NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think Scotland should become an independent nation thus breaking up the UK? Should it be ruled from Edingburgh or London. I personally believe there is no case for it and why. Well firstly because they couldn't properly organise the building of their own Parliament, secondly because the avarage Scot has 20% more government money spent on them than anywhere else in the UK and lastly because Scotland's population is less than 6 million. By that logic, Greater London should become a seperate nation, it having 7 million inhabitants. Added to the low population problem is where are they going to get revenue from? Taxing 6 million people will not produce enough revenue to finance a country's government as large as Scotland.

It's a similar problem when it comes to Wales.

They want the independance, but don't want to lose the amount of government money spent on their regions. They don't really, as you say, have the populations to support nations of their own, but that doesn't mean they still don't want it.

If someone were to present a plan prooving that scotland and or wales could support themselves as independant nations then I might give the idea a little bit more credence.

Eitherway, I LIKE the idea that we're all one nation. To me, Wales and Scotland are as much a part of our national identity as England is. For hundreds of years our fates have been intertwined till we are for all intents and purposes the same people with small variations in our cultures. I think that those who want independance for their regions in such a way are merely pining for those days, which lets face it, will never come again.

Free Scotland!

but what about other smaller countries, like Andorda for example its not really a question of population is it? im not a history buff but didnt scotland rebel once . . . anyway i think scotts are happy the way they are because they have a certain amount of freedom with their parliament to make laws

Ireland only has 4 million people, why should we be independent??

It's simple enough for me, I feel it should be left up to the Scots! If they wish to break away from the UK, then why shouldn't they be allowed?

Saying the Scots aren’t capable of ruling themselves because of one building project is hardly a very convincing reason, especially when you consider that the British government as a whole has been responsible for some bad projects, Millennium Dome anyone?

What, within reason, has population got to do with it? Smaller countries have left the UK in the past *cough* and it may happen again.

And besides, if their independent government runs up debts and doesn't tax the population enough, that would be their own problem and not something that non-Scots (or non-Welsh) should overly worry themselves about.

The scots don't want to be independent, it took two referendums for a high enough majoritiy to get devolved government. Same with Wales, further more if you to make Scotland independent what do you do about Northern Ireland?

If Scotland is allowed to break away, we should also allow Cornwall to break away. There is an independent Cornwall movement, if I remember rightly. And then why not let London break away and form its own little country too?

Ireland was a special case. They kept killing each other, and us. Northern Ireland will not leave the UK for a while to come yet, because they're still killing each other.

There were people who argued the 'slipperly slope' angle throughout the whole Ireland thing, and I guess they were right. The United Kingdom stands for something; it has a great history and it is respected the world over. Now isn't the time to break it up, not in this era of globilisation and new competition. Now is the time to make it stronger! I for one have a certain degree of pride over our unity.

Ireland only has 4 million people, why should we be independent??

It's simple enough for me, I feel it should be left up to the Scots! If they wish to break away from the UK, then why shouldn't they be allowed?

Saying the Scots aren’t capable of ruling themselves because of one building project is hardly a very convincing reason, especially when you consider that the British government as a whole has been responsible for some bad projects, Millennium Dome anyone?

What, within reason, has population got to do with it? Smaller countries have left the UK in the past *cough* and it may happen again.

And besides, if their independent government runs up debts and doesn't tax the population enough, that would be their own problem and not something that non-Scots (or non-Welsh) should overly worry themselves about.

That's a relatively fair stance to take. However when it comes to breaking apart our nation, I would like to think that our member states don't just pack up their bags and say, screw you guys we're off to form our own independant nation. I care about what happens to all parts of our nation, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I'd like to think that if one of them broke away from the United Kingdom we'd do it in a way that doesn't see their citizens completely buggered up from lack of planning and poor government.

While I agree with you that the British Government has made some pretty god damn awful decisions, our population at the time those decisions were made, and our economy, were large enough to support those screw ups.

Ever heard of self-determination? If the people of Cornwall want to break away, why should you stop them?

I can kind of see the arguments regarding "well, what about the rest of us?" but that's hardly grounds for stopping a nation-state from being formed if the people of said territory want independence.

Well, I don't know. I like the idea of being independent from England, and not having to worry about it. 'course, I don't think it would work.

At the moment, I don't think I should care too much. Both the PM and the Chancellor (at the moment) are Scottish, and as long as no-one forces us to adopt English Law (Scottish Law is fantastic; English Law is almost as stupid as US Law) then I don't really mind too much.

Of course, I'm an ignorant person, so you can ignore most of my post now.

Ireland only has 4 million people, why should we be independent??


Because your geographically isolated. Scotland is not geographicly isolated from England. Plus are you talking about NI or Erie. I find it hard to believe Erie has only 4 million people living in it.


