[Deleted User] wrote: » Basically no chance of Welsh independence. It's hard to even make out what Welsh is. That the pro independence percentage is so high must mean a very large percentage of cultural Welsh want out. Possibly a better chance of Cornwall getting independence.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Like Scotland Cornwall is a Celtic nation.
Aegir wrote: » It’s kind of cute that people like to think of it like that. Genetically, the Cornish have far more in common with Devon than they do with Wales. The whole Celtic Nation spiel is just romantic nonsense that no one outside of Ireland really cares about.
Imreoir2 wrote: » What in the name of god has genetics got to do with anything? I hope you are not a blood and soil ethno-nationalist, are you?
Aegir wrote: » It’s kind of cute that people like to think of it like that.
Charles Babbage wrote: » I noted elsewhere someone wondering how much fishing water would an independent Cornwall have? Perhaps they could join with independent Wales.
Peregrinus wrote: » "Celtic" is a linguistic term,....
rock22 wrote: » Although this idea is quite common from English sources, any examination would show that Celtic is far more than a linguistic term.
forgottenhills wrote: » Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc. The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term. Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.
Markcheese wrote: » Well the brexit vote was largely emotive , and reason doesn't always trump emotion .. Also its scotland currency system too .. they may negotiate to leave sterling .. but they already issue their own paper currency ... doesn't mean there wasn't be a run on bank a/cs being transferred south of the border ..( or north if brexit goes completely pear shaped )
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The entire UK is subsidised by London and some of the home counties to the West of it. Not paying for Trident and Son Of Trident will save billions. A lot of the revenues from fossil fuel went south of the border. Comparing Ireland north and south, the only real competitive advantage of the south was that we could make our own rules. Being in the UK has meant that NI went from having 90% of the islands manufacturing industry to not having 90% of it. An independent Scotland wouldn't face a 30% tariff in the US on Whisky. Direct Foreign investment should improve.
Water John wrote: » forgottenhills, your points have already been well aired. Don't think anybody involved underestimates the task in hand if Indy Ref is to be successful and planned. On the other hand, many countries have been down this road.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Currency is guaranteed as it's backed up by Sterling deposits. Nuclear subs - see treaty ports. Allocating the UK dept is the big one. How much spending and how much of the debt was to pay for the nuclear deterrent ? Or HS2 or other English construction projects. There are good few items that should be crossed off. UK police forces and NHS and civil service etc all all regional so that's already done. Scotland has a separate legal system. Is there any particular area you are aware of that is not done regionally ?? The entire UK is subsidised by London and some of the home counties to the West of it. Not paying for Trident and Son Of Trident will save billions. A lot of the revenues from fossil fuel went south of the border. Comparing Ireland north and south, the only real competitive advantage of the south was that we could make our own rules. Being in the UK has meant that NI went from having 90% of the islands manufacturing industry to not having 90% of it. An independent Scotland wouldn't face a 30% tariff in the US on Whisky. Direct Foreign investment should improve. Planshttps://www2.gov.scot/resource/0042/00422987.pdf tl;dr version an independent Scotland could follow Norway.
forgottenhills wrote: » Realisation of Scottish independence is a long way away imo for practical reasons, despite any growing wish in Scotland for the same. If it voted independence tomorrow and declared independence the day after or after 1st January it would be a new country without a guaranteed currency, without a membership plan for the EU and without the financial resources to pay its way without significant annual borrowing. All these are surmountable hurdles but the latter two will take many years to overcome. There are lots of other hurdles such as the stationing of nuclear subs, ownership of the declining gas fields, how to allocate the existing UK national debt, the attitude of the Shetlands etc.
forgottenhills wrote: » The Scots have seen how the absence of planning has led to confusion and upheaval with Brexit so I think they will be loath to vote for independence without a clear plan on the practical elements. So Sturgeon shouldn't be going bald-headed for another independence poll without a joined up plan for how independence was going to be delivered and funded and where Scotland wanted to be in the medium term.
forgottenhills wrote: » Scottish independence is even more complex than Brexit if you consider it. It has to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement and a free trade deal with the rest of the UK, it has to set up large areas of government and security forces that it currently doesn't have under devolution, it has to try to accelerate an entry plan with the EU. And it has to work out how it will pay its way in the world, as current stats show that is is heavily subsidised by taxes emanating largely from the South East of England.
