UKC

How do the English feel about Scotland's possible independence????
do you care?

In reply to count:

I think it would be a shame to break up the UK, and also that it is not really financially viable in the sort of economic climate we have.

But if the Scottish people fully understand this and wish to take the risk nonetheless, it's up to them.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think it would be a shame to break up the EU, and also that it is not really financially viable in the sort of economic climate we have.

But if the British people fully understand this and wish to take the risk nonetheless, it's up to them.

In reply to count: I want England free of Scotland, and hopefully we would never have to see their leader again

In reply to count: Depends on the settlement... which will need to be negotiated after the Scots vote for independence.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't a second vote on the settlement possibly including the whole UK.

Disappointed. I think a lot of people identify with being British not English/Welsh/Scottish - particularly if your family hasn't been geographically fixed over the previous few generations.

For a lot of people, Scotland is lovely part of GB just like Cornwall, or the New Forest or Snowdonia. If you live in the north of England, Edinburgh is as much a city destination as Bristol might be for those in Devon/Cornwall.

It will be odd to think of it as a separate country, and worse if it either struggles economically or if there is any enmity over the break-up (eg income from oil, fishing rights, financial support).

How will Scotland take it's share of the deficit? On a %GDP or and %population basis? In nearly everything there is going to be a winner and a loser.

In reply to dale1968: lol you talking about that fat lying wee slug

In reply to EeeByGum:

I think there will have to be, because the issue of what is England's and what is Scotland's is not clear cut.

Neil

In reply to count: i dont blame them wanting to be independant of us

In reply to count: it does seem like a near impossible task to sort everything out if scotland gets independence. I hear lots of people up here saying that britain is ruled by london and the economics of london area, and that this is unfair on places out with london area and money. I personally dont have a clue, but am going to have to make an educated guess as to what's best

In reply to Philip:


From Muckle Flugga to the Mull of Galloway, from the Butt of Lewis to the River Tweed - it's about a third of the area of Britain and a lot more diverse than these people realise.

In reply to Douglas Griffin: MUCKLE FLUGGA, im going to have to look that up, an if their is such a place im going

In reply to Douglas Griffin: Aye, England is all the same, Kensington/Yockenthwaite no difference at all.

In reply to count:


Yes, I care. I think it would be a great shame to break up a union that has been so successful. It's more emotional than based on economic considerations. My family has a strong Scottish side, a result of three sisters from Glasgow marrying three Londoners during and just after WW2 and I'm sure that such connections are not uncommon. A bit of variety in a country does no harm, the Lowlands need the Highlands and vice versa. Why break something that works?

In reply to Sir Chasm: You've slipped up there Sir!

In reply to count: guess im going to Muckle Flugga then,, its properly out their

In reply to dale1968:

Touche

In reply to Sir Chasm:


You've lost me - maybe you could explain that post?

In reply to count: I think it is tragic that religion split the Irish off from Great Britain, I am sure we would all be a stronger nation if united, so obviously I feel it would be tragic if Scotland left the remains of the United Kingdom, I also think it would be worse for scotland than England Wales and Northern Ireland.

In reply to count:

I've not decided which way to vote....but its hard to stick by a union run by people that want to tax every aspect of life.... I mean increasing tax on soft drinks...its getting ridiculous.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I think I understand it, Yorkshire is very different to Surrey, but it would be a disaster if the tykes split off from the UK, as it would if Surrey split off the UK, as it will be if Scotland split off from the UK

In reply to Douglas Griffin: You appeared to be pointing out that Scotland is quite diverse, were you contrasting that with England or just pointing out the obvious?

In reply to craig1983: Will taxes be reduced in an independent Scotland?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, I wasn't contrasting Scotland's diversity with England's - you must have imagined that.

In reply to Sir Chasm: Go back and see how the conversation developed.

In reply to Douglas Griffin: Fair enough, I misunderstood you. Could you explain what point you were making?

In reply to count:

There was a good debate on BBC Scotland last night (Newsnight Scotland - you can find it on Iplayer) which I think was civil and balanced. Check it out for more info.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

If, as Phillip claimed:


then they probably don't realise that there's a bit more to Scotland than that.

What's not to understand?

In reply to count:

I think that this debate can be held on multiple levels. Unfortunately scaremongering appears to be the main tactic so far so that has set the tone.

In reply to phja:


Not sure yet....that's the kind of info im waiting on before making a decision....no point breaking up the union if nothing's going to change!

In reply to craig1983:

How do you expect to get this information? That would be for the Government to decide and this isn't an election. It's a referendum on what system of government you want, not which government.

In reply to count: Id be alot more likely to vote independence if alex salmond was not such a horrible wee slug of a man. And i know that this is not about salmond and about our future, but the less i see of that slug the better, an fu*k having statues of him all over the country if we do get independence.

In reply to Saor Alba: It would be good to hear realistic possible future's for both independence and staying together,

In reply to Saor Alba:
I think if Scotland want to go their own way, then good luck to them. Scottish independence will have far more impact on Scotland than the rest of Britain, and if they believe that self-determination is important then go for it.
There are a few major issues to be resolved though -
Can it be a clean break, I can see constitutional lawyers and accountants (many of whom are probably friends of Salmond) walking off with billions from this process.
What happens to Northern Ireland? NI seems far more closely connected to Scotland than to England. Does NI have a future in a reduced UK?
What happens if Shetland and the oil rich regions don't want it. Do they have to go along with the Scottish decision?

In reply to count:

You aren't voting for a president. You are voting to decide a system of government. If one man puts you off that then you need to look at the bigger picture. I don't like Gordon Brown but that has no bearing on what I think about the UK constitution.

In reply to count: A shame and unnecessary. I fundamentally don't like nationalism. The novelist and historian CJ Sansom has some good stuff to say about it at the end of his book Dominion.

In reply to count: I want it to remain as is..

But what is annoying me is the cake and eating it...

the Higher Education Funding Council For England give 400,000 a year to London Uni to fund a marine center in Scotland which is largely used by Scottish students. This center needs a massive overhaul and investment. HEFCE have pulled the funding, London want to pull out, there has been an uproar over it and protests to London University?

Why? HEFCE is for England, at this time English institutions should seriously monitor investment North of the Border. If it's Britain, fair enough, but I think this marine center may be one of the first victims of the fight for independence.

I actually brought these concerns up in an interview and was told the center was safe.. yet a week later they announced funding had been cut and it was closing..

I'm not actively against independence, I don't want it as I like the Union and am pro europe so want to see more unification with European countries anyway, but do think if Independence is to happen, it should happen as quickly as possible so as not to harm either country. Companies don't like insecurities and unknowns.

