organist

I'm not of the SNP, if that's what you mean. I'll only be voting for them to deliver Scottish independence - as it is the generally accepted way of doing so. After Scotland gets its independence (which is now inevitable, surely you agree with that) I wouldn't be voting for them again. I agree with some of their economic and business policy - and disagree with a lot of their other policy. I am in total sync with their policy of independence and this is the utmost of my concerns at present. Extricating Scotland from the UK is far more important than extricating Scotland from the EU, at present.

Scotland wasn't engaging in imperialistic wars at the time (which were expensive). Read the actual Act of Union if you don't believe me. Scotland was liable for England's debt (not the other way about). Yes there was bankruptcy in Scotland as a result of the Darien failure, but it wasn't borne out by the Scottish government. It was borne out by the upper classes and private institutions who invested.

Because of international law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil

I just love the "if we can't have it, the Scots can't either" argument. Is it the fact the loss of oil from British control will lead to (a) a big drop in revenue or (b) a crash in the value of sterling (it is a petro-currency after all) - which would be more important economic challenge facing the UK after Scottish independence?

The SNP are of course right, in this regard (international law is on their side)

What I mean was removing them into your own country. If England does wish to remain a power of global standing, then you will need them. It will of course be a very costly exercise, replicating the infrastructure - and of course Scotland will be due its fair rebate of what it has paid towards them on independence. 8.7% of £75bn works out about £6.5bn if my maths is correct. If it is a wealth based share, then it will be a bit higher.

Small and weak like Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark you mean? I mean how can you compare the UK to any of these countries? They are much smaller (some of them smaller than Scotland), much wealthier and have higher quality of life.

This thread gives a very good insight into lots of things - I argue for Scotland to be independent because I want Scotland to have all the tools at its disposal to alleviate its problems, to grow its economy and have the things other places take for granted - a voice on the international stage, a seat at the UN and international self-respect. Scotland has none of these and is no better for it. I don't care about Scotland's power or influence - it is completely irrelevant. All some of you care about is maintaining England's power and prestige - and it is very pathetic.

organist

A final point.

Unlike rump UK, when Scotland leaves the union, it won't automatically be a member of the EU. To all intents and purposes it still will be part of the trade area, but unless it reapplies for membership it won't automatically be bound by its institutions.

I don't believe for a minute the EU will say "Welcome to an independent Scotland - here's your EU membership card". Maybe Scotland ridding itself of the union, may (in an unintended way rid it of the other union). Wouldn't that be good?

mkpdavies

You have to be kidding. The EU owns you, just like it owns England. The SNP LOVE the EU. Their MPs will lock Scotland in even further!

The SNP/EU will negotitate Scotland in deep, adopting the Euro and ending all sovereignty Scotland ever had. You will be ditching the UK, where your people have had LOTS of influence, for an undemocratic EU superstate, where they will have none.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Britannist

Don't get too cocky - the new gas pipeline (the longest and biggest in the world) from Norway has, quite rightly, been routed through to England (Easington) where it was opened a couple of weeks back. Although Scotland has a direct gas pipeline to Norway, it is small and working to capacity. Do you want gas from England or not - you're not going to get very much of it from your 'friends' the French (who couldn't really care less about you - but would just like to use you as a stick with which to beat the English they are so jealous of)?

And you keep using the word 'when' Scotland leaves the UK. I think you mean 'if'? The French-speakers in Quebec (Canada) kept saying "when we leave Canada". But, after two referendums in Quebec on the matter in which the French-speakers threw every last cent they could lay their grubby anti-English hands on and put into their 'quit Canada' campaign - they are still firmly rooted inside Canada.

As for the EU - the issue of Scotland as an independent member of the EU has been considered by your europhile 'friends' up at the top of the EU. They said that Scotland would not get its own seat on the EU Commission. It would have to rotate (i.e. be shared) with countries like Estonia, Latvia and Estonia (the EU Constitution wants all nations to rotate on and off the EU Commission - the UK would be off it half the time, but Scotland would only have a seat on the EU Commission for about one out of every five years).

So, there you have it. According to the EU, their idea of the 'worth' of Scotland is for it (a Scotland in the EU but outside the UK) to share its place on the EU Commission with a group of ex-communist Baltic states (and other small entities that may join the EU in the future such as Bosnia or Montenegro) - most of whom have among the lowest GDPs in europe.

andypandy

Quebec leaving Canada is actually a far more complex issue then say Scotland quitting the UK. Large parts of Quebec were granted by the Federal government, and Quebec receives large portions of the Albertan oil and gas revenues. Quebec as a political entity could still well exist, but not necessarily within the present territorial confines it has today, and certainly not with any immediate source of ready cash revenues to keep its heavily subsidised provincial government going comfortably for long beyond independence.

