Scottish independence: Scotland would be 'separate state'

Thomas_I

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21380288

An interesting article about the consequences an yes vote in favour of Scotlands independence would have on itself and on the remaining parts of the UK.

In this article Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister of Scotland asks towards the end of the broadcast on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme "what about the debts Scotland shares with the UK? No answer to that has been given yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21408946

I think that the way Scotlands way to its independence is developing and being treated by the UK Government, might be a pattern for those seeking to get NI seceding from the UK as well. Surely it´d be a difference between aiming towards a independence of NI and/or a unification with the RoI. The debt question could play some important role in Scotlands case, because it would also had it effects on the remaining parts of the UK "if the Scottish" would get rid of the debts.

golfball37

More likley the rest of the UK is worried about what happens to Scottish Oil and gas reserves should it get independence?

ThreeLineWhip

It is not economically viable for Scotland to secede from the union. They will be bankrupt within a month.

Recent polls have suggested that less than 15% want independence so it is a case of the SNP trying to foist its' views on the people. Same as SF saying they want a vote on the basis of Catholics becoming the majority in NI.

It ain't gonna happen.

Madam

ThreeLineWhip wrote: »

It is not economically viable for Scotland to secede from the union. They will be bankrupt within a month.

Recent polls have suggested that less than 15% want independence so it is a case of the SNP trying to foist its' views on the people. Same as SF saying they want a vote on the basis of Catholics becoming the majority in NI.

It ain't gonna happen.

It may not happen this time around but as I live in Scotland I'd wish for independence. Don't know where your getting your poll results from but I suppose like everything else it depends where you get them from:rolleyes:

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/scottish-independence-scots-support-down-says-poll-1-2754708

An Coilean

ThreeLineWhip wrote: »

It is not economically viable for Scotland to secede from the union. They will be bankrupt within a month.

Got anything to back that up or is it just true because you say it is?

Thomas_I

Madam wrote: »

It may not happen this time around but as I live in Scotland I'd wish for independence. Don't know where your getting your poll results from but I suppose like everything else it depends where you get them from:rolleyes:

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/politics/scottish-independence-scots-support-down-says-poll-1-2754708

Interesting article that has a point.

But most voters appear to back the “middle way” option of a more powerful Scottish Parliament. In similar findings to previous surveys, the new SSA poll shows a total of 56 per cent of people think MSPs should make the “most important decisions for Scotland” on tax, rising to 64 per cent onbenefits.
Meanwhile, 67 per cent of people said Scotland should either make all decisions for Scotland, or it should make all decisions apart fom defence and foreign affairs.
Those findings were seized on by the Scottish Government last night. A spokesperson said: “A clear majority think the Scottish Parliament should make most of the ‘important decisions for Scotland’ about the level of taxes and welfare benefits – both of which are still largely controlled by Westminster – and over a third say Holyrood should make all decisions for Scotland.
“An independent Scotland is the only option on offer which meets these aspirations and which will mean the Scottish Parliament has the full powers we need to build the country we want to be.”

The parts in bold are those that fits into a federal system. The last paragraph is just the stance of the SNP and if the UK would shift to a complete federal system it would not only give Scotland "the full powers to build the country it want to be", it would also strenghten the UK for the future. Devolution is the key to that and the federal system - which has been partly established de facto by devolving powers in the past decades - could be the achievement for the better.

This might be interesting times ahead until the referendum takes place and there will some further details revealed on how the UK government might prepared to go into negotiations if Scotland votes in favour of independence. The financial aspect might be the decisive one.

dienbienphu

not econimically viable for Ireland to be united. Not economically viable for Scotland to be indepedent. Usual Unionist scaremongering.

djpbarry

golfball37 wrote: »

More likley the rest of the UK is worried about what happens to Scottish Oil and gas reserves should it get independence?

They're in decline, so it's not as big an issue as it's sometimes made out to be. But anyway, Scotland can't lay sole claim to something that the whole of the UK has invested in.

awec

This post has been deleted.

LordSutch

dienbienphu wrote: »

not econimically viable for Ireland to be united. Not economically viable for Scotland to be indepedent.

