Could potentially stop Some of the resentment, restore a sense of independence for Scotland, and also stop Scotland using UK funds to allow themselves but not any of the rest of the UK certain rights/liberties such as free uni tuition which like it or not, England having the largest population is mostly paying for without being given the opportunity to take advantage of what they're paying for.
I actually agree with paying for university, but that's besides the point. Generally, most Scottish students cannot access English universities straight from school anyway, and so that is one reason why Scottish universities (and the Scottish government) operate differently both educationally and financially. Also, since the Union, Scotland has always had control over health, education and law and order, so it's not particularly new.
Scotland as a region of the UK currently gives more to the UK Treasury than it gets in return. The last time I checked, Northern Ireland and the North-East of England were two regions that were getting much more than they put in. Yes, that does include natural resources revenue, but let's be honest, that's what the SNP are basing far too much of their future Scotland on. The Barnett Formula certainly isn't perfect, but rather than break away from the UK, that is something that could be looked at and negotiated.
Heidi, I can't deny that there are some people who are hungry and homeless - there always were and always will be, whatever governments do. But more people than ever before have a roof over their heads, more own that roof, more own a car, a TV, a computer, take holidays abroad and so on. I'm sorry for those who find the current austerity painful, but our lavish over-spending simply had to stop and in my book that's inevitably going to hurt. But what's the alternative? Surely not to try to spend our way out of recession as Ed Balls advocates (he of course was responsible with Gordon Brown for creating a significant part of the mess in the first place).
And, Enthused, I don't for a moment believe your assertion re Tory government spending vis-a-vis the wild overspending of Brown/Balls in their day. As someone has already challenged - prove it!
Just wanted to pop back in to say thanks to everyone who answered the questions I had.
To me it sounds a bit like this vote is just being done for the sake of it with no real thought by Scotland to the full consequences of what would happen if they left the UK. Although I do understand the desire to be seen as it's own separate country.
But, LoneliestGirl, they are already their own separate country in many senses of the word. If your average Scot is asked in some country elsewhere in the world where he/she is from they are most unlikely to answer "UK"; instead the reply will almost certainly be "Scotland". And the vast majority of those asking will accept that as a fair and reasonable answer without feeling that they should add "but surely you should be independent and free of the tyranny of Westminster?" - they recognise Scotland as a separate country but within the United Kingdom. We are all united, and hopefully will remain so ...
To me it sounds a bit like this vote is just being done for the sake of it with no real thought by Scotland to the full consequences of what would happen if they left the UK. Although I do understand the desire to be seen as it's own separate country.
Please be very careful that you do not equate Scotland, the pro-independence organisations, and the general people of Scotland as one.
Just wanted to pop back in to say thanks to everyone who answered the questions I had.
To me it sounds a bit like this vote is just being done for the sake of it with no real thought by Scotland to the full consequences of what would happen if they left the UK. Although I do understand the desire to be seen as it's own separate country.
You mean no thought apart from the decades of planning by the independence movement, the mountains of statistics and papers generated by both sides of the debate and that the people of Scotland are so stupid that they voted in a majority of MSPs for a pro Independence Party who promised a referendum and the Scots just didn't realise what the consequences of that would be?
You've already admitted you aren't abreast of the facts behind the debate, so don't you think perhaps you might be being ignorant?
Heidi, I can't deny that there are some people who are hungry and homeless - there always were and always will be, whatever governments do. But more people than ever before have a roof over their heads, more own that roof, more own a car, a TV, a computer, take holidays abroad and so on. I'm sorry for those who find the current austerity painful, but our lavish over-spending simply had to stop and in my book that's inevitably going to hurt. But what's the alternative? Surely not to try to spend our way out of recession as Ed Balls advocates (he of course was responsible with Gordon Brown for creating a significant part of the mess in the first place).
And, Enthused, I don't for a moment believe your assertion re Tory government spending vis-a-vis the wild overspending of Brown/Balls in their day. As someone has already challenged - prove it!