In reply to count:
It amazes me that people still think this is about nationalism. As if the scottish electorate were always happy being British but something has appeared out of the ether in the last 10 years to suddenly change many people's minds.

Everyone with an interest in the debate will already have read this but it pretty much somes up my feelings

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/20/scottish-independence-b...

written by labour activist Kevin Mckenna. The idea this is about nationalism now is laughable. The kilt wearing, claymore wielding, stone of destiny stealing lunatic fringe of the independence movement are not who are driving the political agenda in Scotland today. It's about social democracy vs Blair-Brown-Cameron's free market free for all.

In reply to Saor Alba:

If Scotland gains its independence after the forthcoming referendum,
The remainder of the United Kingdom will be known as the Former United Kingdom
(F.U.K.)

In a bid to discourage the Scots from voting 'Yes' in the referendum,
Unionists have now begun a campaign with the slogan:

“Please Vote No For FUK's Sake! “

In reply to count:

I'd feel sad that we're all on the same piece of land but feel the need to be divided.

In reply to count:
No need, I am not long back I will send you my Flickr link

In reply to count:

http://tinyurl.com/9wgslej

Actually I have changed my mind.

In reply to count:

I'd like to see Scotland go independant just because I'd like to see modern day remake of Braveheart. Mel Gibson playing Alex Salmond , stood outside Holyrood screaming "Forrrrr Freeeeeeedommmmmm!"

In reply to count:

There you go.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22776031@N05/sets/72157632301438295/

From Lerwick , drive to Yell Ferry take the Yell Ferry to Unst, drive as far as you can to the NW park up , get take a Bothy Shelter with you, as going to the edge with waterproofs on apparently is fatal.

And you are there, easy. If you are lucky it will be just you and the birds and a few sheep.

In reply to count:

I think Scottish independence would be a good thing. The more I think about things the more I think that having relatively small countries is better all round. The only advantage of being big is if you want to bully other countries.

However, if by "independence" one means joining Euro-land and "ever closer integration" then it's not really "independence" is it?

In reply to Ava Adore: People in China, Russia, South Africa, India, France and Saudi Arabia may disagree

In reply to Coel Hellier:

As far as I am aware, despite all the scare mongering, there needs to be at least 3 years of convergence before a state can join the Euro and even then it isn't certain. Therefore, whilst I understand you point, I think the idea that Scotland would be forced to join the Euro is not true.

The EU question is a good one thoough. I think Scotland would have to apply but that there would be no issue with gaining membership.

In reply to nickyrannoch:


The kilt wearing, claymore wielding, stone of destiny stealing lunatic fringe of the independence movement ..

Kilts were an English invention,(Thomas Rawlinson) worn latterly just to please the German Royalty who wanted to 'Play at being Scottish' but Sir Walter Scot passed off the kilt on them as he guessed they would not know better nor care too much about historical accuracy.

Not sure about the Claymore though.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090921071119AAyjuJz

In reply to count:

I was reading something recently suggesting Scotland may have to adopt Sterling and Bank of England bank notes if it is to have a stable currency. It woudln't be able to issue licensed notes (backed by the B of E) as happens now (as with Northern Ireland) and it's own currency wouldn't be taken seriously globally. Seems a retrograde step and not exactly the sort of independence some are looking for. How true this is I don't know but the article included some official comment as I recall.

On top of which, I feel British and I think it would be such a shame to break up such a long standing relationship.

Also, where we would deploy/store nukes etc ?

In reply to stevieb:


Do you really see this as a major issue? If so, should the same principle apply to the coming referendum on E.U. membership? In other words, should Cornwall (for example) be able to remain in the E.U. were the rest of the U.K. to vote to leave?

In reply to Skyfall:

The constitution of a country doesn't change how you feel. You dont have to do anything. Reinhold Messner has good thoughts on this.

Agree on currency. I say stay in Sterling and then either go Euro or Scottish currency. Michael Macintyre has a good sketch in this.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I understand, find me someone who doesn't realise there's more to Scotland than that and you might have a point. But as the vast majority of people know that Scotland has scummy bits as well as nice bits it was pointless.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
No you're right, it probably shouldn't be a major issue, but we went for selective independence in Ireland. Oil rich regions have also tried for complete independence in a number of post-colonial independence movements.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Indeed, just what most people who have been widely quoted as saying the opposite, when you actually read what they say, they say is will be almost a forgone conclusion.

Why when the Germans unified, were East Germans brought in no problem, but suddenly people say that if Scotland was to be independant they would immediately be outside all the laws of Europe, and unable to trade because all the treaties will have been recinded. I don't think so, as The Scottish Government is Pro Europe, so they will be happy to hold on to Scotland, If Europe still want the rest of the UK within Europe, despite the emnity they show to them , then they are hardly going to give Scotland a hard time.
More scaremongering.

In reply to Jim C:

Exactly, the Irish EU ambassador said last week that Iceland joining has thrown up issue with EU law compliance and that Scotland would have the same issues. Em, no, our law is already EU compliant.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Could you expand as I don't actually follow this?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well given that people on UKC and elsewhere routinely speak of 'Scotland' in comparison to the likes of Yorkshire, or the Lake District (or even Cornwall, or Snowdonia, or The New Forest), I'd say I have got a point.

But you believe whatever you like.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Well given that people on UKC and elsewhere routinely speak of 'Scotland' in comparison to the likes of Yorkshire

Well you have got about the same population. Do we need to pronounce Scotland in a funny way to make it clear that we aren't lumping you in with the common Northern counties?

In reply to Saor Alba: What's the SNP's view regarding the ship building concerns raised by the unions? I read something about UK naval contracts moving to UK building yards should Scotland go independent.

Any truth in that or more scare mongering do you think?

In reply to Douglas Griffin: Because people tend to go to the nice bits of countries when they visit, not much climbing in Anniesland. But you carry on believing people don't know Scotland has poor bits if it makes you happy.

In reply to count:

I think I would feel much like I would if a long term girlfriend who I was much in love with told me it was all over. Begging her to stay in a relationship she'd decided not to be in would get me nowhere so I think I'd just have to put on my best stiff upper lip, wish her good luck in the future and watch her go with much sadness. I'd possibly get a bit bitter after the initial grief but would get on with my life as best I could. Bringing up the kids (Wales, NI and Kernow) without her would be challenging.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

And you carry on misrepresenting my posts (the same way you do with everyone else's), if that makes you happy.

