Should Scotland be independant from the rest of the UK

[Stuzz!!!]

Aye Aye all, hows yous.
Im just wondering if you have an opinion on if Scotland should be seperate from the UK.
In my opinion, well im not sure. Id like it to be but im not ure of the political ins and outs.
Let me know what you think.
Ta

[D'Art]

Eventually, yes. but, and its a very big but (rather like some females I know...), we aren't ready for it. Yet.

[jBirch]

Depends.

What's to gain by independence? Granted, Scotland is a beautiful nation inside of the UK and many of the decisions of the UK don't reflect that Scottish flavour. However, is Scotland likely to be any more prosperous on its own?

In Canada, Alberta and Quebec often talk about seperating and forming their own countries. I think that they would be worse off because of it. I truly believe that a state larger and made up of hetrogenous nations is better then a state smaller, but homogenous.

James.

[D'Art]

Depends.

What's to gain by independence? Granted, Scotland is a beautiful nation inside of the UK and many of the decisions of the UK don't reflect that Scottish flavour. However, is Scotland likely to be any more prosperous on its own?

Lots, most of them social, rather than economic IMHO, though I could very easily be wrong. The Trots (Scottish Nationalists) have some good ideas, and some bloody ridiculous ones,but their main agenda is independence within Europe, which I personally feel kind of defeats the purpose. They also seem to think that the oil in the North Sea is worth billions to the Treasury, maybe over the 30 years since it was discovered, yes, but not in the quantities they keep spewing out. Apart from that, they don't seem to be anything more than you would get from a Tory/Lib Dem coalition. Gav will probably correct me on just about everything I've said here, but thats my 2 cents worth.

And, no, I don't think Scotland will be any more prosperous, until we can get two or three generations of politicians who can tell their arse from their elbow

[Gav]

Lots, most of them social, rather than economic IMHO, though I could very easily be wrong. The Trots (Scottish Nationalists) have some good ideas, and some bloody ridiculous ones,but their main agenda is independence within Europe, which I personally feel kind of defeats the purpose. They also seem to think that the oil in the North Sea is worth billions to the Treasury, maybe over the 30 years since it was discovered, yes, but not in the quantities they keep spewing out. Apart from that, they don't seem to be anything more than you would get from a Tory/Lib Dem coalition. Gav will probably correct me on just about everything I've said here, but thats my 2 cents worth.

And, no, I don't think Scotland will be any more prosperous, until we can get two or three generations of politicians who can tell their arse from their elbow

The Nats are anything but the Trot's - that's the Scottish Socialists. And although they are also in favour of independence in Europe (last time I checked) they are considerably more ... schemie. Other than that you are in the right ball park
Except that the Nats are more left wing than they used to be and are more like the Labour Party that John Smith might have delivered.
I believe that we may have missed the boat on the Brent Crude boom. The supply has peaked and new discoveries are thin on the ground. Independence 25-30 years ago (the last time we had a referendum on it - and that was loaded against indedendence btw) may have allowed us scots to exploit oil for our own benefit.

I'm in favour of independence. I believe that most people in Scotland are - deep down. Certainly I don't know anyone who isn't in some form. Devolution has made independence inevitable - I think. I'd like to see Scotland metamorphose into a small European state a la the Scandanavians (with worse rates of heart disease). I think we have the potential to export our expertise as scientists and engineers - providing we are allowed to take control of our own affairs.

[jBirch]

I believe that we may have missed the boat on the Brent Crude boom. The supply has peaked and new discoveries are thin on the ground. Independence 25-30 years ago (the last time we had a referendum on it - and that was loaded against indedendence btw) may have allowed us scots to exploit oil for our own benefit.

Oil. Why does it always come down to oil? The argument I hear most often for Alberta seperation is that we'd get to keep our own oil instead of sending it to the greedy east.

What happens when the oil runs out?

James.

[Gav]

Oil. Why does it always come down to oil? The argument I hear most often for Alberta seperation is that we'd get to keep our own oil instead of sending it to the greedy east.

What happens when the oil runs out?

James.

That's what I just said ...

[Inquartata]

I'm neither a Scot nor a British subject. It's none of my business....

[jeff]

Not my business either, but interesting anyway.