The national debt figures are out – £1.2 trillion and rising – and although I hate to say it, the Labour Party has a valid point to make. If you don’t adjust for inflation, Osborne has borrowed more in under four years than the Labour Party borrowed over 13 years.
Although, as the article then goes on to say, those figures haven't been properly adjusted for inflation to allow a meaningful comparison. Also, borrowing for major infrastructure (for example) isn't a one-time thing. Once a previous government has arranged that, it is very difficult for the next to back out.
Public borrowing jumped massively around 2009/10, but the general trend seems to be heading down. Similarly with the budget deficits. I think it was The Guardian (not my normal newspaper, I admit) that released a good dataset of public sector borrowing and deficit/surplus, with data going back years. I'm sure it'll still be on the site somewhere, if it was them.
Either way, going a tad off-topic here. The SNP make quite a big hoohah over the "Westminster mandate for Scotland", but admit themselves that it is exactly 50-50 as to governments with a majority-rule of Scotland - essentially any Labour government has been bolstered by Scotland.
You've already admitted you aren't abreast of the facts behind the debate, so don't you think perhaps you might be being ignorant?
Maybe, but I am reading around on both sides of the arguments now to try and grasp a better understanding of the situation.
Also I think I worded my point oddly and can't remember what I was trying to say. I'm sorry if it causes offense! I also didn't mean to imply that everyone in Scotland thinks exactly the same.
Also- Tony, that argument equates to all people of the UK- People from England say they are English/British, Wales are Welsh and Northern Ireland say Irish.
Whoa Heidi, don't be too hard on LoneliestGirl and lets keep this pleasant. I could argue that the primary cause of the SNP's success in the Scottish parliament was not so much a wish for independence by the majority as a rejection of Labour in Scotland (the Tories already being a totally busted flush). But I freely admit that I'm not a close student of the nuances of Scottish politics - my purpose in starting this thread was simply to air the question of independence and its implications, since we are likely to be increasingly caught up in it as September draws closer. And then we'll see what the majority really want.
As to current spending by the coalition government, the figures quoted are totally meaningless unless inflation is taken into account. My personal income, stated in today's pounds, is probably several times what it was ten or twenty years ago but in practice I'm certainly not several times better off in real terms. Osborne has my sympathy; he inherited a system in which previous governments had for years been spoon-feeding the electorate with their own, and borrowed, money to the point that more and more was expected as of right without any realistic accountability.
I personally believe that the government should actually be making more stringent cuts (just imagine the squeals). But then I'm one of those old-fashioned people who believes in living within his means - and certainly not in passing on the cost of current extravagances to my children and grandchildren to pay off for me ...
Tony.
PS. One of the reasons why I very much hope that Scotland will vote "no" is the SNP's anxiousness to scrap Trident and thus discard the nuclear deterrent which still keeps us safe after so many years (the invention of the atom bomb being the most life-saving invention of the last century). But that's a whole further discussion!
From what I've read, whether or not an Independent Scotland would be better off financially hinges on two things - where the North Sea Oil money goes (probably all Scotland), and whether they get to keep the Pound (and trade links). Everything I've read suggests it'll be fairly close either way, provided they keep both these things; without the Pound/trade agreements though, Scotland would most likely struggle. Personally, if I had a vote, I'd vote no, as I'm fairly risk-averse, and the odds seem stacked against Scotland.
I know its not just about money though, but I'd be interested to hear what the 'real' differences are that aren't financial.
I'm curious to know everyone's opinions on the other things. And I'm pro-trident too, but mostly just for the engineering/science/technology side of things (which I think it would be a shame to lose).
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
I'm anti nuclear weapon and I think the Scots have more reason to be than most, what with Trident being so close to their most densely populated city.
Other things I can think of would be that by being able to set their own tax levels, Scotland could choose to protect things such as free education and prescriptions, which whilst they can do at the moment, they're unlikely to be able to sustain that for long against the wishes of the UK gov.