In reply to Bobling:
I think I would feel much like I would if a long term girlfriend who I was much in love with told me it was all over. Begging her to stay in a relationship she'd decided not to be in would get me nowhere so I think I'd just have to put on my best stiff upper lip, wish her good luck in the future and watch her go with much sadness.

Or you'd just get really drunk, wake up in bed with Iceland and an awful financial hangover

In reply to nickyrannoch:

The idea this is about nationalism now is laughable. The kilt wearing, claymore wielding, stone of destiny stealing lunatic fringe of the independence movement are not who are driving the political agenda in Scotland today. It's about social democracy vs Blair-Brown-Cameron's free market free for all.

This - a million times this! The prospect that terrifies me is not independence, but a 'No' vote which at least temporarily robs the SNP of energy and focus, allowing the Labour drones to regain control of Holyrood and start to dismantle our social democracy for the benefit of their paymasters.

In reply to Reach>Talent: totally laughing now cheers

In reply to count:

Which country gets to claim Hadrian's Wall?

In reply to cuppatea: Definitely england, it might be useful for the future, when scotland turns mad max

In reply to count:
We'll need the wall, as we aren't signatories of the Schengen agreement we will need to start policing our new land border.

In reply to count: Their are obviously a lot of emotions involved with the whole independence malarky. I just hope that the people of scotland arnt daft enough to base their vote on 'freedom' and stuff that happened a long long time ago. Scare mongering does seem to be the main tool used at the moment for both side's. I would like to hear proposals from all side's stating their future outlooks/predictions and how they see scotland in 100 years time. word has it on the radio that if we dont vote for independence that england will hit us hard (hammer) us.

In reply to Ditch_Jockey: Yeah good point this is certainly the main driving force behind independence, I'm not Scottish (though I liver there) but still broadly support )increasing) independence. Watch out for the SNP though they have more than flirted with neoliberalism recently.

In reply to Jim C:


I agree, of course they'll accept Scotland. The scaremongering is more about not wanting to encourage bits of Spain to secede. However, there is a real issue as to whether membership of the Euro is required; as it stands current rules are that any new member joining the EU has to join the Euro.

In reply to Ditch_Jockey:
It's about social democracy vs Blair-Brown-Cameron's free market free for all.

Alex Salmond likes this!

http://tinyurl.com/salmondalex

In reply to count: I'm not sure that Edward the II is as bigger player in this debate as No campaigners seeking to portray the substantial support as a fleeting thing would like to think. A far more recent injustice looms much larger in most minds; the sado-monetarist ravaging Scotland received at the the hands of Tory zealots in the 80's. This tore communities apart with its attack on council housing and key industry. In its place are paltry demand side subsidies and a pathetic attempt at cultural rejuvination in Glasgow (which the SNP has been partly complicit in).

No longer being subject to the ideological whims of a disconnected home counties elite is the biggest prize to be gained from independence.

In reply to Jim C:

Seems like most of the posters on here are Scottish...hmmm

I think I should just butt in to correct you on a narrow point about Europe I think that statement is a bit contradictory.

The argument has been about whether Scotland would be granted automatic entry to the EU. The SNP said it would and they'd taken legal advice on the matter. It turned out that they were lying.

They now concede that it's most likely that Scotland would have to apply for membership as a new country. Although it's very unlikely that Scotland would be refused entry it would most likely be obliged to join the Euro, that is now a legal requirement for all states that wish to join. They would also most probably need to sign up to the Schengen agreement on border controls. Not such a big deal unless the rest of the UK decided to leave in which case Scotland would be obliged under Schengen to set up customs and border posts on the English border and for the Northern Irish Ferries. Vice versa if Scotland were left in limbo for a number of years while it's application was being considered (it wouldn't be like joining a snooker club and probably take over three years) the rest of the UK would be obliged to set up border controls on the Scottish border.

However with support for independence dropping into the high(ish) twenty percents and support for the EU growing in the UK I think that either scenario is unlikley to happen.

To the OP.

Before you decide which way to vote in 1 3/4 years time why don't you spend your time improving your knowledge of your country, the UK. Go and see Muckle Flugga and travel down to Land's End as well. The UK is a great country. Discovering as much as you can about it will enrich you as a person.

In reply to Removed User:
They would also most probably need to sign up to the Schengen agreement on border controls. Not such a big deal unless the rest of the UK decided to leave in which case Scotland would be obliged under Schengen to set up customs and border posts on the English border and for the Northern Irish Ferries.

We aren't currently Schengen signatories, so technically Scotland joining Europe as a separate entity would need to set up border points.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: thats a good card in the argument for yes. still suffering to this day

In reply to Removed User: Ive seen a fair amount of Scotland including many of the isles, on the other hand all ive seen of England is london and malam tarn. An i definitely want to see muckle flugga, someone put a link to some pics they are very nice photo's looks awesome out that way. I would like to see more of England, but to be honest there are so many places closer to home that are on the list.

In reply to Skyfall:

Yes. I have a British passport but dont call myself British. Others I know have British passports and dont call themselves Scottish. The point I am making is that whatever the constitutional arrangements you can still feel British or otherwise if you like. The geography wont change.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

This is widely available on the internet as far as I know. I dont have anything to hand but I am sure you will find it if you look.

I think it is scaremongering for the simple reason that I see no committment at all to these shipyards by the UK Government. Once the carriers are built do you think the workers will feel secure in the UK?

In reply to Removed User:

Ha ha you believe the Labour rhetoric too much. Read the actual results of the poll you cite. It was skewed. Most support the notion of independence, they don't support the word when asked.

And you could travel as much as you like after independence. Why couldn't you? Any real reasons?

In reply to Reach>Talent:

No surely it would be the RUK setting up the border posts as is the current scenario?

In reply to Saor Alba:
No surely it would be the RUK setting up the border posts as is the current scenario?

While I'm sure we do subsidise it somehow at the moment it is the signatories duty to maintain their borders and the UK hasn't signed it. If Scotland has to sign it would be Scotland who had to implement border controls.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Sorry, "No" to independence or "No" to the United Kingdom, I don't follow you.


Which is why I believe Scotland voted for devolution. The opportunity being given to them by another UK Government which subsequently allowed a Scottish parliament to invest heavily in infrastructure and social services thus repairing some of the damage wreaked on the whole of the UK by one particular government. That said I think you overstate your point massively. Most have got on with their lives and don't wallow in a Thatcher hating maelstrom of loathing. It's not healthy. On the other hand if you're just a nationalist trying to dupe people into voting anti Thatcher when they should be thinking about the future of Scotland then shame on you.