It's simple enough for me, I feel it should be left up to the Scots! If they wish to break away from the UK, then why shouldn't they be allowed?

People don't always know whats good for them. The Scottish economy, left to itself could not survive. We have made this mistake with many other countries in the past.


Saying the Scots aren’t capable of ruling themselves because of one building project is hardly a very convincing reason, especially when you consider that the British government as a whole has been responsible for some bad projects, Millennium Dome anyone?

The millienum dome was built on time and reasonably on budget. The Scotish Parliament was built 4 years late and almost 10 times the original budget. Now I wouldnt mind that significently if it wasnt the first large scale project that the Scotish goverment has done. If it cant deal with something as simple as that I feal concerend as to how it can deal with its own government.


What, within reason, has population got to do with it? Smaller countries have left the UK in the past *cough* and it may happen again.

Population is important to consider with refernce to area. Scotland is a simmilar (if not larger) area than England yet has a massively smaller population. Would such a population be able to support such a large area without severe economic problems.


And besides, if their independent government runs up debts and doesn't tax the population enough, that would be their own problem and not something that non-Scots (or non-Welsh) should overly worry themselves about.

And you dont think that such a drained economy would have severe effects on the English government too. Not to mention the problems of immigration. With such a low population for its size if there was a severe economic recession in Scotland, the ammount of southern immigration would mean even less people in Scotland to support the ever increasing economic problems.

Ever heard of self-determination? If the people of Cornwall want to break away, why should you stop them?

I can kind of see the arguments regarding "well, what about the rest of us?" but that's hardly grounds for stopping a nation-state from being formed if the people of said territory want independence.

If everybody followed this line of thinking the world would be in even more chaos than it already is. The scientific, cultural and economic progress of mankind would grind to a screeching halt.

England would still be divided into its original Wessex, Mercia etc, there would've been no United States, even if there WERE a United States, it would be divided in two. Germany would still be a collection of City states, so would Italy.

Ever heard of self-determination? If the people of Cornwall want to break away, why should you stop them?

I can kind of see the arguments regarding "well, what about the rest of us?" but that's hardly grounds for stopping a nation-state from being formed if the people of said territory want independence.

Self determination where its actually fesable. I dont think Scotland would be able to support itself. Also remember, Scotland has 20% more taxpayers money spent on it than does the rest of the UK. It gets its avarage share from the entire UK treasury. If Scotland were to leave, the ammount of money they could have available to them would be considerably lower. It would be like trying to sustain the US millitary on the budget of the French millitary.

Hmmmm!!! We should be moving towards unifying countries.. not breaking apart...

Independent states just leads to conflicts in interests and confusions over local laws and punishment...

If world leaders and their populations move together to unify and set aside differences, then the principal of 'togetherness as one' will be much more benefical, than the current system of 'whats good for us...'

I voted no but meant yes.

Yay!

Because with no Scotland, the U.K. would be weaker, and it could finally pay for causing millions of deaths in the Indian sub-continent!

Or the U.K. would just shrink a bit. And then take back Scotland because the Scots will all be drunk in merriment.

I liked the first one better though....

Because your geographically isolated. Scotland is not geographicly isolated from England. Plus are you talking about NI or Erie. I find it hard to believe Erie has only 4 million people living in it

Ireland is the correct name in English for Eire (which is the Irish language version). There are just over 4 million people living in Ireland. Besides, geographic isolation harldy has much to do with it, where, for example, is there any geographic isolation between any number of countries not only in Europe but also further afield?

People don't always know whats good for them. The Scottish economy, left to itself could not survive. We have made this mistake with many other countries in the past.

So people don't know what's good for themselves...but you do? I'd like to see proof that the Scottish economy couldn't survive by itself as it seems to be growing at a fairly stable and sustainable level at the moment.

Population is important to consider with refernce to area. Scotland is a simmilar (if not larger) area than England yet has a massively smaller population. Would such a population be able to support such a large area without severe economic problems
Scotland is ~8000sq km larger than Ireland and has a population of perhaps a million more than Ireland. I think they'll survive.

And you dont think that such a drained economy would have severe effects on the English government too. Not to mention the problems of immigration. With such a low population for its size if there was a severe economic recession in Scotland, the ammount of southern immigration would mean even less people in Scotland to support the ever increasing economic problems.

Again I'd like to see data showing how badly the Scottish economy either is doing, or would do under an independent government.

The millienum dome was built on time and reasonably on budget. The Scotish Parliament was built 4 years late and almost 10 times the original budget. Now I wouldnt mind that significently if it wasnt the first large scale project that the Scotish goverment has done. If it cant deal with something as simple as that I feal concerend as to how it can deal with its own government.