Well thats certainly debatable, but one thing for sure is that England & Wales would be much better off financially if Scotland and NI were to leave the Union (see Barnett formula), but then culturally, geographically, & defensively of course the UK as a whole would be a much poorer place, without Scotland and Northern Ireland.

ardmacha

But anyway, Scotland can't lay sole claim to something that the whole of the UK has invested in.

How much State investment has there been in North Sea oil? I thought the predominant model was private investments with the payment of royalties.

but then culturally, geographically, & defensively of course the UK as a whole would be a much poorer place, without Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Why doesn't England invade France as well and assimilate its cultural and geographical distinctiveness?

Thomas_I

awec wrote: »

The chances of Scotland leaving the UK are nil.

That´s what the polls tells us and they can vary until the result of the upcoming referendum shows what the people in Scotland want. Personallly, I´m in favour of Scotland remaining part of the UK for various pragmatic reasons.

The whole "Scotlands Independence" thing has always been the hobby horse of the SNP and they stirred the public debate on that matter. The electorate once rejected in a referendum the proposal for Scotland becoming an independent state. That was in the 1970s and there wasn´t a Scottish Parliament. Things have improved in these regards for Scotland and the more the UK government is devolving powers to established Parliaments / Assemblies in their member countries, the closer it gets to a federal system and therefore the better. Just that England hasn´t neither its own Parliament or Assembly yet, but there are already demands from people in England to have that for themselves too. I support such demands because that would strenghten the building of a federal system and thus keeping the Union. Europe needs a strong UK and this has been said also on a international basis.

One point is, that if the referendum fails for the aim of the SNP, they "could" (imo rather "should") probably pack off and put their independence dream to history. But they won´t and in some ten to twenty years to come, they´d come up with that issue again. The SNP is not quite the same as SF is in Ireland, but they´ve have each for their own one thing in common and that is their nationalism. That´s why they can´t stop to persist on their agendas, may the be even more outdated in the future than it might be seen today.

Lucena

ardmacha wrote: »

How much State investment has there been in North Sea oil? I thought the predominant model was private investments with the payment of royalties.



Why doesn't England invade France as well and assimilate its cultural and geographical distinctiveness?

Keep your hands off our cheeses!

Procrastastudy

I'm strongly in favour of anything North of Birmingham and West of Bristol becoming immediately and fully independent. I think we'd see a very rich state of about 25 million people emerge.

getz

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s what the polls tells us and they can vary until the result of the upcoming referendum shows what the people in Scotland want. Personallly, I´m in favour of Scotland remaining part of the UK for various pragmatic reasons.

The whole "Scotlands Independence" thing has always been the hobby horse of the SNP and they stirred the public debate on that matter. The electorate once rejected in a referendum the proposal for Scotland becoming an independent state. That was in the 1970s and there wasn´t a Scottish Parliament. Things have improved in these regards for Scotland and the more the UK government is devolving powers to established Parliaments / Assemblies in their member countries, the closer it gets to a federal system and therefore the better. Just that England hasn´t neither its own Parliament or Assembly yet, but there are already demands from people in England to have that for themselves too. I support such demands because that would strenghten the building of a federal system and thus keeping the Union. Europe needs a strong UK and this has been said also on a international basis.

One point is, that if the referendum fails for the aim of the SNP, they "could" (imo rather "should") probably pack off and put their independence dream to history. But they won´t and in some ten to twenty years to come, they´d come up with that issue again. The SNP is not quite the same as SF is in Ireland, but they´ve have each for their own one thing in common and that is their nationalism. That´s why they can´t stop to persist on their agendas, may the be even more outdated in the future than it might be seen today.

there is now a ground swell of opinion in the home counties of england for a english parliament,and that could be a disaster for the likes of scotland and northern ireland as many of the jobs and public services woud be have to relocate,and no more hand outs

djpbarry

ardmacha wrote: »

How much State investment has there been in North Sea oil?