The last Prime minister was born in Kirkcaldy to a minister of the Church of Scotland, his chancellor was also the son of a minister and comes from Lewis. The one before that went to school (a posh one) in Embra, the one before that was English, admittedly from Surrey, but ran away from the circus to be an accountant. We currently have a posh PM and sidekick but that may well change by 2015 and anyway, we should be thinking a bit longer term than the next general election.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Really, surely the whole point of schengen is that the borders are open. Who pays for the current border posts?

In reply to Removed User:

It doesn't matter how many Scots are in the UK Government. It's their to serve the population, not the selected few such as Brown and Darling.

I don't care where people were born, I just want them to have more control over their lives.

Why do you support the Tories?

In reply to Saor Alba:
Schengen signatories have open internal borders, they have guarded external borders. So there are open borders within the area of the agreement, but the edges are policed. If Scotland signs the agreement they will be in and as we are out they will need to monitor the border.

In reply to Removed User: I'm not a nationalist, as I said above I'm English, I hate tartan and don't believe in Scottish (or any national) exceptionalism of any sort. On balance I think further devolution and even independence is a good thing economically.

With regard to Thatcher, Scotland was hit much harder, particularly in the west because of the complete collapse of capital spending on council housing, it had a far higher percentage of CHs than other areas of the UK with comparable employment structure. The legacy of this lives on with the poor health and unemployment which afflicts many in Glasgow.

Of course many people no longer suffer from the unemployment it wrought, but a society where this inequality and injustice can be reversed is a compelling dream even for those who won't benefit in a direct, economic sense.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

As will the UK. I think you have misunderstood the point here. I haven't heard of a single pro-independence person saying lets have border controls with England and NI.

Meanwhile, all the antis keep saying they are required but completely unable to say if they will do this. In fact, even considering the notion of independence is beyond the antis. They can only think in terms of one scenario and nothing else.

It is precisely this type of politics I want to leave behind.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I was thinking of a number of polls actually. Support for independence has never been more than about 40% mas. It has generally been soemwhere between 30 and 40% for years but has been dropping lately. If you don't want to believe that fair enough, I can't make you believe what you don't want to.


I can travel to France as well. Or China where I'm currently posting from. They aren't my country though. The UK is my country and I was suggesting to Count that he or she discover more of their own country before they vote on whether or not they decide to cut themselves off from most of it.

In reply to Removed User:

I actually dont believe much of the polling itself as it's based upon such a small survey size and has often, not rarely, been wrong. The last Scottish elections were a case in point.

In reply to Saor Alba:

So in fact you don't know.

Fair enough.

In reply to Removed User:

No, and neither do you or anyone else so until the vote it is pointless to give definitive statements when the statements are only backed up by the more flimsy claims based on tiny surveys. I am relaxed about this.

In reply to Saor Alba:
As will the UK. I think you have misunderstood the point here.

Trust me, I haven't misunderstood. The UK won't have to sign Schengen because we already opted out of it! I couldn't give a rodents colon what Scotland does, but if an independent Scotland joins the EU it will have to adopt Schengen which means it will have to police the borders.

I haven't heard of a single pro-independence person saying lets have border controls with England and NI.

You don't have an option, they are a condition of new member states joining the EU. You'll be talking about opting out of the laws of thermodynamics next!

Because no one like talking about the negative side of their own position! The antis aren't exactly putting up posters saying that the differences in the balance of the Scottish economy means they'll be likely to better manage spending than can be done from London.

Meanwhile, all the antis keep saying they are required but completely unable to say if they will do this. In fact, even considering the notion of independence is beyond the antis. They can only think in terms of one scenario and nothing else.

Whereas the devolutionists can't hang onto a single train of thought and want to cherry pick the best bits without any consequences?

It is precisely this type of politics I want to leave behind.

The honest type where we don't kid ourselves that Scottish independence will fix anything overnight without causing any issues at all?

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:


If you go to China or India, you will very quickly discover how insignificant Thatcher is. All she did was put her name to the inevitable.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

You have misunderstood me! I know the UK wont sign up to Schengen but if Scotland is in it and rUK isn't then rUK will have to deal with the issues thrown up by that, as it does currently. So if rUK wants to have a border post with Scotland they should do that. Unfortunately they appear to be unable to say either way.

No the type where pointless scaremongering gets thrown around, reports are surpressed and the double standards abide for all. In short, where the government suppresses an opinion it doesn't agree with through a variety of mad claims and changing the goal posts.

Where is "Better Together" now on Scotland being assured EU membership by staying part of the UK? They appear to utterly silent suddenly. This is just one example of the problem. Opinions are presented as hard fact and when matters change, such as the UK EU referendum, they go silent and pretend they haven't even said it.

No one is saying that everything will be better after independence but the debate is worth having. I think there are many who cant have that debate though. Check out the Newsnight Debate last night on Iplayer.

In reply to Saor Alba: News just in

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-is-totally-bankrupt-f...

Are you sure you want to join Europe?

(UK is not in much better position mind you)

In reply to Saor Alba:

I think mkean's point is Schengen countries are duty-bound to police their borders on the edge of the Schengen area. If Scotland ends up in Schengen and England out, Scotland would be need to police the border. Perhaps you could address, or at least acknowledge, this point.

In reply to Saor Alba:
You have misunderstood me!

I understand you, you don't understand the rules though!

I know the UK wont sign up to Schengen but if Scotland is in it and rUK isn't then rUK will have to deal with the issues thrown up by that, as it does currently.

Look at all the external Schengen borders, they are manned by the country that they are in! The external countries don't have to man them but choose to for internal security. The Schengen signatories are required under the terms of the agreement to man their external borders, this is not optional! So Scotland would have to man the border but the UK could choose not to.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

I am already in Europe. So are you, you are a citizen of the European Union.

I think the UK isn't far behind. Isn't Iceland doing much better now?

In reply to EeeByGum: Your answer and the judgment within it is completely wrapped in neoliberal trope, so i wouldn't play down the insignificane too much.

I believe a Tory grandee (Tebbit??) came out recently saying they went too far with the attack on industry. And recently the Tories have been calling for more industry to be located in Britain, getting it making things again or something. Industry is not as footloose as economic thinking has made out of late, it was actively driven out of the UK by a ludicrous monetary policy and a complete vacuum of state encouragement which was instead laid on in a big way for more exploitative and ultimately lower growth business.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Ah yes, well that way round I agree. I know lots of people who have lived in the UK for years, may well have British passports, but feel Irish or Dutch or whereever they originally came from.