Running over budget (granted, a large screw up but what government hasn't?) on a project is hardly unique to the Scottish government and is hardly a reason for thinking they couldn't complete any other projects. The folly that was and is the Dome is hardly a reason to suggest that the larger British government is incapable of anything.

remember, Scotland has 20% more taxpayers money spent on it than does the rest of the UK

That's something rather interesting to look at. Scottish tax payers get around £6,500 spent on them per head, less than the ~£7,100 spent on Northern Ireland per head and ever so slightly more than spent on London per head (~£6,400)


If everybody followed this line of thinking the world would be in even more chaos than it already is. The scientific, cultural and economic progress of mankind would grind to a screeching halt.

England would still be divided into its original Wessex, Mercia etc, there would've been no United States, even if there WERE a United States, it would be divided in two. Germany would still be a collection of City states, so would Italy.

That is what we call one hell of a slippery slope. Besides anything else, you're talking about events at least 150 years ago at the earliest.

Besides, how do you see countries being unified against their will?

Well, im Scotish but i've never supported the independance movement, which despite what you may think came very very close to happening at the last refferendum on it, i think in 99.

However i think you're wrong, Scotland could function as an independant nation.

1st, population is not really an issue, yes only 6 million, but sweeden has only 8 million, i doubt you would call them any less of a country, ireland only has 4 million and there doing fine. So that point is refuted.. yes?

2nd
Scotland unlike the other part of the u.k that would like to separate, Wales. Scotland has an economy, and headed by none other than Liquor production. Whisky and Scotch, the entire world buy's most of its supply of these two off Scotland. That’s a lot of revenue what ever way you look at it. There are also much smaller industries that traditionally where very big such as Ship building, at one point Glasgow produced most of the ship in the royal navy, and if that business could get up and going again, perhaps Scotland could do pretty damn well for itself.

As for taxing revue, you’ve all got it the wrong way round, You only need to provide public services for 6 million people, therefore the tax of 6 million people should be quite ample to do that.

3rd.

Yes Scotland did 'rebel' many times, but that’s really the wrong word for it. until 1603 Scotland was a very separate nation from England and the two were very long term rivals, Scotland being Catholic and England being protestant, at times England had occupied much of the lowlands, and at other times Scotland occupied large parts of north England.

And for the record it was Scotland who eventually one after 1603, when king jams of Scotland became king of England.

SO THERE! :P

4th, Government Money, I don’t understand what you mean, i assume its a reference to money from Westminster that goes to fund things like schools and hospitals, you give the impression than Scotland lives off these like crutches, which Wales in fact dose. that’s quite wrong. The money just comes from Westminster because that’s where Scottish taxes go.

So yes it could work, i am however not suggesting its going to or i think its a good idea.

Most Scottish industry and commerce is concentrated in a few large cities on the waterways of the central lowlands. Edinburgh, on the Firth of Forth, is a cultural centre, the capital of Scotland, and one of the the top financial centres in Europe. Glasgow, one of the largest cities in the UK, lies on the Clyde; it is Scotland's leading seaport and was once a centre of shipbuilding and it supports numerous light industries. Although heavy industry has declined, the high-technology Silicon Glen corridor has developed between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Tourism is also very important.

The significance of coal, once Scotland's most important mineral resource, has declined. Oil, however, gained prominence in Scotland's economy during the 1970s, with the growth of North Sea oil extraction companies. Natural gas is also abundant in the North Sea fields. Aberdeen is the centre of the oil industry. Other important industries are textile production (woollens, worsteds, silks, and linens), distilling, and fishing. Textiles, beer, and whisky, which are among Scotland's chief exports, are produced in many towns. Salmon are taken from the Tay and the Dee, and numerous coastal towns and villages are supported by fishing from the North Sea. Only about one quarter of the land is under cultivation (principally in cereals and vegetables), but sheep raising is important in the mountainous regions. Because of the persistence of feudalism and the land enclosures of the 19th cent. (see History, below), the ownership of most land in Scotland is concentrated in relatively few hands (some 350 people own about half the land). In 2003, as a result, the Scottish Parliament passed a land reform act that empowered tenant farmers and communit
ies to purchase land even if the landlord did not want to sell.

A Short Article Riped from wiki. I doubt the English economy is much better.

Do you think Scotland should become an independent nation thus breaking up the UK? Should it be ruled from Edingburgh or London. I personally believe there is no case for it and why. Well firstly because they couldn't properly organise the building of their own Parliament, secondly because the avarage Scot has 20% more government money spent on them than anywhere else in the UK and lastly because Scotland's population is less than 6 million. By that logic, Greater London should become a seperate nation, it having 7 million inhabitants. Added to the low population problem is where are they going to get revenue from? Taxing 6 million people will not produce enough revenue to finance a country's government as large as Scotland.

