Scottish Independence - NI implications

glic71rods46t0

KeithAFC wrote: »

Not as easy as that. Such talk like that makes the world sound very simple.

easy there tiger ... some of those unionist types ar every simple. Apparently they made a big deal about sparing their leaders from expulsion for attending a catholic funeral recently - what a shower of simpletons!

oppenheimer1

Batsy wrote: »

So? In the 2005 General Election the Conservatives got more votes than Labour in England but the poor English had to endure another five years of a Labour Government thanks to the votes Labour received in Scotland.

So the Scots foisted a Labour Government onto England even though the English wanted a Tory Government.

With the first past the post system they have, that isn't true either. A third of the popular vote will give a majority in the commons, and government is decided by a small number of swing seats anyway.

Scottish independence will necessitate a wider debate on the UK's role in the world. Could they really demand a seat on the security council if the union broke up. How would the relationship with Europe be affected? The UK's global influence would shrink dramatically, and while the age of empire is over already, it would then have the about same global clout as Spain.

Could the English live like that having been such a dominant power for centuries?

Batsy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Scottish independence will necessitate a wider debate on the UK's role in the world.

No, it won't.

Could they really demand a seat on the security council if the union broke up.

Why not? Scotland leaving the UK would result in Britain's population only shrinking by a poxy 4 million. With the rate of immigration into this country making it the fastest-growing large country in the EU (due to excessive immigration Britain contributed to a THIRD of the entire EU's population growth in 2009 and is on course to overtake Germany as the EU's largest country in the not-too-distant future) it'll not be long before that lost 4 million in the population will be restored and thsn surpassed.

How would the relationship with Europe be affected?

Why would an independent Scotland change Britain's relationship with the EU in any way?

The UK's global influence would shrink dramatically

With the loss of a measly 6% of its population and a tiny percentage of its economy, which will be restored within a few years due to immigration into England? I doubt it.

it would then have the about same global clout as Spain.

Not when Britain's economy and population will still be significantly larger than Spain's even with Jockland gone.

In fact, what many people fail to notice (or just choose to ignore) is that the people who will see the most decline of influence on the world stage will be the Scots. Upon independence they will have gone from being a part of a country with a population of 62 million with one of the world's largest economies to being a country with a population of just 4 million with an economy smaller than London's.

The rest of the UK, on the other hand, will see a loss of population of just 4 million which will be hardly noticeable. And that 4 million would be restored within a few years due to immigration.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Batsy wrote: »

No, it won't.



Why not? Scotland leaving the UK would rsult in Britain's population only shrinking by a poxy 4 million. With the rate of immigration into this country making it the fastest-growing large country in the EU (due to excessive immigration Britain contributed to a THIRD of the entire EU's population growth in 2009 and is on course to overtake Germany as the EU's largest country in the not-too-distant future) it'll not be long before that lost 4 million in the population will be restored and thsn surpassed.



Why would an independent Scotland change Britain's relationship with the EU in any way?



With the loss of a measly 6% of its population, which will be restored within a few years due to immigration into England? I doubt it.



Not when Britain's economy and population will still be significantly larger than Spain's even with Jockland gone.

In fact, the people who will see the most decline of influence on the world stage will be the Scots. Upon independence they will have gone from being a part of a country with a population of 62 million with one of the world's largest economies to being a country with a population of just 4 million with an economy smaller than London's.

The rest of the UK, on the other hand, will see a loss of population of just 4 million which will be hardly noticeable. And that 4 million would be restored within a few years due to immigration.

Not going to go into everything that's so wrong in this post but for a Start it wouldn't be Britain if Scotland left

Batsy

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Not going to go into everything that's so wrong in this post but for a Start it wouldn't be Britain if Scotland left

I can't see anything wrong in what I've posted. The people who will suddenly find themselves in the nation which has seen a huge decline in population size, economy size etc etc would be the Scots, not the English.

Why is that so difficult to see?

The UK has a population of about 62 million. If Scotland left the Union tomorrow the English (and the Welsh and Northern Irish) would find themselves living in a nation which has shrank from 62 million people to 58 million people. Our country's population would have shrunk by just 6%. Hardly a big deal, not when the huge amount of immigration which is making Britian the fastest-growing large country in the EU will restore that lost 4 million people in no time.

The Scots, however, will suddenly see themselves going from living in a nation with 62 million people and a large economy to living in a country with a population and economy which would be both smaller than that of London. The population of the country they are living in would have shrunk by a MASSIVE 94%.

It will be the SCOTS who suffer the biggest decline should Scotland become independent, not the English. The English would hardly notice they've gone.