With this, nothing will change for me personally. I am and will remain British. I think it's a shame, however, that part of our country will no longer be a part of Britain and that certain things will change as a result. It's not about Britain wanting to 'own' Scotland; it's about a part of the country and its people that many of us go to regularly and enjoy the differences but feel a part of that union. Plus what many see as economic and political advantages for both.

You could be right and some Scottish people may well still look backwards but they won't actually be British and they will have divorced themselves from the union (if they vote for it). That's very different to someone who physically moves to another country - for whatever reason - but always looks back to the origins as home. Scotland will have chosen, spiritually as it were, that they don't want to be a part of Britain. Nothing will have changed geographically (other than borders being redrawn as it were).

Although in theory Britain could refuse to let them split away, it's accepting what the people of Scotland decide to do. So, at the end of the day it's their choice. Why would they want to look back, or the majority of them (who will have voted for it)?

In short, I think your comment (re where you feel to be your home being separate to your nationality) is pretty meaningless in the context of this debate.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
And recently the Tories have been calling for more industry to be located in Britain, getting it making things again or something. Industry is not as footloose as economic thinking has made out of late, it was actively driven out of the UK by a ludicrous monetary policy and a complete vacuum of state encouragement which was instead laid on in a big way for more exploitative and ultimately lower growth business.

Please Google UK manufacturing output.

In reply to Skyfall:

Actually I dont think the UK could refuse to let anyone split away. It could try of course but if a group of people decide they want to do that such is life. This notion that people do things with the permission of the UK Government is actually quite funny I think as it shows some kind of adherence the establishment. Sort of the same thing like when people get a warm feeling about "the big house" in Downton Abbey.

When will Scotland get HS2? The Union offers all this certainty so this should be an easy answer.

In reply to Reach>Talent: Why? Would it change my opinions? and Why? Its about 12% innit a bit more less of the workforce. What would this or similar stats lead me to conclude?

In reply to Saor Alba: Iceland let it's banks fail and withstood huge inflation and currency devaluation.

Scotland couldn't do that without complete anarchy.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
Compare the current UK manufacturing output to that of the last 30 years.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:


Right, but if you need 10,000 unskilled labourers to turn bits of metal into widgets, you simply can't afford to employ them in the UK. The irony is that British industrial output has never been greater than at present. The difference is that it is umpteen times more efficient and generally high tech and high skilled output. When someone on the other side of the world can do the same work for a fraction of the cost in the UK you can bet it is going to move over there.

It is the same in my industry. My last job involved managing a team of 20 Chinese software developers. Why? Because you can employ four of them to one of me! When it comes to business, there is no such thing as Scotland, the UK or even Europe. It is a global market and you forget that at your peril.

Whatever you decide you want for your future Scotland, Good Luck and Best Wishes.

Andrea Collins

In reply to Reach>Talent: Its reduced, go on paint the whole canvass, elucidate your grand repost, i'm not interested in this drip feeding thing. I feel like suspense is being unduly built for probably quite a dumb comment. But please, prove me wrong.

In reply to EeeByGum: blah blah blah blah, some globetrotting IT guy that gets his economic outlook from HSBC adverts and maybe the odd faddish piece in Prospect. Boring.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
Try looking at the numbers, go on. I'm sure you'll manage it if you try really hard. Maybe stop spouting propaganda and try actually learning?

Or you could look a couple of posts up the thread where someone summmarised it for you.

In reply to Reach>Talent: So I'm guessing hear that your argument is based on the fact that output levels inflation adjusted are bigger. So this makes Thatcher right or at least passive? and the decline of industry in relative economic terms and absolutely in job terms inevitable?

Your getting all this from one trend? Wow, that's a 'brave' (read: stupid) conclusion.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf: *here

In reply to Saor Alba:

The rest of the UK is not in Schengen and is incredibly unlikely to join.

A new country joining the EU is required to join Schengen. It's been stated repeatedly that an independent Scotland would have to apply as a new country.

That being the case, there would need to be a strengthened land border between the UK and Schengen at the border England-Scotland, both from the point of view of the UK and that of the EU (because Schengen allows for freedom of internal movement but requires strong outside borders for the concept to work).

Neil

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
Sorry I'd assumed that as you are a bit dogmatic and slow I'd try you with a single trend. Of course you could also look at other countries economies that have transitioned from primary through secondary and into tertiary industry which display similar trends?

One handy tip; when using the word "Stupid" to describe someone, try proofreading your own posts.

In reply to Reach>Talent: Who proof reads posts? You should spend less time proof reading and more on thinking about what your going to say.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
Wow, you've either won hippocrite of the week or you are really hard of thinking.

In reply to EeeByGum:

Deindustrialisation was certainly inevitable and happened across europe around Eindhoven, Lyon, Nordrheinwestfalen. Up until the 1970s/80s the life outcomes of the people of west central Scotland were similar those of workers in other industrialised areas.

The difference being that on the continent their deindustrialisation was managed. The disgrace of thatcherism was the abandoning of communities across great britain to market forces and completely unmanaged collapse of the industries and state mechanisms in their communities.

The deterioration in health outcomes for males in west central scotland hauntingly mirror those of the industrial heartlands of the former USSR after the collapse of communism.

In reply to Reach>Talent.

Hmmmmm.......I would estimate that around 30% of my colleagues cross the border twice a day just to get to and from work . . . .border posts will give them a Hell of a commute!

In reply to count: As stated earlier emotions run high about this kind of thing, and just like politicians, bickering takes over rather than reasonable discussion, their are alot of unknowns that can only be presumed and everybody has their own ideas. I like the idea of scotland governing itself based on its own economy/needs, i worry about our ability to be independent and not go down hill. I like being part of britain and can see the advantages. The idea of patrolling the border is laughable but will provide some much needed jobs, but these will probably be taken by some hard working eastern european workers. The logistics of independence seem nearly impossible

In reply to nickyrannoch:

Couldn't agree more. There was a very interesting programme about the two contrasting towns of Thurscoe and Grimesthorpe. All rather sad.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Just a wild guess but I'd say you don't have a lot of experience of getting things made. Am I right?

Unfortunately EBG is right that lots of manufacturing jobs are never going to come back to Europe, not in the forseeable future anyway. The labour pool in China is so vast that it can grow for decades before wages rise to a point where it's competitiveness with Europe is put in jepordy.