Isn't there some oddity at this moment where Scots voters can influence British Parliament results, but not the other way around?

[ZEROFLASH]

Gav, you act like a woman.

[foilz]

Have Scots ever felt any affection for Sassanachs? I doubt it.

Have the English ever shown Scotland anything other than exploitation and abuse? Probably not.

So why not be independent?

Trade and business and money flow would continue, but Scotland, beautifully, would emerge.

Scottish Nation has given the world plenty -- most of my New Zealand, most of Canada, plus huge great hunks of the United States.

Why blend a great culture into an inferior one? Single malt is superior.

I'm a Ross, a sixth-generation New Zealander. Mother's family from Inverness. Free Church. English on father's side, Burnley, Lancashire. Emigrated to New Zealand mid-1800's as cheap Irish labor flooded the mills.

We are one planet. The planet needs a Scotland.

[Gav]

Not my business either, but interesting anyway.

Isn't there some oddity at this moment where Scots voters can influence British Parliament results, but not the other way around?

There's nothing odd about it. In my opinion it's a fact of devolution. One that was highlighted by Tam Daziel when he posed the "West Lothian question". Essentially it is this:

He asked how it could be right that a Scottish MP at Westminster after devolution could vote upon matters such as education affecting English seats - but that same MP could not vote on such matters affecting his own constituency because they would have been devolved to a Scottish Parliament.

Read more at:

UK Politics: Talking Politics The West Lothian Question
The West Lothian Question

The recently reduced New Labour majority has been increasingly reliant on the support of the Labour MPs. This question also highlights an issue that scots have been angered by in the past. Rule by minority. During the Tory years of the 80s and early 90s Scotland was governed by a parliament in Westminster that didn't appreciate the differing problems in Scotland (and, I would argue, anywhere north of Birmingham) culminating in the introduction of the Poll Tax before England. During these years Scotland turned further and further away from the mainstream English political scene; which was dominated by the Thatcherites. The end result was the "Tory wipeout" - when all Tory MPs where thrown out. When Thatcher turned 80 there was much fanfare in the general UK press, but in Scotland the discussion was always about how loathed she is. In any case it seemed, to the Scots during her reign, that Scotland was being governed by a group who had virtually no reperesentation. I would say that this is a problem of the current UK parliament voting system - "The First Past the Post Question".
At present the West Lothian question cannot be answered until we either become independent, the UK morphs into a federal state, or Devolution is repealed. Both options are extremely contentious. I am disappointed that the Scottish New Labour MPs voted on issues affected by the West Lothian question; this has allowed some extemely contentious and poorly thought out proposals to get in.

Edit:

Poll after poll suggests that a majority of scots do not feel 'British'. They feel Scottish first, frequently European second (as in my case) and British comes some way down the line. The same goes for the Welsh, and foreign immigrants in either country. Whereas the English believe themselves to be British first before English - frequently confusing the two. I've seen this referred to as the "Celtic Resurgence" or the "The English Identity Problem". The fact that the peoples of the United Kingdom differ, philosophically, like this leads me to believe that a form of federalism is [at least] desirable.

[ZEROFLASH]

Stop whining woman. Your people are descended from the English.

[pigeonmeister]

Obviously Scottish people reject ‘Britishness’ It was a superficial identity that tried to distract the fact that England was the dominant partner. Scottish and Welsh identity has evolved in opposition to English cultural, military and economic dominance. In terms of culture, there is a much more assertive sense of being ‘Scottish’ than being ‘English’. This shows the paranoia they feel over English cultural imperialism. It’s enough that they speak ‘English’ (sort of), they don’t want to act or look like the English, sing English songs, have the same art or national symbolism. There is a siege like mentality to the Scottish national identity, not seen as prevalently in England. English people are more secure and thus don’t give as much thought to being ‘English’ or ‘British’, either way we know who we are. It seems that when England plays Germany, everyone in Scotland wants Germany to win. Yet when Scotland play, I support them against whoever. Not sure why this is. Every time I have been to Scotland I have been abused in some way, 90% has been very good natured though. The first time I went to Wales our School minibus was stoned, and written in 2 foot high letters was ‘F*** Off back to England’ when we went walking around the slate mines.

