Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the most worrying thing about an independent Scotland would be the swing in leadership and direction of the country.

It's quite funny that Salmond is pro-immigration in order to solve Scotland's falling population levels, yet I'd argue that the vast majority of Scottish people are against Immigration. At least to the levels that Salmond wants. Skilled Immigration is something that Scotland needs, we don't need any more non-skilled workers... we just need to give ours a boot up the arse.

I'm worried that Scotland might get independence by a small majority... which would be devastating. I think Scotland & England have far too much Union history to split now. People act as if Scotland has never had any benefit from the current set up.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
One step at a time is fine, but what should be done then if nothing is happening to improve the rate of Devolution?

Improve it from whose point of view and to what end? Total independence? A large degree of autonomy while still being part of the UK? Closely tied with the UK while having a large amount of power over "Scottish" issues?

IMO Scotland doesn't need independence any more than the historic kingdoms of England do. Actions that happened 100's of years ago are history; getting into a frothing rage over them isn't doing anything good for anyone. Look at what happened, learn from it, and move on.

Though it would be nice to cut you all loose and see if you sink or swim. Just so long as we rebuilt the wall first...

I actually find the Scots and the Welsh to be deluded moaning minnies tbh. They can currently influence politics in England via Parliament and have their own governments so that the English cannot do the same.

None of the countries should be able to influence any other in politics...its just wrong.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

I actually find the Scots and the Welsh to be deluded moaning minnies tbh. They can currently influence politics in England via Parliament and have their own governments so that the English cannot do the same.

None of the countries should be able to influence any other in politics...its just wrong.

The peoples of Great Britain should work together, support each other and be greater as a team.

Improve it from whose point of view and to what end? Total independence? A large degree of autonomy while still being part of the UK? Closely tied with the UK while having a large amount of power over "Scottish" issues?

IMO Scotland doesn't need independence any more than the historic kingdoms of England do. Actions that happened 100's of years ago are history; getting into a frothing rage over them isn't doing anything good for anyone. Look at what happened, learn from it, and move on.

Though it would be nice to cut you all loose and see if you sink or swim. Just so long as we rebuilt the wall first...

As long as Westminster policies affect england only (same would happen with the other assemblies). With things like tax, etc decided by the respective countries government. This way issues each country member of the UK faces will be able to be tackled more efficiently by Governments which understand the needs of their people, rather than Westminster which only knows about england.

Honestly, the only thing needed to keep us all together is trade. Thats about it.

The peoples of Great Britain should work together, support each other and be greater as a team.

Then Westminster needs to start making policy that actually reflects that, that helps deal with issues faced not just in england.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

So you can't take one step at a time? Everything has to be all or nothing?

One step at a time is fine, but what should be done then if nothing is happening to improve the rate of Devolution?

Damn straight! When are the English going to get their own Parliament? Stop all those Scottish and Welsh gits from meddling in our home affairs! er, wait....

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


The peoples of Great Britain should work together, support each other and be greater as a team.

Paint the town World red pink... again

 Mr Hyena wrote:

The peoples of Great Britain should work together, support each other and be greater as a team.

Then Westminster needs to start making policy that actually reflects that, that helps deal with issues faced not just in england.

What are the issues in Scotland and Wales that are not occurring in England and being ignored by Westminster?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

The peoples of Great Britain should work together, support each other and be greater as a team.

Then Westminster needs to start making policy that actually reflects that, that helps deal with issues faced not just in england.

What are the issues in Scotland and Wales that are not occurring in England and being ignored by Westminster?

Lack of regeneration, Tories causing poverty to worsen with no job creation, etc. Problems that require us to be able to say no to the Tory cuts.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Then Westminster needs to start making policy that actually reflects that, that helps deal with issues faced not just in england.

I'm struggling to think of any policy that would only work for (or against) people in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland that could or has been issued from Westminster. I'm also struggling to think of local governments/councils not having a wide enough degree of discrepancy in how they work and respond to the needs of the local people without needing a parliament set over their wider area...

Do you have any examples of Scotland getting the short end of the stick due to policy designed to bolster some other part of the union?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Lack of regeneration, Tories causing poverty to worsen with no job creation, etc. Problems that require us to be able to say no to the Tory cuts.