Your tactic of trying to shame people into supporting independence by trying to make them think that a contrary view must be Thatcherite one is both deplorable and laughable. Unless of course you actually believe it in which case you're just a bit sad. Germany, for example, was able to maintain a lot more manufacturing industry in the 80's for a variety of reasons. A better government in the UK could have done so as well. That said Scotland did very well in attracting a number of electronics companies to Scotland to build wafer fabs. Sadly the realities of global business from the 90's onwards has meant these billion dollar businesses have now moved Eastwards. It's not a black and white choice.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

When I was 18, my uncle said a very interesting thing to me. I will share it with you and allow you to ponder it over the next 10 years.

When I was 18, I thought I knew everything.
When I was 21, I knew I knew everything.
When I was 30, I knew I knew nothing.

Good luck!

In reply to Removed User: I make things for a living, I get the whole margins thing. Also I'm not shaming anyone into supporting indep, as i said above im undecided. What i was arguing is that the magnitude of the industrial decline was not inevitable as has been argued. We agree on this I think. Sure the current shifts have been towards the east but again this is not inevitable, inevitability is just a neoliberal trope, 'there's no alternative' etc. etc.

In reply to count:

Seem impossible? In what way? There are 200+ countries in the world and they all seem to be able to do these things to a greater or lesser extent.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Is a new country required to join schengen?

In reply to EeeByGum: Yeah as i said above, dull, cliches, nothing interesting to say. You're the one bandying around terms like inevitable anyway, so by your own logic your 18-21.

I'm at a wise beyond by years 30 as I'm questioning your bien pensant rubbish and offering nothing concrete in return.

In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:

Why is it not inevitable? Sure, we can compete on value added, efficiency, expertise and the ability to design and manufacture high tech, high value stuff, but if the bottom line is cost and cost alone, how do we compete? I am genuinely interested.

Is a prime example of our economy the fact that we export expensive Land Rovers and Jaguars to China yet import cheap clothes? In your eyes you seem to be saying that we should be manufacturing our own clothes, but I can't see the masses being prepared to pay £100 for a pair of jeans when the current Primark price is £14.

In reply to Saor Alba: Just the whole settling up thing, like whose owe who what and who gets what. Doesnt seem like an easy task

In reply to Saor Alba:
Is a new country required to join schengen?

A couple of MEPs have been quoted as saying that Europe is basically an "in out" decision now and you either take the whole lot or none of it. So assuming they are right then Schengen is mandatory.

In reply to count:

Easy or hard are not words I would apply to this. Complex might be one but it's all possible. Basically it's like many things - can you be be bothered with some admin to support a system which you think might be better.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Well on your basis the UK is out then. You should become a political advisor as it seems a pretty simple job.

Nah, as we all know, things in the EU can be fudged and changed to suit the circumstances. For some reason the UK loves to slavishly interpret rules to the nth degree.

In reply to Saor Alba: aye complex to say the least, but obviously doable. Just wonder if it does come to settling up, will it turn into a shit throwing competition

In reply to Saor Alba:
We are already in with opt outs (unless the Cameron cocks it up), the EU have apparently stated that all new admissions are all or nothing. The core EU countries don't want more EU-lite countries as it creates a huge headache.

In reply to Reach>Talent: I'm quite sure an independent Scotland will be able to negotiate any necessary exceptions to the rules on entry to the eu.

In reply to count:

I'm of the opinion that it's up to the Scottish to decide their fate. However, I do worry that a lot of Labour support will be lost, leaving us more likely to be stuck with the pricks we're currently lumped with in future.

In reply to TryfAndy: I think that once Scotland is truly independent, they will be fair game for conquest. Watch out carefully for the running down of Scotland's military capacity prior to independence, thus allowing easy invasion (again) by the English.

It can then become a puppet state ruled from Westminster. Mwah hah hah hah hah!

In reply to Siward: hahahaha, folk are still bitter about that shit today, hold a wee grudge its funny

In reply to Siward:

Considering they've got oil & gas, I'd be surprised if the yanks didn't invade.

In reply to TryfAndy: chinese worming their way in with panda bears

In reply to nickyrannoch:


It wasn't in France, whole areas of the N of France, for example, were reduced to unemployment as the mines and heavy industry closed. A lot of promises were made but many people never worked again. And it's still gong on, the last blast furnaces just closed, the car industry is preparing to reduce their work force by thousands as I type this. So Thatcher was certainly very brutal, especially in her apparent totally callous disregard for the people she was harming but to imagine that in the rest for Europe things went much better is a bit of a "the grass is always greener" sort of thing.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

I think you are wrong that the EU has stated it's everything or nothing. Can you give a definitive source for this which says this in clear, unambiguous language?

In reply to TryfAndy:

I hear this often but unfortunately democracy throws up scenarios you don't like. Do you mean that voters need to be prevented for getting the government they want and need to be saved from themselves?

In reply to Saor Alba: I have neither the patience nor the endurance of Saor Alba to respond to the multitude of questions being posed on Scottish independence. As he/she says the Better Together campaign is almost entirely based on scaremongering. Once one groundless scaremongering story is put to bed there is a pause till another is created.

If you want to shortcut the process here is a link to a regularly updated article from Newsnet Scotland, a pro independence site, which tries to deal with the scare stories and other genuine questions which have been raised:

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-l...

Some of the stories have been overtaken by events such as the question as to whether or not the referendum will be legal but it's still a useful source for those with a genuine interest in the debate.

In reply to count:

Yes, soft diplomacy.

In reply to Timmd:


That's just pandering to their soft side.

In reply to Jim Braid: thats a good read clears up many of the myths that are frequently rolled out. i for one am sick of my country being belittled without any evidence to back up some of these political views of the unionist partys.

In reply to davy_boy:

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with being pro UK or in favour of the Union but I think they do little for themselves and the desperate measures employed suggest a really uncomfortable feeling they all seem to have.

In reply to Saor Alba: agree they do seem desperate to put this country down so why on earth would london especialy the torys want to keep a union with scotland who they seem to see as a drain on the economy and worthless to the uk as a whole. personaly i smell a rat and can see through these slanderous stories but a lot of people are not sure and dont like being spoken down which might backfire on these partys in the long run.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I've been banging on about this for a while now, but it's recently come to light that the Better Together campaign are preventing anyone from commenting on their facebook site if they support the Yes campaign (or even if they're unsure at the moment). Most of the people I know that have been banned have done nothing more than ask a few questions or engage in respectful debate. It would appear that they're not too keen on any contradictory opinions. I've also emailed the Better Together campaign team and tweeted at them and have had no response or clarification for this.

I would love to see a more positive campaign from the BT camp, but so far it seems to be primarily focussed on belittling the 'Nats' or peddling scare stories.

In reply to count:

Better together, The rest of the UK would be weaker without Scotland.