There is also a need for differing immigration policies between the two nations based on population growth and other factors.
A nation as small as Scotland is unlikely to follow the same globally interventionist policy as the UK. Which is a positive or a negative dependent on your viewpoint.
Other more nebulous reasons would be that a Scottish parliament is likely to be more in touch with people's wishes, whereas a UK wide one seems to have a naked bias towards just one area.
In the EU they could lobby for the rights of their own fishermen, instead of them being used as a bargaining chip to gain concessions for London bankers. I believe an EU grant awarded specifically for Scottish farmers has been distributed across the whole ok too.
You sound, Heidi, as if you believe that Westminster is deliberately starving Scotland and the NE of resources and bleeding the rest of the UK in order to give special/extra benefits to the SE. I do not believe this for a moment. Surely the SE prospers because of its proximity to London, the capital, which is the financial hub of the UK (like it or not) and which with its population of more than twice that of the whole of Scotland has many more large and small businesses which in turn attract more investment (and immigrants). I'm quite convinced that both this government, and its predecessors, would dearly wish that there were no poorer sections of the UK but they surely can't suddenly apply punitive measures to deliberately stunt the SE when, one way or another (mainly taxes), it helps subsidise those poorer regions.
As to nuclear weapons, you can't now disinvent them any more than you can gunpowder. If it's any consolation, if in the future we were to be attacked by nuclear-armed missiles by say North Korea, Iran or a rogue Bongo-bongo Land, you can be sure that London would be far more certainly a target than Glasgow (or even Nottingham!). But the fact that we have, at all times Trident submarines armed with their own nuclear missiles, patrolling unseen within range of any nuclear aggressor, does ensure our own constant safety from that particular threat (unless the aggressor is determined on suicide for his own nation). It worked with the Soviet Union at its most aggressive for more than 50 years, so don't let's abandon it now unless we wish to leave ourselves vulnerable to nuclear blackmail ...
From what I've read, whether or not an Independent Scotland would be better off financially hinges on two things - where the North Sea Oil money goes (probably all Scotland)
The SNP have shot themselves in the foot with this, at least in my opinion. They advocate a UK-wide energy policy, with the sharing of energy resources. Now, if it was me, and I was basing most of my future economic forecasts on the energy sector (both finite and renewable), surely I'd be wanting to keep all that to myself and therefore profit more from the trade? I wouldn't be wanting to share that resource without getting something from it return. Perhaps it's the fact that "North Sea Oil" includes the east coast of England...
Quote:
I know its not just about money though, but I'd be interested to hear what the 'real' differences are that aren't financial.
Scotland traditionally has a more 'progressive' society, and so supporters of independence seem to think this alone will make Scotland a "fairer" society. How it becomes that it unclear, like most of the nationalist policies. There are real concerns over the need for creation of all new public sector bodies, which the SNP are brushing aside saying that bodies such as HMRC already have bases in Scotland and therefore we'll just use those. I very much doubt it will work like that. There are also issues of border control and immigration, which haven't really been suitably addressed.
I was glad to see David Cameron coming out yesterday in favour of the continued Union and I agree with him that the rest of the UK would be greatly diminished in world terms if Scotland were to leave the Union.
Alex Salmond's response was, to me, as snidey/slimy as usual, but I do hope that in due course Cameron takes up the challenge of a face-to-face confrontation with him on TV. However, that should take place somewhere else in the UK rather than in Scotland - it's the SNP that is seeking the breakaway, not the rest of the UK trying to throw them out, and Salmond should therefore have to come to make his case to the rest of the UK on their home ground.
I'm increasingly sad at the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union, even though currently it still seems unlikely according to the polls. And I note that it's estimated that 800,000 Scots live and work in England while only half that number of English people live in Scotland. I suppose all sorts of conclusions might be drawn from that, one of which may be that if the English are so beastly or neglectful to the Scots then why should so many of the latter choose to shift their lives to England. But I suppose that all sorts of different conclusions can be thrown back. The bottom line in my book is that for hundreds of years people from wherever in the UK have been free to move, live and work wherever they please within the Union long before the EU imposed its own rules (whether we wanted them or not - another debate!).