Augmerson

woodoo wrote: »

I'm with you on that one. Who would want a socialist republic.

Yeah, the Capitalist republic has been working just fine..

Madam

Batsy wrote: »

I can't see anything wrong in what I've posted. The people who will suddenly find themselves in the nation which has seen a huge decline in population size, economy size etc etc would be the Scots, not the English.

Why is that so difficult to see?

The UK has a population of about 62 million. If Scotland left the Union tomorrow the English (and the Welsh and Northern Irish) would find themselves living in a nation which has shrank from 62 million people to 58 million people. Our nations' population would have shrunk by just 6%. Hardly a big deal, not when the huge amount of immigration which is making Britian the fastest-growing large country in the EU will restore that lost 4 million people in no time.

The Scots, however, will suddenly see themselves going from living in a nation with 62 million people and a large economy to living in a country with a population and economy which would be both smaller than that of London. The population of the country they are living in would have shrunk by a MASSIVE 94%.

It will be the SCOTS who suffer the biggest decline should Scotland become independent, not the English. The English would hardly notice they've gone.

Your stats are just a tad out though:rolleyes: http://www.scotland.org/facts/population/

Iwasfrozen

Augmerson wrote: »

Yeah, the Capitalist republic has been working just fine..

It was the socialist idea of nationalising private debt that got us into this mess.

Batsy

Madam wrote: »

Your stats are just a tad out though:rolleyes: http://www.scotland.org/facts/population/

We aren't all as pedantic as you.

The simple fact is that whether Scotland has 4 million people or 5.2 million people it will be the Scots who suddenly have vastly less influence on the world stage should Scotland become independent, not the English (and, of course, the Welsh and Northern Irish - we mustn't forget those two nations when talking about how the rest of the UK would "suffer" upon Scottish independence, despite the fact that a certain poster above seemed to have forgotten about them and just targetted the English).

A country with a population of 62 million would hardly notice the loss of just 5 million Scots. The Scots, however, would find themselves living in a country whose population has just shrunk by 57 million people. That's one hell of a decline on the world stage.

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was the socialist idea of nationalising private debt that got us into this mess.

I think you will find that to be utter nonsence, socialists wanted and want the very oppisite to happen.:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

I think you will find that to be utter nonsence, socialists wanted and want the very oppisite to happen.:rolleyes:

Really? Because according to capitalist principals when a private company messes up the company has to take responsibility itself and the debt must be paid for by it's shareholders. Either that or the company simply can't pay it's bills and goes out of business. The idea of nationalising banks and with them their debt is very much a socialist concept.

Augmerson

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It was the socialist idea of nationalising private debt that got us into this mess.

Huh?

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The idea of nationalising banks and with them their debt is very much a socialist concept.

Er, no it isn't.

Judgement Day

9ng2cderzksuip wrote: »

easy there tiger ... some of those unionist types ar every simple. Apparently they made a big deal about sparing their leaders from expulsion for attending a catholic funeral recently - what a shower of simpletons!

Link or you just spouting nonsense?

Pand

Judgement Day wrote: »

Link or you just spouting nonsense?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15397487

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Pand wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15397487

My problem with that is one lodge made an objection to these two people attending the funeral and as much as I am no lover of the OO I feel it should be about all the lodges that didn't complain and showed some respect

deise go deo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Really? Because according to capitalist principals when a private company messes up the company has to take responsibility itself and the debt must be paid for by it's shareholders. Either that or the company simply can't pay it's bills and goes out of business. The idea of nationalising banks and with them their debt is very much a socialist concept.

Capitalist Principals? Thats an Oxymoron if ever I heard one.

And no, The people paying for corporate debt is not a socialist concept.

Madam

Batsy wrote: »

We aren't all as pedantic as you.

The simple fact is that whether Scotland has 4 million people or 5.2 million people it will be the Scots who suddenly have vastly less influence on the world stage should Scotland become independent, not the English (and, of course, the Welsh and Northern Irish - we mustn't forget those two nations when talking about how the rest of the UK would "suffer" upon Scottish independence, despite the fact that a certain poster above seemed to have forgotten about them and just targetted the English).

A country with a population of 62 million would hardly notice the loss of just 5 million Scots. The Scots, however, would find themselves living in a country whose population has just shrunk by 57 million people. That's one hell of a decline on the world stage.

By that premise a country is only viable on the world stage(whatever that means really) when it has a population of more than say 60 million, is that what your saying?

Jelle1880

Madam wrote: »

By that premise a country is only viable on the world stage(whatever that means really) when it has a population of more than say 60 million, is that what your saying?

