland are two different things.

Because of the English and Scots.

[Gav]

To expand on PM's point. Check out the Irish uprising and the subsequent settlement. Then go back and read a little about Irish sectarian conflict (pay attention to the root of the issue; not just the 70s stuff - it's much older than that.). You will not only understand why they are different entities (one still being a member of the United Kingdom; the other an autonomous state within the EU) but also why there is an IRA, UVF, UDA etc etc etc You might be interested in reading about American involvement..

[foilz]

Wars of geography and sovereignty between people divided by religion -- complicated by a particularly nasty, mutual terrorism -- really isn't what Scotland is about.

Politically, Ireland is a big ugly (which all of us hope and pray is creeping towards some kind of resolution) but Scotland isn't.

The issue is, can a free Scotland live and thrive, and exist in a complex world, without being part of the United Kingdom?

If Litchenstein, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tiny outposts of isolationism can exist freely on stamps, banking, tourism, and other ventures, I am convinced an honest Scotland can do much better.

If Scots think that for some reason they can't, then I'm pretty sure they aren't thinking hard enough.

[pigeonmeister]

If Scots think that for some reason they can't, then I'm pretty sure they aren't thinking hard enough.

That is not the issue. I’m sure that Scotland could exist as a separate entity, economically and politically. The issue is whether this would benefit Scotland in a way that is more useful than abstract ideas of political sovereignty. It seems that Scotland already has both political sovereignty and a national consciousness but with all the benefits the Union. The reality is that, if you break up the Union, Scotland would become a less important state, with less of an international voice and without the same ‘credit rating’ in the international market. England wouldn’t. Is the grass greener on the other side? What is best, materially and economically, for the Scottish people? That is the issue in my opinion.

Scotland, particularly Glasgow, has similar sectarian tensions as Northern Ireland. They just haven’t been exasperated by as much violence or social and political disenfranchisement. I’m not saying that a break in the Union would ferment these tensions, but I do think that if Scotland failed to get its social and economic policies right, early on, then who knows. For sure the Loyalist/Unionist movement in Northern Ireland has a lot of contacts in Scotland, and these people are capable of anything.

[scrapinpeg]

I wonder if this is just a traditional annual subject that comes up every November.

[gtmac]

Touche, scrapinpeg.

Thanks

[Gav]

I wonder if this is just a traditional annual subject that comes up every November.

Perhaps.

We are about to have a new Scottish parlimentary election in here and it promises to be the most interesting election within the UK for some time. We may actually see the SNP in power. If you are unionist you don't have to look much further than Maggie Thatcher first and then Tony Blair second for much of the damage.

[chefencer]

I was going to post this back during the server upgrade...
The Scottish Invasion Who rules London?

[umbrella]

well I am all three, but not welsh; I would like to see all of them bind together and stay together, they're too tiny to go off on their own! And....

does anyone remember the lyrics to this old song?

[umbrella]

When Britain first at Heav'n's command,
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain;

The nations not so blest as thee, Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.
Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
[ouch - listen to that one!]
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame,[us]
All their attempts to bend thee down;
Will but arouse thy generous flame - [hello? whatfor?]
But work their woe, and thy renown.
To thee belongs the rural reign, [hello?]
They cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned, And manly hearts to guide the fair.

CHORUS:
Rule Britannia, happy land,
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
And now the air and now the land!:rolleyes:

---------------------------------------------------------

[Asprin]

Scotland I think should have more control over its politics but still be have the Queen as head of state.

The joint rule started because the English Queen had died and the next in line was her cousin's son, who happened to be the king of Scotland. The King ruled in England because he wanted to control the English!

I should probably mention that although I live in Scotland, I am from London.

[umbrella]

If Queen Elizabeth hadn't done in her cousin Mary of Scotland, it would have been a little different, but again, that's history. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if Mary had taken the Monarchy....it would have been a Catholic monarchy, so a little different. I like old Iron Sides Margaret Thatcher as she was a pretty tough cookie.

[idiotpilot]

Scotland I think should have more control over its politics...

Too right. But also Scotish MPs should have absolutely no say in policies that effect only England and Wales!

[jeff]

And, when Gordon Brown becomes PM?

[pigeonmeister]

Too right. But also Scotish MPs should have absolutely no say in policies that effect only England and Wales!

I gues they would say that they endured 18 years of Conservative rule, despite the Tory's never winning in Scotland. Now they have devolution (after spending English taxes on their parliament!) I agree with you.