I was glad to see David Cameron coming out yesterday in favour of the continued Union and I agree with him that the rest of the UK would be greatly diminished in world terms if Scotland were to leave the Union.
Alex Salmond's response was, to me, as snidey/slimy as usual, but I do hope that in due course Cameron takes up the challenge of a face-to-face confrontation with him on TV. However, that should take place somewhere else in the UK rather than in Scotland - it's the SNP that is seeking the breakaway, not the rest of the UK trying to throw them out, and Salmond should therefore have to come to make his case to the rest of the UK on their home ground.
I'm increasingly sad at the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union, even though currently it still seems unlikely according to the polls. And I note that it's estimated that 800,000 Scots live and work in England while only half that number of English people live in Scotland. I suppose all sorts of conclusions might be drawn from that, one of which may be that if the English are so beastly or neglectful to the Scots then why should so many of the latter choose to shift their lives to England. But I suppose that all sorts of different conclusions can be thrown back. The bottom line in my book is that for hundreds of years people from wherever in the UK have been free to move, live and work wherever they please within the Union long before the EU imposed its own rules (whether we wanted them or not - another debate!).
Tony.
To me, the idea of holding the debate anywhere other than Scotland is odd. It is the people of Scotland holding the cards and both Salmond and Cameron are trying to persuade them, the rest of the UK do not have a vote in this referendum. Of course if Cameron pushes to hold the debate in London, then it would be shrewd of Salmond to reluctantly agree to this. I can think of nothing more likely to gain a few pro independence votes than for an English Prime Minister to debate the future of the population of Scotland whilst refusing to hold the discussion in Scotland itself.
As for why there are a lot of Scots working in England, I imagine it's very similar to why me and my peers left the NE for university and never returned...jobs. It could actually be a reason to cause resentment, because our economic policy has not evenly spread the jobs across the country, as opposed to being a sign that Scots love the UK. Besides, we are highly unlikely to see Scottish and English citizens not allowed to work in the other country. Both are likely to be EU members.
I don't understand why Salmond wants the debate with Cameron, given England isn't involved in the vote at all....
I don't understand why you don't understand! The First Minister of Scotland is pro independence, the Prime Minister of the UK is pro union. They're the two politicians with the most power over the Scottish people. To me it seems natural for them to both make their cases public ally and get the chance to rebut the other's points.
Good point Loneliest. But Salmond is an astute politician and has a plausible (and slippery) tongue. He wants to be seen to out-argue Cameron (which I sincerely hope he won't). It might be argued that if the case for an independent Scotland is so glaringly obvious then the SNP need only deploy their arguments to the Scots, whose vote is what will matter in the end. But of course Salmond is keen to be seen to counter the arguments of the "No" campaign, for which I cannot blame him.
And Heidi, you and I are obviously never going to agree on all this. I particularly disagree with your insinuation that Westminster is deliberately starving other parts of the UK in order to bolster up the SE. As I've said earlier, I'm sure that the Government would be delighted if there were no poorer regions; if they are so set upon boosting the SE to the extent that you seem to be suggesting then in the present political climate why not declare Greater London and the SE to be a separate country altogether - and leave all the other regions to declare their own independence and to whither on the vine. No,no,no - we are a Union, a United Kingdom, in which all parts support each other as best they can, and all are better for it (even though, inevitably, some parts may fare better than others).
Total expenditure on services in 2010-2011 per head for London was £10256. In the East Midlands it was £7917.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...1_chapter9.pdf
In fact, I would suggest you take a look at that last source Tony, it shows public spending per capita for London outstrips every other region in just about any sector you could care to name. The only sector I noticed where London had lower spending was agriculture, which is fairly obvious really.