By that logic, new zealand shouldn't be an independant nation of 4 million.
Nevertheless, we have a government surplus large enough for a move to 20% flat tax.
It's obvious that there is clearly too many spongers in the UK not contributing to the economy if they can't get enough tax from 6 million.
And yes, my ancestors came from scotland to new zealand.

Does it matter? They get to have the best of both worlds, they can vote in both Scottish and British parliament, but we can't vote in their matters. Yay, thanks for the top-up fees, guys.....

A Short Article Riped from wiki. I doubt the English economy is much better.

Actually according to an article I read in the Telegraph, Great Britain currently has the second most prosperous economy in Europe whereas former powerhouses like Germany are slipping down the list. Germany is in deep, deep economic shite at the moment - there unemployment levels are through the roof, their manufacturing sector is dying off rapidly. I hate New Labour but I will say this for them - Gordon Brown is one good economist.

Scotland joined with the UK not because it was forced to but out of its own free will. It simply could no longer compete with England whose imperial advances and rapid advance towards industrialisation were impossible for Scotland to put up with. All free Scottish capital was placed in the New Caledonia project, an attempt for Scotland to build an empire in the Panama area. However it failed miserably and so the Scots had to turn to Union with the English. It was the only economically feasible thing to do. The situation would probably be the same now except their withdrawal would now do harm to England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as harm to Scotland.

What is the point in seperating into enclosed mini states when all the members have benefited so much from being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britiain? Ever member nation has put their sweat, blood, tears and toil into making Britain a great nation which (in my opinion) it still is. Remember we still have the 4th largest economy in the world and the second best military in Europe (beaten only by Russia). This we achieved by pulling together not by pulling apart. The Union needs to be maintained, especially now when Britain is at a low point in her career. If we all pull together then maybe someday the greatness in Great Britain will be revived. If we all pull away, then that will be lost forever and replaced by petty factions and divisions.

If the scots want to be independent then let them. They are just a burden on the English as it is.

More importantly, I would like to see independence for the English. There are parliaments or assemblies for Scotland, Wales, NI and the UK. Which country does not have any representation of it as a country? England. Power to the English.

If the scots want to be independent then let them. They are just a burden on the English as it is.

More importantly, I would like to see independence for the English. There are parliaments or assemblies for Scotland, Wales, NI and the UK. Which country does not have any representation of it as a country? England. Power to the English.

That's because we actually have parliament :p

Incidentally John Prescott wanted to introduce regional assemblies for England and the nation responded with a rather loud "F Off".

So they should :D

I'm somehow descended from scottish royalty, if they make their own country, can I be queen? :D

That's because we actually have parliament :p

Incidentally John Prescott wanted to introduce regional assemblies for England and the nation responded with a rather loud "F Off".

So they should :D

We don't. The UK has a Parliament, England does not. If it does, where is it?

I'm somehow descended from scottish royalty, if they make their own country, can I be queen? :D

Oooh. That sounds neat. And really weird.

What of it, fellow Scots? Would we allow Dakini to be our Queen?

If the scots want to be independent then let them. They are just a burden on the English as it is.

More importantly, I would like to see independence for the English. There are parliaments or assemblies for Scotland, Wales, NI and the UK. Which country does not have any representation of it as a country? England. Power to the English.
meh...England had their own government, but then they went invading everywhere. so Westminster is like the English parliament, but they legislate for other places as well.

Do you think Scotland should become an independent nation thus breaking up the UK? Should it be ruled from Edingburgh or London. I personally believe there is no case for it and why. Well firstly because they couldn't properly organise the building of their own Parliament, secondly because the avarage Scot has 20% more government money spent on them than anywhere else in the UK and lastly because Scotland's population is less than 6 million. By that logic, Greater London should become a seperate nation, it having 7 million inhabitants. Added to the low population problem is where are they going to get revenue from? Taxing 6 million people will not produce enough revenue to finance a country's government as large as Scotland.
By that logic? eh? I don't think you quite understand.. London is the capital of England.. they are English so no not by that logic.. Scotland's population has nothing to do being independent so that point is completely irrelevant.

If Scots wanted complete independence they would vote Scottish Nation Party.. most Scots at the moment according to polls are happy with their current devolution.

If Scotland is allowed to break away, we should also allow Cornwall to break away. There is an independent Cornwall movement, if I remember rightly. And then why not let London break away and form its own little country too?
again London and Cornwall are the same nationality.. English. So that's got nothing to do with the independent Scotland argument.. there is a tiny movement for an independent state of Cornwall but it is as I said tiny.. the vast majority of Cornish people consider themselves English.

Because your geographically isolated. Scotland is not geographicly isolated from England. Plus are you talking about NI or Erie. I find it hard to believe Erie has only 4 million people living in it.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ei.html

Why do you find it hard?

I think that something which is ridiculous is the fact that people living in Scotland can choose what goes on in England law-wise, because it's the mainland, but people living in England can't decide what goes on there!