I'm sure that we've had this conversation before... but have you seen the state of the rest of the UK?

It is not like people are saying "Hey, Scotland is a gak hole anyway, so lets spend all this spare cash somewhere else and no one will notice!"

You also have had your own local parliament that have been super helpful in... well... ignoring all of those issues in favour of blaming the English for everything, wasting billions on a bloody ugly building and calling for independence.

 Mr Hyena wrote:


As long as Westminster policies affect england only (same would happen with the other assemblies). With things like tax, etc decided by the respective countries government. This way issues each country member of the UK faces will be able to be tackled more efficiently by Governments which understand the needs of their people, rather than Westminster which only knows about england.

I'm pretty sure that local issues is the preserve of your local council, which is separate from Westminster.

Honestly, the only thing needed to keep us all together is trade. Thats about it.

So economics. Plus national defence. And because we're a greater whole than we are individually.

And, let's be honest, is it really in anybody's interest to promote ethnically motivated disintegrations? I mean, if anyone has anything to gain here, its the English. We make the majority of the cash in the Union, and ensure that the Union punches above its size in international politics and decision making.

All Scotland gains is a different national anthem, and the right to collect its own (very much reduced) income.

You also have had your own local parliament that have been super helpful in... well... ignoring all of those issues in favour of blaming the English for everything, wasting billions on a bloody ugly building and calling for independence.

The tories unnecessary cuts limit what funding there is.

You assume its a simple case of hatred. But while Holyrood has to still pay attention to Westminster then its going to be more difficult to get anything done. Isn't it common sense to want to be lead by someone who understands the people they're meant to represent?

I'm pretty sure that local issues is the preserve of your local council, which is separate from Westminster.

Local issues are affected by national issues though, until a point where national issues caused by westminster can be ignored in favour of Holyrood decisions.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

The peoples of Great Britain should work together, support each other and be greater as a team.

Then Westminster needs to start making policy that actually reflects that, that helps deal with issues faced not just in england.

What are the issues in Scotland and Wales that are not occurring in England and being ignored by Westminster?

Lack of regeneration, Tories causing poverty to worsen with no job creation, etc. Problems that require us to be able to say no to the Tory cuts.

You're joking right? You think them unleashing their particular brand of 'political magic' again, just as before, affects just Scotland?

Ask the north of England, the south west, in fact everywhere that isn't the green and pleasant home counties.

The Tories always served the garden counties of the south east first and foremost. That's not England, that's a political party. The Scots should be unleashing hell on every Scottish Liberal Democrat who's bedded down with them. They should also be remaining British to continue to contribute and build, if the policies have been hurting the Scots, they'll have been hurting all the other liberal through left voting areas of Britain.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

The tories unnecessary cuts limit what funding there is.

...the sheer ignorance of this statement blows me away.
I mean, do you actually believe what you just wrote? You're telling me that you can look at our national deficit level, and our current debt level, and say cuts are unnecessary?

Newsflash. You can't borrow money forever that you don't have the means to repay. And we as a collective nation, have spent far beyond our means.

Nobody wants cuts. It means failing local economies, less money in your pocket, more expensive services, collapsing arts support and worse. But everyone is getting that, not just the Scottish. They don't just halve the money they spend over the border.

You do know that the Scottish Parliament and councils allocate the money in Scotland right? Parliament has nothing to do with it. They just write the SNP a big fat cheque, and say, 'Spend where you will'. If the money isn't being spent on the issues you think are important, blame the SNP, not Westminster.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

The peoples of Great Britain should work together, support each other and be greater as a team.

Then Westminster needs to start making policy that actually reflects that, that helps deal with issues faced not just in england.

What are the issues in Scotland and Wales that are not occurring in England and being ignored by Westminster?

Lack of regeneration, Tories causing poverty to worsen with no job creation, etc. Problems that require us to be able to say no to the Tory cuts.

You're joking right? You think them unleashing their particular brand of 'political magic' again, just as before, affects just Scotland?

Ask the north of England, the south west, in fact everywhere that isn't the green and pleasant home counties.