In reply to Saor Alba: Try here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement

Or the EU website

In reply to count: How do people feel about Cornish independence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_nationalism

In reply to count: Is it just me that thinks the Tories are actually playing a game of risk, calculating on a win win scenario i.e. Scotland gains independance and the Tories rule RUK forever more, Scotland lose independence and hey ho the Union is maintained but what a missed opportunity , oops sorry meant close shave!

In reply to davy_boy:

What I'm really most sick of is foreigners thinking London = England, and that Tory = England. Get a grip on reality, a grip on the diversity we have down here, and get a grip on the transience of who holds power in Westminister, Westminister, Westminister, Westminister, Westminister, Westminister, Westminister. Sorry for repeating myself, I've obviously spent too long listening to Oil Banker Soapy.

And to assume that everyone in Londonland sees the northern tribe as 'a drain' and 'worthless to the uk' is about the most ignorant Daily Mail esque comment you can come out with, my dear Jockobite.

So sick of the constant moaning as well. Latest subject for moaning from the pro-union inlaws, HS2. You want a new trainset, borrow the money your self and pay for it yourself! Don't see why I should pay for your useless train set construction industry to make a fool of itself for year after year, f*cking things up. That isn't being slanderous, it's the reality of driving around that English student village you have up there called Edinburgh.

Going back in time 6 UKC independence threads, I was very pro union. Now I'm pro-independence. For little other reason than to annoy the people who spend their time moaning about England (or is it Londonland?) while being committed to voting against independence.

In reply to count: Definitely england, it might be useful for the future, when scotland turns mad max

What do you mean "when" ? Scotland already IS Mad Max.

In reply to Ken Lewis:well if thats the type of attitude and language that you want to use against me for making a point on a debate it says something about you. i meant london as in westminister so you can drop the jockobite and foreigner statements also is the swearing really necessary. i know full well that englands as diverse a place as scotland having worked with many and having many friends from south of the border. personaly im not interested about a big fancy train and dont see how you would be paying for it i do pay tax as well as many millions of other people in the uk. and at no point did i say what way i was voting or moaning about england.

In reply to davy_boy:

HAHAHAHAHA, I knew you did. Westminister, westminister, westminister. Westminister = England


Sorry if I offend you, I will apologise for the Jockobite comment.

But no, I will not drop the foreigner statements, that is what you are wanting to achieve, you want English and Scottish to be foreigners.



I would respectfully disagree, England is a far more diverse place than Scotland.




I was referring to my missus, and her family, who are Jockobites :-P

In reply to Ken Lewis: I do agree with you that Westminster doesnt represent the whole of England in the same way that holyrood doesnt represent the whole of Scotland. But it does happen to be where the political parties are based. As for foreigners technically england and Scotland are individual countrys at the moment but nobody goes round using the term foreigners so I dont see how that would change if an independance vote was voted through. As for being more diverse thats your opinion of which your freely entitled too as are we all. Its probably the biggest decision in living memory and needs more thoughtful and civilized discussion than the current arguments being put forward by some parties.

In reply to davy_boy:

NO, NO, NO, technically they are not seperate countries. Technically they are the same country. Technically there is no 'English', there is no 'Scottish', there is only 'United Kingdom'.



You keep on kidding yourself mate. Having a good selection of pakora and Italian chippies serving brown piss on chips does not mean you are more diverse than England. Compare Londonland to Glasgow, walk a mile down Byers Road, and walk a mile down Camden High Street, then think about where is most diverse.

In fact you could probably walk a mile down a thoroughbred Tory racist heartland in Oxfordshire or Cheshire and it would be more diverse than the most hipster parts of the central belt.


I agree the discussion should be civialized. So the SNP should stop attaching 'if we are free from Westminster' as the get out clause to every negative news story about Scottish politics.

In reply to Ken Lewis: the United kingdom is made up of the union of four countrys thats a fact. If Scotland and England are the same country as you put it then how can they use two different legal systems and have two different education systems.

In reply to davy_boy:


You may have a romantic notion of a Scottish nation, and for what it's worth I agree with you, but TECHNICALLY, it isnt a country amd hasnt been for a good while, much like England.

The US states and the German regions have different laws, Scotland(or England) is no more a country than Saxony, Bavaria, California or Alaska. (hint:that is what the independence vote is about)

https://www.un.org/en/members/

Personally, I can't wait for England to appear on that list, because I'm a pathetic jingoistic nationalist with an inferiority complex.

In reply to count: You suffering from PMT?????

In reply to Ken Lewis:

Best to steer clear of religious matters in Scotland,and the Jacobite movement was aligned to the Catholic religion, but a lot of English people do not appreciate that, and can inadvertently stir up feelings that have been simmering for centuries.

In reply to Jim C:

Yeah, couldn't agree more. Don't involve England in your religious sectarian crap, we grew out of believing in fairy stories and persecuting our own nation based on who wears pointy hats and wears the rounded hats centuries ago.

Can't wait to see how proud independent Scotland handled the pathetic Saturday afternoon brutalism that England eradicated in the 80's.

'Best to steer clear from it'... well forgive me, but I couldnt give a shit if nonsense hokus pokus shit gets 50% of a nation angry. It isnt my problem and it isnt for me to be ashamed. That;s Scotlands problem.

I wasnt even thinking of that angle, but since you mentioned it, it's Scotland that has that problem, and I reserve the right to take the piss of people who think it's acceptable to discriminate based on which brand of fairy-story bullshit my football team supports.

God I'm jealous of your great society.

In reply to Ken Lewis:

I think you have completely misunderstood what I said. I was referring to the London jocks like Darling, Brown, Alexander x2 etc. Not London itself.

Scotland can't borrow money for HS2 and pays for it even though it wont come here. You need to understand the scenario.

Good rant and keep dreaming.

In reply to Jim C:

Good bit of scaremongering from veteran scarer Ian Davidson: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=425608334183846&set=a.1366502064...

Re the Electoral Commission finding on the question itself. I bet there will be various utterances from the Tories and Labour about a "slap down" or something like that. They are so predictable.

In reply to Ken Lewis:

think someone has been feeding you stories.

In my 29 years in Scotland I am yet to experience, witness or hear from a primary source of a single incident of religious bigotry, violence or discrimination. I suspect this must be a extremely localised phenomenon whose influence is much overplayed (the southern media is not the only one with a 'watford gap' nothing in Scotland exists west of Lanarkshire)

Regarding Saturday afternoon brutalism - Even the Old Firm stuff is massively overblown and no relation to the organised violence of the 80s. In fact even then Celtic and rangers wouldnt take each other on. You see no more trouble at Old Firm games then you would in any other situation with 60,000 loose at the drink before a game and probably another million or so around the country watching the game in the pubs.