Being British in Scotland has imperial overtones. What is funny is that Scotland was very happy to be British when we had a huge empire; in fact Scotland was a driving force behind the empire. It made Scotland rich with ship building contracts and effectively made Glasgow and Edinburgh the cities they are now. As soon as we lose the empire, don’t need ships, and Scotland finds oil- they want out!

Yet the fact is that Scottish Oil reliance is a myth and nobody really thinks that a split would benefit either the Scottish or English economies. Is it not the cases that English tax payers contribute more to Scotland, than the North of England? A split is a pipe dream and a way of proving your nationalist credentials.

If it ain’t broke then don’t fix it, it’s not like the Scottish identity is under threat or that Scots don’t play a huge role in British politics. A Scot will be the next Prime Minister and devolution has made Scotland much more federal. The bottom line is that when you cross the border nobody says ‘ Oh we have just entered North Britain’.

[Gav]

Obviously Scottish people reject ‘Britishness’ It was a superficial identity that tried to distract the fact that England was the dominant partner. Scottish and Welsh identity has evolved in opposition to English cultural, military and economic dominance. In terms of culture, there is a much more assertive sense of being ‘Scottish’ than being ‘English’. This shows the paranoia they feel over English cultural imperialism. It’s enough that they speak ‘English’ (sort of), they don’t want to act or look like the English, sing English songs, have the same art or national symbolism. There is a siege like mentality to the Scottish national identity, not seen as prevalently in England. English people are more secure and thus don’t give as much thought to being ‘English’ or ‘British’, either way we know who we are. It seems that when England plays Germany, everyone in Scotland wants Germany to win. Yet when Scotland play, I support them against whoever. Not sure why this is. Every time I have been to Scotland I have been abused in some way, 90% has been very good natured though. The first time I went to Wales our School minibus was stoned, and written in 2 foot high letters was ‘F*** Off back to England’ when we went walking around the slate mines.

"All mergers result in a takeover." I can't remember who said that however this sums up your points. There is no such thing as an equal partnership; in political or economic terms. The end is that one or the other becomes swallowed.

The English are always quick to complain about being abused when they come to Scotland yet, for some reason, we are supposed to accept the same abuse [without comment] in return. I have been abused on visiting England in exactly the same ways that you describe. So you'll have to forgive me if I seem less than sympathetic.

And incidentally; the reason why everyone in Scotland wants to support whoever England is playing is part anti-English and part irritation at the Media. There is nothing more irritating than having to put up with the Jingoistic South biased media during a world cup or Olympics. In Scottish terms; it is extemely irritating to see Scottish GB athletes lauded as British and maybe English; while English GB athletes are just English.

Being British in Scotland has imperial overtones. What is funny is that Scotland was very happy to be British when we had a huge empire; in fact Scotland was a driving force behind the empire. It made Scotland rich with ship building contracts and effectively made Glasgow and Edinburgh the cities they are now. As soon as we lose the empire, don’t need ships, and Scotland finds oil- they want out!

True to a point.

Only Glasgow really benefitted from ship building. Glasgow was the industrial hub while Edinburgh got the money - which is a trend that you still see today. Scotland largely 'created' (loose use of the word) the empire by fighting for, building and industrialising it. To say that we were the exclusive cause of the Empire is wrong - despite what some revisionists may say. But yes, so long as there was profit it suited Scotland. The fact is that there has been no perceived profit in the Union for Scotland for some time; no amount of nostalgia for times gone will fix that.

If there has been no obvious profit in it; if successive parliaments have neglected the country, or imposed unpopular laws, then why should Scots feel enthusiastic about the UK parliament?

I believe that the English could actually benefit from their own devolved parliament.

A split is a pipe dream and a way of proving your nationalist credentials.

Any Nationalist worth his salt will acknowledge that a split will be difficult. It would be stupid for any of the nationalists to ignore that fact. However you don't have to look very far to see alternative governance models that would probably suit a properly federal or fully independent Scottish state.

If it ain’t broke then don’t fix it, ...

And that is a recipe for stagnation. Neither that or stating that the next, or current, prime minister will be a Scot (which I believe is not certain) strengthen the case for the Union.