I doubt that anyone would question the established borders between England and Scotland, or that Scotland could and probably would be in receipt of considerable oil revenues to foster its new found freedom. What it would do with it post-UK is another matter, as it would presumably have to negotiate entry into the EU, and that in itself could be killed dead by the Scottish electorate once they have tasted independence. Unlike the states of eastern Europe, Scotland would not need to depend on the EU for the essential readies to rejuvenate its economy.

Britannist

Scotland receives a massive amount of money (calculated by the Scots Blair and Brown using the outdated Barnett funding formula) from England/Wales and Northern Ireland - just as Quebec relies heavily on grants from the Government of all Canada and resources from the western provinces of Canada (some of whom have their own movements to stop French-speaking Quebeb grabbing their resources).

As for oil - England too would have oil if Scotland quit the UK. A total of 40% of oil reserves in the UK North Sea lie either in English waters - or in those waters around the Orkney-Shetland isles (which may opt for self-government in a UK without Scotland). International boundary-drawing protocols would put many so-called 'Scottish' oil reserves in English waters in the North Sea area.

I stand by what I said - Quebec has been given the opportunity twice to vote itself out of Canada in two referendums. It did not do so on each occasion.

I have not the slightest doubt that - whatever opinions polls may say now - if there were a referendum in Scotland tomorrow on whether it should remain in the UK, the Scottish people would vote convincingly for their land to remain in the UK - just as Quebec opted to stay part of Canada (when it was last asked).

Britannist

Agree totally. About time someone said it.

As I said in my last posting to this thread (above) 40% of the oil the europhile anti-English Scottish so-called National Party says belongs to Scotland is actually either English or Shetland/Orkney (which has a growing self-government lobby who want to run their own internal affairs as the Danish Faroe islands do).

In any case, the argument over oil may not carry the weight that it did - because I believe we have now reached the 'peak oil' situation here (i.e. we have got the first (easier and less expensive to extract) oil out of the North Sea - the rest is harder to secure and will, therefore, be more costly. In other words, UK-produced oil is running out and what's left won't be cheap.

andypandy

The situation regarding Shetland/Orkney is not likely to be resolved for some considerable time. There are also an estimated 2 billion tonnes of recently discovered quality coal that can be used to provide clean coal technology in the production of energy in Scotland.

An independent Scotland will still benefit considerably from oil and gas revenues outside of any English Barnett subsidies and there is no doubt that had the Scots been given the choice of whether to receive donations from England or the entire entitlement of the nearly 200 billion pounds of revenue generated by oil (and the UK is STILL dependent for 10% of income from oil/gas) over the last 30 odd years, I doubt there would be much room for pro-UK sympathies.

It is time to stop pretending that the UK has a future, and even less time than that to realise that the only option for a break from Europe for most of UK population is a through an independent English nation state.

The Quebec saga will roll on and on until such time that THEY discover oil or gas revenues that will break their dependence on Canadian federal aid.

Britannist

Regarding Quebec: The "saga" may "roll on" until the anti-English forces there have driven out enough English speakers to tip the balance in favour of a pro-independence vote in a referendum. The last vote on quitting Canada was lost only because just enough anti-independence French speakers and the English-speaking community gathered a fraction more support. An actual clear majority of French-speakers backed independence. If they can't drive out any more English-speakers (now less than 10% of the Quebec province population) the anti-English (i.e. pro-independence from Canada) forces may try to bring in more immigrants to Quebec who would be forced by existing laws to speak, work and study in French.

As for your reference to an independent English nation state. I am in agreement with the English having equality in the UK with the Scottish. They have a Parliament and Executive of their own. We want one too.

I see no advantage for the Scots in being 'independent of the UK'. First of all, they would come under greater EU control if they quit the UK. Secondly, it is to the advantage of a Scotland totally self-governing as regards its internal affairs to remain part of a UK where a national UK Parliament would deal with Defence and Foreign Affairs matters of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

eublues

If there really is a wish for independence in Scotland let it be put to the test. I would prefer to keep the UK but at least the debate would be resolved clearly.

If Scotland really went "independent" (of course you're not really independent as a nation/region within the EU) it might sharpen up political thinking in the rest of the UK, and people might become more aware and concerned about restoring their true independence (from the EU).