I don’t know to be honest, but either way, Scotland can’t just decide that it’s theirs.

ardmacha wrote: »

Why doesn't England invade France as well and assimilate its cultural and geographical distinctiveness?

Sigh.

The union of England and Scotland essentially came about as a result of James IV marrying Margaret Tudor. Contrary to popular belief, England did not conquer Scotland.

djpbarry

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm strongly in favour of anything North of Birmingham and West of Bristol becoming immediately and fully independent. I think we'd see a very rich state of about 25 million people emerge.

You’d have a state with about 1 million rich people and 24 million people who couldn’t afford to do anything. Wonderful.

AckwelFoley

Scotland would be stone mad to leave the union.

Ireland did. . Look how we ended up

gallag

AckwelFoley wrote: »

Scotland would be stone mad to leave the union.

Ireland did. . Look how we ended up

Dont worry, I would imagine Ireland will rejoin soon! The United Kingdom of great Britain and Ireland sounds good, anyway yahoo already has us as the UK and Ireland so its pretty much a forgone conclusion at this point:-)

djpbarry

AckwelFoley wrote: »

Scotland would be stone mad to leave the union.

Ireland did. . Look how we ended up

Things are hardly much better in the UK than they are in Ireland right now, especially outside London.

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

Dont worry, I would imagine Ireland will rejoin soon! The United Kingdom of great Britain and Ireland sounds good, anyway yahoo already has us as the UK and Ireland so its pretty much a forgone conclusion at this point:-)

Oh that sweet dream, gallag:)

If only ... (there would be no republicans in Ireland):D

I can imagine many scenarios, but that one is the most unlikely of all.

gallag

Thomas_I wrote: »

Oh that sweet dream, gallag:)

If only ... (there would be no republicans in Ireland):D

I can imagine many scenarios, but that one is the most unlikely of all.

Never say never my friend ;-)

Thomas_I

gallag wrote: »

Never say never my friend ;-)

Quite right because it´s all possible if you hard enough believe in it.:)

I´d like to know what exactly brings you to think that it would work? I´m not kidding, I just ask you because - except the republicans - it could be considered as an alternative to unify Ireland (in theory of course).

AckwelFoley

djpbarry wrote: »

Things are hardly much better in the UK than they are in Ireland right now, especially outside London.

The UK is one of biggest econonies in the world. . They refuse to be Europes slave. They can afford to.. The UK will prevail. .need not worry

Thomas_I

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The UK is one of biggest econonies in the world. . They refuse to be Europes slave. They can afford to.. The UK will prevail. .need not worry

The UK´s economy is bound on international trade, it always has been.

They refuse to be Europes slave but in this regard, they were rather standing idle by on EU decisions as long as they´d be not so much affacted.

They can afford to ... What exactly please?

The UK will prevail ... in what please?

Need not worry on what?

Muilleann

Scots haven't the balls to be independent.

Lackeys of the Brits for far too long now.

Most of them didn't even bother voting in last referendum on this issue.

AckwelFoley

They can afford to hold onto their currency. We cannot.

They will prevail from the other side of this global economic crisis in better shape than we will.

Most economies are heavily reliant on global trade...japan US Germany...

djpbarry

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The UK is one of biggest econonies in the world. . They refuse to be Europes slave.

Whatever. The UK still has major problems to contend with - maintaining an adversarial stance toward the EU is not going to help.

AckwelFoley

Muilleann wrote: »

Scots haven't the balls to be independent.

Lackeys of the Brits for far too long now.

Most of them didn't even bother voting in last referendum on this issue.

They are British..or by "brits" do you mean English?

djpbarry

AckwelFoley wrote: »

They can afford to hold onto their currency. We cannot.

I have no idea what that means.

AckwelFoley wrote: »

They will prevail from the other side of this global economic crisis in better shape than we will.

Why? Because you say so?

AckwelFoley

djpbarry wrote: »

Whatever. The UK still has major problems to contend with - maintaining an adversarial stance toward the EU is not going to help.

"Whatever" isn't a great retort.

Adversarial is your opinion.

I wouldn't say adversairial as much as skeptical. Britain are right to be skeptical.