It would certain help.

Judgement Day

Pand wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15397487

Thanks for that but in the original post it came across that it was Unionist leaders such as Peter Robinson etc. that were being referred to and it was a serious complaint rather than some bigoted nutters in an Orange Lodge.

Iwasfrozen

Augmerson wrote: »

Huh?

Dlofnep wrote:

Er, no it isn't.

deise go deo wrote:

Capitalist Principals? Thats an Oxymoron if ever I heard one.

And no, The people paying for corporate debt is not a socialist concept.

Had Ireland adhered to capitalist principals (yes Diese I said principals :eek:) The banks would simply have fallen and we never would have guaranteed them. Hell had Ireland adhered to basic economic principals (there's that word again). We would have never artificially inflated our expenditure level beyond potential output. Avoiding the bubble altogether.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Had Ireland adhered to capitalist principals (yes Diese I said principals :eek:) The banks would simply have fallen and we never would have guaranteed them. Hell had Ireland adhered to basic economic principals (there's that word again). We would have never artificially inflated our expenditure level beyond potential output. Avoiding the bubble altogether.

So would you care to elaborate on how exactly it is socialism to pay for the debt of private institutions at the expense of the population? That is not socialism, or anything like it.

purplepanda

The Scots won't be achieving full independence at any stage in the next 50 years, all that is on potential offer is independence lite or devolution max as senior SNP figures have acknowledged off record.

It's doubtful if they would even get as much in a deal from London as Ireland did in 1921, also remember the present degree of Irish independence was achieved over many decades, starting in the 20's onwards before Ireland & the other Dominions signed the Treaty of Westminister with Great Britain.

As for comparing the SNP in an Irish historical sense, the SNP would maybe fall inbetween the original Arthur Griffiths monarchist SF / William O'Briens AFIL & more conservative nationalists like the Redmondites. Most of the SNP would be similar to the later, as long as they are running their own patch & reaping the benefits, full independence is not that important as long as they can wave the Saltire every election!!!

I do think the UK is much too centralised a state, a Federation of States similar to the US could have been a better option at times in history. The cultural identity of the nations within is still very strong & differences are increasing.

I remain to be convinced how serious the nationalist parties in Wales & Scotland are about real independence & how to achieve it. English nationalism is a reaction to both Welsh & Scots demands & the fast changing multicultural population plus increasing resentment towards the EU.

dlofnep

purplepanda wrote: »

The Scots won't be achieving full independence at any stage in the next 50 years, all that is on potential offer is independence lite or devolution max as senior SNP figures have acknowledged off record.

Which SNP figures have acknowledged this, and to whom? The SNP have been quite vocal that they will push for a question on independence - So it's down to the Scottish people at the end of the day.

purplepanda wrote: »

full independence is not that important as long as they can wave the Saltire every election!!!

That's unsubstantiated nonsense. Full Independence is crucially important to the SNP. For you to categorise them as some sort of flag-waving, faux-independence movement demonstrates extreme ignorance on your behalf. They seek independence, because they wish for the Scottish people to control their own affairs. It's that simple.

purplepanda wrote: »

I remain to be convinced how serious the nationalist parties in Wales & Scotland are about real independence & how to achieve it.

The SNP received a mandate from the people. They have promised to bring a referendum to the said people in the second half of their term. I don't know how more serious they can be about the matter.

purplepanda

The Lite /Max option has been often mentioned in media & broadcast circles since the SNP electiom success. For examplehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/salmonds-secret-plan-to-win-scottish-independence-2373740.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15420671

I'm talking about full real independence for Scotland, it's own defence forces, separate financial & diplomatic bodies from the UK, separate membership of the UN & international organisations. Not being outside the UK but still dependent like the Channel Islands & Isle of Man.

Anything less will mean Scotland has no option of declining to join any future overseas conflicts that the UK gets involved in.

A civil war was fought in Ireland over this exact issue :rolleyes:

dlofnep

purplepanda wrote: »

The Lite /Max option has been often mentioned in media & broadcast circles since the SNP electiom success. For examplehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/salmonds-secret-plan-to-win-scottish-independence-2373740.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15420671

It hasn't been mentioned by Salmond. Salmond has stated that if opposition parties could draw up exactly what they would like to see in 'devolution-max' - then it could be brought forward to discussion, in response to questions by media figures - but that nobody has spelled out exactly what it would entail, and that the only question he was interested in is a Yes/No vote on independence.

It was never the SNP who suggested it in the first place, so tell me exactly which 'Senior SNP figures' have acknowledged off record that 'all that is on potential offer is independence lite or devolution max'.