British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Unionist · 07-05-2008, 09:44 PM

I am not one to say that the Union should be defended at all costs but I do believe when we consider the Union from the point of view of the alternatives - or the 'opportunity cost' - it will be seen to be the better option. I am not a British nationalist but I am very definitely opposed to English nationalism, thus I am by default a Unionist.

Here are a few points I would add for consideration:

Demography
A large proportion of the population in England and Wales is descended from the Scots and Irish. Indeed, Scotland's population has been held down in the past by migration to England. In 1901, England's population was 30.5 million compared to 50.8 million in 2006. Scotland's population in the same period has increased from 4.5 million to just 5.1 million - hardly a comparable increase. Part of the explanation is that many Scots have moved South.

North Sea Oil and Gas
It is difficult to say exactly what proportion of North Sea Oil should be allocated to Scotland in terms of GDP, but 60% of the total would be a modest estimate. (Statisticians commonly cite 75% and 90% for indicative figures but normally North Sea oil and gas is subsumed under UK GDP in general.) Oil and gas accounted for over £22 billion 'value added' to the UK economy in 2006, so even a modest estimate of Scotland's 'contribution' in this sector would be put at over £13 billion.

Parliamentary Arithmetic
The so-called West Lothian Question points out the anomaly that Scottish MPs can vote on England-only matters while English MPs have no reciprocal votes on Scottish matters since these are reserved for the Scottish Parliament. In fact, the advantage is squarely in England's favour. Looked at from another point of view, Scottish MPs have 9% of the voting rights on English domestic issues such as health, education and transport. By contrast, English MPs have 82% of the votes on the UK matters, including Scotland, such as social security, macroeconomic policy, immigration, defence and foreign affairs. In fact, the UK parliament is largely and English parliament and it determines the budget for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you want to complain about the Barnet formula, note that it is English-dominated governments that have created and maintained it in place. Speaking purely selfishly from an English point of view, the minor allocation of votes to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs in the Commons barely affects England's ability to dominate the Union. The temporary preponderance of Scots in the upper echelons of the Labour party reflects the fact that the Labour party was nearly decimated in much of England in the 1980s, but Scotland provided a continuing base of support throughout that time. (By the way, the worst possible situation - worse than an independent England - would be a federal UK in which the other parts of the UK would demand, as with other federal systems, an equal say in issues such as defence and macroeconomic policy.)

Defence and Strategic Issues
The Union is good for us in strategic terms and extends our home defences massively. What might happen in defence terms if Scotland left the Union is purely speculation but it would require a significant rethink of our defences. The strategic interest, incidentally, was the main incentive for us to form the Union three hundred years ago.

History
For generations now, the Scots, Welsh and English have lived together and fought together. We share a common language and have many aspects of our culture in common. The idea that we might have a border between our countries is unthinkable. Historically the Scots, Welsh and Irish have made huge contributions in the military, in governance of the Empire and in the sciences and arts. The Scottish Enlightenment has helped to shape the modern era.

Andy Stewart
OK, I won't push this one...

07-05-2008, 09:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
Unionist Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,056	I am not one to say that the Union should be defended at all costs but I do believe when we consider the Union from the point of view of the alternatives - or the 'opportunity cost' - it will be seen to be the better option. I am not a British nationalist but I am very definitely opposed to English nationalism, thus I am by default a Unionist. Here are a few points I would add for consideration: Demography A large proportion of the population in England and Wales is descended from the Scots and Irish. Indeed, Scotland's population has been held down in the past by migration to England. In 1901, England's population was 30.5 million compared to 50.8 million in 2006. Scotland's population in the same period has increased from 4.5 million to just 5.1 million - hardly a comparable increase. Part of the explanation is that many Scots have moved South. North Sea Oil and Gas It is difficult to say exactly what proportion of North Sea Oil should be allocated to Scotland in terms of GDP, but 60% of the total would be a modest estimate. (Statisticians commonly cite 75% and 90% for indicative figures but normally North Sea oil and gas is subsumed under UK GDP in general.) Oil and gas accounted for over £22 billion 'value added' to the UK economy in 2006, so even a modest estimate of Scotland's 'contribution' in this sector would be put at over £13 billion. Parliamentary Arithmetic The so-called West Lothian Question points out the anomaly that Scottish MPs can vote on England-only matters while English MPs have no reciprocal votes on Scottish matters since these are reserved for the Scottish Parliament. In fact, the advantage is squarely in England's favour. Looked at from another point of view, Scottish MPs have 9% of the voting rights on English domestic issues such as health, education and transport. By contrast, English MPs have 82% of the votes on the UK matters, including Scotland, such as social security, macroeconomic policy, immigration, defence and foreign affairs. In fact, the UK parliament is largely and English parliament and it determines the budget for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If you want to complain about the Barnet formula, note that it is English-dominated governments that have created and maintained it in place. Speaking purely selfishly from an English point of view, the minor allocation of votes to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs in the Commons barely affects England's ability to dominate the Union. The temporary preponderance of Scots in the upper echelons of the Labour party reflects the fact that the Labour party was nearly decimated in much of England in the 1980s, but Scotland provided a continuing base of support throughout that time. (By the way, the worst possible situation - worse than an independent England - would be a federal UK in which the other parts of the UK would demand, as with other federal systems, an equal say in issues such as defence and macroeconomic policy.) Defence and Strategic Issues The Union is good for us in strategic terms and extends our home defences massively. What might happen in defence terms if Scotland left the Union is purely speculation but it would require a significant rethink of our defences. The strategic interest, incidentally, was the main incentive for us to form the Union three hundred years ago. History For generations now, the Scots, Welsh and English have lived together and fought together. We share a common language and have many aspects of our culture in common. The idea that we might have a border between our countries is unthinkable. Historically the Scots, Welsh and Irish have made huge contributions in the military, in governance of the Empire and in the sciences and arts. The Scottish Enlightenment has helped to shape the modern era. Andy Stewart OK, I won't push this one...