[rich1068]

I know we have a strong Scottish contingent here on E90Post so I wonder what their thoughts are regarding the current independence vote proposals from Westminster. Obviously input from members south of the border and NI would be welcome too.

Personally I have no problem with a Scottish nation, if the majority want to leave the UK then so be it. I do however think it would be a terrible shame and a sad loss to the UK. No doubt the two nations would still enjoy close ties but we would be less of a people without them.

But I do wholeheartedly agree with what appears to be a bit of a gamble by Cameron. I'm no friend of the Tories but this issue has rumbled on for long enough and a straight forward yes or no is what is needed. Within the eighteen month timeframe too. My view is that with an issue as important as this a Scot is surely for or against. The SNP now crying 'foul' seems extremely disingenuous, their bluff has been called. Their third option of some sort of 'super devolution' is a nonsense and is starting to appear as what they really wanted all along. Saying that Westminster is meddling is forgetting that until independence it is London that calls the shots. The fact that the SNP haven't welcomed this announcent I find the biggest surprise of all.

[335iLondon]

I wonder if they will be able to fund university
Will they have their own currency.
Oh maybe join the euro, did wonders for Ireland!
]haha]

Never going to be an independent Scootland in our lifetime.

[peterg1965]

If Scotland were to decide to go it alone they would/could become the poorest country in Europe. If we use the Barnet formula to work out their share of the UK's debt Scotland will sink under the weight of it. Alec Salmond is a canny and very clever politician, He probably also knows that winning a yes/no vote for independence is probably not possible. He will extract significant concessions from Whitehall to get his way, and I predict the Union will remain intact with a more empowered Scotland.

[RagingKileak]

All I could add to this thread would be ignorant humor as this discussion is already a little deeper than my understanding... For once I will refrain

Matt

[TMP]

I am with Matt on this.

Seriously...I just dont have any fact based views on this...

[Moh]

I really think it could backfire on Scotland.they'd struggle without holding onto some benefits from us as previously mentioned.on the plus side....Gordon Brown could run for pm again/first minister....or maybe not:-(

[Kerr]

Wait until the Olympics when you see the mince football players that we are going to send for the UK team and you will want to divorce us!!

Not going to say too much as this could get a bit heated in here.

[scotgc]

Totally against it, We should stay as the United Kingdom!

I wonder if Alex Salmond is relying on North Sea oil being a scottish income

[AlanQS]

I am not an SNP supporter although I don't particularly mind them but there is one thing I've never got to the bottom of. When calculating things like the Barnet formula and the many people who think that England has to subsidise those Scots types, I don't believe the full contributions from each area of the country are completely reported. Example:

Contributions to the GDP. Income generated from each area of the country (U.K.) shows how much is generated - except for oil and gas. IIRC, several areas in England have small oil and gas fields (or had) and the income generated from those fields was reported against that area and showed up as a part of that area's earnings but when it came to North Sea oil and gas, the entire sum was placed in a general "Great Britain" fund and NOT ONE PENNY was attributed to Scotland's contribution to the national purse.

Now this was done for purely political reasons as it would have given the SNP so much ammunition because, especially during the highest output years, if it had been put against Scotland's GDP, the imbalance between Scottish contribution and Scottish receipts from central funds would have been obscenely skewed. Interestingly, had Scotland been allocated a percentage of that income (say proportionate to population) no one could ever have come out with the "subsidised Scots" nonsense.

There is another "per head" allocation that gets touted and contrasted between Scotland and England, the name of which I can't recall but it turns out that the figures used to calculate it EXCLUDE all military costs, all government buildings (since devolution this means buildings in England) and all government running costs (since devolution, this means England only) and this also skews the figures to support Scots haters and baiters.

So, when you get the extremes of both side of the argument, the truth really is somewhere in the middle.

For myself, an independent Scotland would have to have (even in their much diminished state), all the North Sea revenue, if it had any chance of making it through the early years and I don't believe the English government would let that money go. The other thing against it is more basic. With a few exceptions, the Scottish government is full of third division politicians as the best of them are in Westminster. I don't think they have the brains to steer a good course and too many of them would see independence as a chance to carry out their crack-pot ideas.

Also since SNP are simply an independence minded version of the left wing of the Labour party, the country will become irredeemably socialist and it will become a shit-hole to live in.

One last thing, the SNP want a referendum as late as possible in order to try and get the country more and more used to the idea, will pose a skewed question in the vote to maximise chances, and hope for things to happen in the next couple of years that will enrage the Scots because today, if he had a simple yes/no vote, the answer would be no.

[mowflow]

Originally Posted by AlanQS

the country will become irredeemably socialist and it will become a shit-hole to live in.