[Rogue]

I thought Mel Gibson already freed the Scots?

[pigeonmeister]

And that is a recipe for stagnation. Neither that or stating that the next, or current, prime minister will be a Scot (which I believe is not certain) strengthen the case for the Union.

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.

1. The people of Scotland will continue to benefit from the influence which the UK has as a major member state within the European Union. Are you seriously saying that Scotland as a separate entity would carry the same international clout? What about the G8, could Scotland expect a seat (or on UNSC)? Are you saying that you think that the SNP have the experience to run an international economy? Would they have been able to negotiate a £3 billion EU rebate? The London Assembly building cost £120 million. The Scottish Parliament came in at £430 million. The actual cost of £431m means English taxpayers will have to provide a fifth of that - about £86m - because of Scotland's generous funding formula. Scotland spends more public money than it raises in taxes, leaving taxpayers in England to make up the difference, about 20% of its total budget. The Scottish Parliament could have met some of the extra cost by using its powers to increase the basic rate of income tax in Scotland by up to 3p in the pound. But Chancellor Gordon Brown - who was anxious to avoid accusations of old-style tax and spend policies - ordered Labour ministers in Edinburgh not to use those powers

2. Spending on services has soared by 73% since devolution, almost a third more than in England! At the same time Scotland's share in tax revenue has slipped meaning that the Scottish Executive's spending spree is increasingly being subsidised by England.
Jim Cousins, a Labour member of the Treasury Select Committee, described the gap between Scottish and UK spending as 'quite startling' and further evidence that the so-called 'Barnett-squeeze' on the Scottish budget was not working. "We peer over the garden fence and see what is going on in Scotland and we are shocked. The North East has the most difficult record on health and educational achievement in England yet we find that Scottish spending is 20% - 25%higher and that is causing a lot of unrest."

3. Scotland is over-represented, under-taxed and excessively subsidised. It may sound harsh but it's broadly true. Every Scottish resident gets 19 per cent more public money than the United Kingdom average and 24 per cent more than people in England. (these figures are admittedly 6 years old, but I doubt a seismic change has occurred)

4. Experts point out that even if Scotland got 80 per cent of the proceeds of taxation on North Sea oil, there would still be a looming fiscal gap.
Source: Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde, Quarterly economic commentary, March 1999.

5. The Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) statistics for 2001- 2002 showed that identifiable spending per head in Scotland is now £6,246, compared with £5,012 south of the border. The amount is greater than spending per head in Wales (£5,582), behind Northern Ireland (£6,626) and well ahead of the British average figure which now stands at £5,207.

In percentage terms, England also emerges as the poor relation with spending per head almost 4 per cent behind the British figure, while Scotland gets just under 20 per cent above Britain, Wales receives 13 per cent more, and Northern Ireland enjoys 27.2 per cent per head more. This equates to a shortfall for the North East of £1.35 billion!

6. Even the bloke that came up with the formula which dictates how English tax payers subsidize Scotland has admitted it is unfair.

Barnett Formula is Unfair says Lord Barnett

"It is a great embarrassment to have my name attached to so unfair a system, especially as, when I introduced it, it was going to last only a year. It has now lasted more than 20 years, because successive governments have failed to deal with it for fear of upsetting the Scots." 9th Jan 2004

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!

I wouldn’t go this far though!
On the eve of his new Channel Four series 'Monarchy' historian David Starkey has claimed that: "It is a statement of fact. Scotland matters for a single reason, which is its involvement with England from the 17th century onwards."

He added: "Then it becomes important. Could Scotland have had an empire of its own? The Darien scheme suggests not. Let's get a sense of proportion - five million people against 45 million. I love Scotland but it is not an important country. Your own political elite don't want independence because they love swanning around as prime minister and chancellor of the exchequer. Given the choice of being first minister of Scotland or chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown would always choose the latter.

[Gav]

I edited your post so that I could pick out my stuff - without the tags. Nothing more.

[pigeonmeister]

I edited your post so that I could pick out my stuff - without the tags. Nothing more.

That's cool- but what do you mean 'without the tags'?

[jeff]

There's nothing odd about it. In my opinion it's a fact of devolution.

Thanks Gav - this is an area I don't know much about, and I appreciate your explaining!