Of course in the internet age many of the 'voiceless' have the opportunity to drape them selves in the tricolour or union flag and spout a load of shite they dont understand but the effect on Scottish society is absolutely negligible.

Re:Jacobitism - when people speak romantically of the jacobite cause it tends to be more about , for good or ill, the death of the clan system and the beginning of the end of gaelic culture. To suggest people are pining for a return of catholicism is an absolute nonsense. The people of scotland are as ignorant as anyone else around the 45 uprising and for many it is still seen as the last hurrah for the breaking of the union - even though the stewarts wanted the whole UK crown.

In reply to nickyrannoch:

But that is true of all the uk, we that feel like that should be sticking together and changing things not giving up and running away. Like I keep elucidating, what if Yorkshire or Lancashire or godforbid Surrey and Essex decided they too wanted out of the union? Scots that don't stay and make it work after all it's done for them are deserting people who have faught alongside them as British for the UK, not for some few selfish individuals to think 'ok, we might be a bit better on our own now, leave the neighbhours to get slaughtered by the tory hoards'

In reply to Al Evans: Which "we" is that? Who are your neighbours?
I don't see much mileage in trying to guilt Scots into not voting for independence.

In reply to Al Evans:

You call that elucidating?

In reply to Al Evans:

Maybe its time we looked beyond arbitrary borders defined centuries ago and invited Englands progressive counties to join us in our Social democratic utopia (i'm only half joking).

My quick answer to that would be the counties you mention have no history of being an independent nation, have none of the political, legal, educational and social strucutres and bodies that already exist in Scotand and do not reagrd themselves to be a nation.

However if the people of Lancashire decided they wished to be independent and set up an independence movement i would wish them all the best in their endeavours.

The stick around and make it work argument are the same ones you hear from old socialists in the labour party who are still trying to work it from the inside. they are pissing in the wind.

In reply to count: the union/partnership is 300 years old and broken. Irvine Welsh is spot on, the rest of the UK is feeding and subsidising the state of London.

High speed rail a god send for the north of England? no,its just another mass investment paid for by the UK, which really just benefits the state of London.

as for the ship yards, sick to the teeth of this argument. It is the only non-competitive industry in scotland where you still find many people who have been in kooshy jobs since they left school in the 70s. lots of misplaced and unbalanced sympathy for a pretty small industry.

In reply to Erik B:

Funny, the standard view seems to be that London, or rather the financial, insurance and banking industry based there subsidises the rest of the country... The trade balance would certainly be very iffy without it. Has this situation changed of late or are you just making it up?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:It was Irvine Welsh who I had first seen mention it, not me.He lived there for a long time

In reply to count:

if anyone is interested the Scottish Government have just announced they have acceted all of the Electoral Commision's recommendations http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/electoral-commission-repor...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Funny, the standard view seems to be that London, or rather the financial, insurance and banking industry based there subsidises the rest of the country

According to Wikipedia (other sources differ slightly but are generally in the same area)
"London generates approximately 20 per cent of the UK's GDP (or $446 billion in 2005); while the economy of the London metropolitan area—the largest in Europe—generates approximately 30 per cent of the UK's GDP (or an estimated $669 billion in 2005)."

Which is actually lower than I was expecting when you look at the disproportionate quantity of financial services there and about 12% of the population.

In reply to Reach>Talent: how much treasury spending does the London metropolitan area receive?

In reply to Erik B: which should include all the public ministries, parliament, quangos etc etc

In reply to Erik B: I think the London ecomomy supports the London metroplotan area and commuter belt, not the UK. That's not to say it's not important but people do get carried away.

In reply to Erik B:

Though it adds nothing to this discussion, I once accidently trod his foot while at ordering a pint at the Yucatan in Stoke Newington.

He was most apologetic

as was I.

as you were.....

In reply to Papillon: I would be surprised if it is self sufficient.. however,i have no figures to back this hunch up..!

what has always bugged me about the so called union is why London became the de-facto centre of control of the Union. This gave rise to a feeling that England was the dominant force and that in fact it has never been an equal partnership of nations..

one thing for sure is,there has been a culture in scotland of winjing about this and having a 'chip on shoulder' attitude of being downtrodden, yet many of these same people being too scared to go it alone. These spineless and winjing cretins will no doubt vote to remain on London's cowtails. Wish we could banish them across the border!

In reply to Erik B:

Well the pro unionists are doing your case no favours by then rabid scaremongering that is going on. That is for sure going to make some stick to the status quo, and most of that scaremongering is coming from the London end, so it does not look like they are so happy to get rid of Scotland as you are.

Have you asked yourself why (if what you say above is correct) that London want these "spineless and winjing cretins " to stay in the union ?

In reply to nickyrannoch:

Spot on,in my view, Bonnie Prince Charlie, was an Italian catholic born of a Polish Mother who was not in the least interested in Scotland other than as some ccannon fodder to help him gain the UK Crown.

In reply to Jim C: exactly...

In reply to Erik B:


for the same reason the Romans chose it for their province? Good links to continent. Plus it ended up with a large proportion of the population increasing its influence.

For the union though it was a pattern first set by James 1st and 6th.

In reply to Erik B:

I suppose we could have gone for a similar approach to Australia or Brazil and had a new town capital. Milton Keynes or Livingston perhaps. On second thoughts...

In reply to nickyrannoch:

Have you not heard of the War of the Roses?

In reply to Al Evans:

yes - the war fought between the houses of lancaster and york for the english crown. An interfamilial rivalry between two duchies almost entirely unconnected to the cities attached to their title,far less the two counties?

Are you pulling my leg or are you suggesting it was a fight between the two nations of yorkshire and lancashire?

In reply to Al Evans:

As I understand it The War of the Roses was not about Yorkshire/Lancashire independence. It was about which King they supported.

In reply to Erik B:


Apparently its was already done years ago:

http://www.windmillweb.info/various/Videos/absolutely_mcglashan.wmv

After about 1 minute into the clip.

In reply to Toby S:


it was more North/South as well in terms of power bases.

In reply to count: " an fu*k having statues of him all over the country if we do get independence."

Aw - think of the pigeons! You are right though - the best argument yet for the Union.

In reply to Jim Braid:

When you offer them a chance to read a more measured option, they just don't want to read it, and at the same time , they are constantly arguing that the truth is being hidden from them!

The fact is that hard liners on both sides have made up their mind , so are irrelevant, in the numbers game.