Like Port Glasgow?

I don't know all the pros and cons of independence but I like to consider myself intelligent enough to know that both the UK and Scotland would be worse off if the vote went in favour.

[Masterplan]

Originally Posted by 335iLondon

Never going to be an independent Scootland in our lifetime.

+1

As a young Scot, I genuinely believe this will never happen in my lifetime. I voted SNP, but I still dont agree that Scottish Independence is the way forward for Scotland, or the UK as a whole at this point in time.

The factors that determine whether or not Scotland would be successful on its own are somewhat skewed as per Alan's post above. The incomes that would allow Scotland to stand alone, are the areas that the UK probably don't want to let go. Much of focus seems to be aimed towards North Sea oil, yet this has never been solely attributed to Scotland, and has been seen as a UK income. I think many Scots 'believe' that Scotland sends all it's income to Westminster, and that we pay more than we receive in our budget. Whether or not this is a misconception I'm unsure.

I think that the details around how Scotland would survive are very vague, and its unlikely to be made more clear in the near future.I don't understand the in's and out's so to speak, so until I do I'll always vote no to independence.

Sadly, my opinion is that many Scots watch brave heart, and have a rather disillusioned view on what Independence actually is. Independence was a unique selling point for the SNP, and given the worldwide debt crisis, was easy to sell the Scottish people. From this weeks news, I get the impression that Alex Salmond's bluff was called, and that independence was more a selling point, than the actual vision of the SNP.

As said above, my knowledge on politics is limited, and this is purely my opinion based on what I see on the news, and read in the papers. But given many Scots will be doing the same, I doubt my opinion is not shared by others.

[RagingKileak]

Well, ironically now the serious discussion has been formed I can add my rather limited tenpenny view.

The reality is I don't fully understand what 'assets' Scotland holds claim to or how this system of determining debt etc would work.

What I had surmised (in my ignorant view) was that basically, Scotland would have a lot of oil (not neccesarily the good kind) and wiskey but no food or other produce, all of which they will need to purchase from elsewhere. That would make them a nation of poor drunkards and they would natually come cap in hand to whatever the UK was called afterwards - we couldn't help though, because we'd be poor too (albeit less drunk) and everyone would realise that we were better off together.

It seems like a sensible idea to stay as is for now I'd say, but I don't suppose I feel the 'pang' that many Scots feel when discussing the subject.

Matt

[Masterplan]

Originally Posted by RagingKileak

The reality is I don't fully understand what 'assets' Scotland holds claim to or how this system of determining debt etc would work.

Matt

I think it's these very two things that everyone wants to know, but are unlikely to be told any time soon!

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by RagingKileak

Well, ironically now the serious discussion has been formed I can add my rather limited tenpenny view.

The reality is I don't fully understand what 'assets' Scotland holds claim to or how this system of determining debt etc would work.

What I had surmised (in my ignorant view) was that basically, Scotland would have a lot of oil (not neccesarily the good kind) and wiskey but no food or other produce, all of which they will need to purchase from elsewhere. That would make them a nation of poor drunkards and they would natually come cap in hand to whatever the UK was called afterwards - we couldn't help though, because we'd be poor too (albeit less drunk) and everyone would realise that we were better off together.

It seems like a sensible idea to stay as is for now I'd say, but I don't suppose I feel the 'pang' that many Scots feel when discussing the subject.

Matt

Do you think Scotland is a third world country or something?

[Snooky]

I have lived in Scotland for almost half my life and I think it would be a disaster if there was a yes vote for an independent Scotland. I can see no sensible reason for promoting division and I fear the additional wasted cost of implementing all central government functions as well as the obvious income/expenditure conundrum.

Alex Salmond is a good orator and that will get him a long way....BUT as an Irishman, I clearly remember him holding up the Republic of Ireland as the model of a small country that was really successful and, bizarrely, the opposition do not appear to be reminding him of this now that Ireland is going through such a difficult time.

As most of my business is in London I would seriously consider moving if this ever became a reality.

We should all be working together to get out of the current mess and not seeking to put up more divides.

[Edi1011]

Originally Posted by RagingKileak

What I had surmised (in my ignorant view) was that basically, Scotland would have a lot of oil (not neccesarily the good kind) and wiskey but no food or other produce, all of which they will need to purchase from elsewhere.

Matt

Bloody Hell ! we ain't living in a desert north of Gretna Green you know ;p

Have you never heard of Aberdeen Angus Beef or Scottish Smoked Salmon ?

Scotland export loads of food although we do have to import things like banana's

[AlanQS]

... and then there is a future export which will one day be desperately needed south of the border... water!