Peregrinus wrote: » With respect, there’s no suggestion that Scotland should vote for independence and then declare independence the day after. You’re attacking a straw man of your own devising here. Quite. And those of us who are older than about 12 can remember the 2014 referendum, in which the Scottish government published a detailed white paper some months before the referendum outlining how it proposed the Scotland should transition to independence, what its position would be on hosting the UK’s nuclear deterrent, how the UK national debt might be apportioned, what defence forces an independent Scotland would maintain, its fiscal policy, its currency policy, etc, etc. So, not only the Awful Example of Brexit, but also past experience, suggest that the Scots won’t be invited to vote on independence without a joined up plan for how it is to be delivered. A common trope among unionists, but in fact untrue. Which is not to say that independent Scotland wouldn’t face some tough budgetary questions. But if you frame the questions on the assumption that Scottish public expenditure is paid for by English taxpayers, you have misunderstood the problem. It's true that public expenditure per head in Scotland is higher than tax revenue per head in Scotland. So. yes, the Scots are running a massive deficit, as you say. But it doesn't follow that the English are paying for this and, in fact, they're not. Because public expenditure per head in England is also higher than tax revenue per head in England. So, if the tax paid by the English doesn't even cover expenditure in England, how can we argue that English taxes are paying for expenditure in Scotland? They're not. How is this miracle achieved, you may well ask? If the Scots are spending all this money on themselves that they're not raising in taxes, and that they're not getting from the English, where are they getting it? For that matter, where are the English getting the money that they spend on themselves that they're not getting from tax revenues? The answer is simple and familiar; the UK is running a budget deficit. They are borrowing the money that they are spending that isn't covered by tax revenue. And they are borrowing money to spend both in England and in Scotland. But are they borrowing more (per head) to spend in Scotland than they are in England? That depends on how you account for tax revenues - how you allocate them between tax raised in England and tax raised in Scotland. And, as with most accounting decisions, more than one view is possible on how it ought to be done. The clever chaps at the Treasury treat oil royalties neither as taxes raised in England nor as taxes raised in Scotland. Instead they put them in a category called "national output" which they invented for the purpose. This increases the apparent excess of expenditure over tax revenue in both countries. Your Scot, however, takes the view that this is duplicitous Sassenach accounting trickery. If Scotland and England were independent of one another, he points out, and oil royalties were accounted for according to in whose territorial waters the oilfields lay, then a bit more than 90% of the oil royalties would flow to Scotland. And if you redo the excess-of-public-expenditure-over-tax-revenue figures on that basis, then the (per capita) deficit in Scotland and England look a lot closer. Both countries would be running a deficit, but not a hugely different deficit, per capita.The Scottish fiscal situation would be more volatile, certainly, since oil royalties would represent a much greater proportion of Scotland's revenue than of England's. Oil prices bounce around quite a lot, and oil revenues accordingly. But in principle, at any rate, that could work out well or badly for the Scots. They'd also have the medium-to-long-term problem that oil resources are finite, and at some point the oil revenues would decline and eventually disappear. That's not a trivial problem, but it's not an immediate one. Scotland isn't currently receiving a massive subvention from English taxpayers that would disappear if they became independent. Scotland is not Northern Ireland, in short.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » There is a direct correlation between this announcemnt two months agohttps://twitter.com/guardian/status/1313232875110662147 and thishttps://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1286250551760637953
Aegir wrote: » Is there? Not everything is about Scotland
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Where do you think England is going to get their renewable energy from?
Aegir wrote: » Boris said wind, not just renewable. The world's four largest offshore windfarms are in the UK England and more are currently being built.https://doggerbank.com/https://hornseaprojectone.co.uk/https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/lines-business/flagship-projects/east-anglia-one-offshore-wind-farmhttps://walneyextension.co.uk/https://londonarray.com/
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