[acerboo]

give them independence just make sure they know that north sea oil is ours!

[Sportplus]

I was born in Scotland and for work reasons I've had to move south of the border and lived in sunny Swindon for 2 years .

I'm not sure where Mr Salmond will get the cash to provide the Scottish nation with the following,

1, Armed forces
2, A well run and well funded NHS
3, Welfare Services (Benefit’s)
4, Prison Service

Will taxes need to be increased to cover costs or is Mr Salmond going to rely on North Sea oil and gas levies to pay for the above?? How much oil is left in the North sea? 50-75 years?.

Do we then sell clean energy and water to what's left off the UK to fund the above services.

[misterS3]

Okay lets kick some facts about Scotland being too poor to survive. BTW there are quite a few countries in the world smaller than Scotland who do quite well.

One thing i hate about Scotland is the party politics when it comes to making decisions. Because it's SNP shouldn't matter. Independence should be voted for on merit after weighing up the topic and discussing it carefully - hence i agree with waiting till 2014 so that all the sabre-rattling and BS can be gotten out the way. And we can make an informed decision either way based on facts.

Anyway for those who think we subsidise our neighbours.

Read the GERS report.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/St...e/Economy/GERS

Or if you can't be bothered...read the conclusion.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../06/21144516/9

There are reason for and against independence from a Scottish point of view but fiscally we'll be better off..and maybe with this extra money we can tackle some of the issues that affect us eg Child poverty was on the news tonight.



For those of you who can't be bothered clicking the link..here's the conclusion copy and pasted for you (apologies for the formatting)

7 CONCLUSION

The aim of GERS is to enhance public understanding of fiscal issues in Scotland. The primary objective is to estimate a detailed set of public sector accounts for Scotland through an analysis of official UK and Scottish Government financial statistics.

The key results for 2009-10 are as followed:

In 2009-10, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other tiers of the public sector, plus a per capita share of debt interest payments, was £62.1 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3 per cent of total UK public sector expenditure.

In 2009-10, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £42.2 billion, (8.3 per cent of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £42.7 billion (8.3 per cent of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £48.1 billion (9.4 per cent of UK total public sector revenue).



In 2009-10, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.9 billion (13.4 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £14.4 billion (12.6 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £9.0 billion (6.8 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.

In 2009-10, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, worth £107.3 billion (7.6 per cent of GDP).





In 2009-10, Scotland's estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £19.9 billion (17.8 per cent of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £19.3 billion (17.0 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £14.0 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2009-10, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as 'net borrowing', was a deficit of £156.5 billion (or 11.1 per cent of GDP).

[AlanQS]

Just to change the topic and the tone for a minute (nicked from another forum.)

The average Englishman, in the home he calls his castle, slips into his national costume, a shabby raincoat, patented by chemist Charles Macintosh from Glasgow, Scotland. En route to his office he strides along the English lane, surfaced by John Macadam of Ayr, Scotland.

He drives an English car fitted with tyres invented by John Boyd Dunlop of Dreghorn, Scotland, arrives at the station and boards a train, the forerunner of which was a steam engine, invented by James Watt of Greenock, Scotland. He then pours himself a cup of coffee from a thermos flask, the latter invented by Dewar, a Scotsman from Kincardine-on-Forth.

At the office he receives the mail bearing adhesive stamps invented by James Chalmers of Dundee, Scotland.

During the day he uses the telephone invented by Alexander Graham Bell, born in Edinburgh, Scotland.

At home in the evening his daughter pedals her bicycle invented by Kirkpatrick Macmillan, blacksmith of Dumfries, Scotland.

He watches the news on his television, an invention of John Logie Baird of Helensburgh, Scotland, and hears an item about the U.S. Navy, founded by John Paul Jones of Kirkbean, Scotland.

He has by now been reminded too much of Scotland and in desperation he picks up the Bible only to find that the first man mentioned in the good book is a Scot, King James VI, who authorised its translation.

Nowhere can an Englishman turn to escape the ingenuity of the Scots.

He could take to drink, but the Scots make the best in the world.

He could take a rifle and end it all but the breech-loading rifle was invented by Captain Patrick of Pitfours, Scotland.

If he escapes death, he might then find himself on an operating table injected with penicillin, which was discovered by Alexander Fleming of Darvel, Scotland, and given an anaesthetic, which was discovered by Sir James Young Simpson of Bathgate, Scotland.

Out of the anaesthetic, he would find no comfort in learning he was as safe as the Bank of England founded by William Paterson of Dumfries, Scotland.

Perhaps his only remaining hope would be to get a transfusion of guid Scottish blood which would entitle him to ask "Wha's Like Us".

[misterS3]

Nice on Alan