The Tories always served the gardYou do know that the Scottish Parliament and councils allocate the money in Scotland right? Parliament has nothing to do with it. They just write the SNP a big fat cheque, and say, 'Spend where you will'.en counties of the south east first and foremost. That's not England, that's a political party. The Scots should be unleashing hell on every Scottish Liberal Democrat who's bedded down with them. They should also be remaining British to continue to contribute and build, if the policies have been hurting the Scots, they'll have been hurting all the other liberal through left voting areas of Britain.

Contributing would mean developing up other parts of the UK at the cost of ourselves. I don't see what good will come from that, its just a continuation of the status quo.

You do know that the Scottish Parliament and councils allocate the money in Scotland right? Parliament has nothing to do with it. They just write the SNP a big fat cheque, and say, 'Spend where you will'.

Yes, and the money they get is not decided by the Scottish parliament like it should since scottish resources are going south.

I'm not going to wade fully into the current ongoing debate, but in addition to my earlier sentimental reason for not leaving the union, I also have a few others;

1. We are British these days, and I'm proud to be a Brit. Also proud to be Scots, but that's part of being a Brit. And I do think we all need each other.

2. Economics. Scotland gets more to spend than it pays in Tax. England pays us to stick around and let 'em blow up bits of our northern coastline every year Also, prior to the union, the exchange rate was 16 Scots Pounds to 1 English. I think that's almost Zimbabwean in horribleness. And I don't want our one-trick-economic-pony to be fossil fuels.

3. Business. It's much easier for multinationals to bully small countries into lowering business tax and worker's rights than it is for them to bully bigger countries.

4. I don't really trust the SNP to run things when Independence happens.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
money in Scotland right? Parliament has nothing to do with it. They just write the SNP a big fat cheque, and say, 'Spend where you will'.

Yes, and the money they get is not decided by the Scottish parliament like it should since scottish resources are going south.

A collective only works if the members actively help each other.

Have a look here for relevant reading.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-who-loses-if-scotland-goes-it-alone/6524

In a nutshell, if oil prices stay extremely high then Scotland can just about equal what it gets in subsidies from Parliament. However, should the oil market fall, or any other economic fluctuation occur, you would be worse off.

In other words, the best you stand to gain would be financial parity with what you have now, but with less of an international voice and economic clout.

One of the issues I think is that in an emotive circumstance like this, is very easy to rely on just demonising the other side more. That more just plays into the SNPs hands. For example, Ketaras comments.

I think Scotland could exist as an independent country and it wouldn't be a disaster. However it wouldn't be the paradise that Salmond seems to promote. It just really depends on what us Scots want for the country.

Right now as part of the UK, Scots provide a boutique impact on the world stage, whether it's the overall well respected Scots soldiers, Scots contributing to international diplomacy or trade or any other things of international importance. Scotland leaves the UK, that goes poof, which might be what an informed voting Scottish people want, I can't really blame that. Maybe us Scots really want to become a living version of Tolkien's 'The Shire' maybe we dont want, the responsibility, for example, of hosting a nuclear deterrent on the Clyde. I couldn't really blame us if that was the decision, if it was an informed one.

The way I see it, Scotland could very well exist as a sleepy little country, a golf tourist destination, known for exporting water but the only international impact we'd have would be the occasional scientist and being a glorified hotel resort for some world leaders once a decade.

Right now, Scotland as part of the UK is more than that, we really do contribute to the world and it'd just be sad to lose that potential.

Maybe us Scots really want to become a living version of Tolkien's 'The Shire' maybe we dont want, the responsibility, for example, of hosting a nuclear deterrent on the Clyde

A dangerous one that was forced on the scottish people, that none of us want.

In other words, the best you stand to gain would be financial parity with what you have now, but with less of an international voice and economic clout.

Yet would finally have full domestic say in what we do.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Maybe us Scots really want to become a living version of Tolkien's 'The Shire' maybe we dont want, the responsibility, for example, of hosting a nuclear deterrent on the Clyde

A dangerous one that was forced on the scottish people, that none of us want.

In other words, the best you stand to gain would be financial parity with what you have now, but with less of an international voice and economic clout.

Yet would finally have full domestic say in what we do.

I would find your statements more worthy of credence if they couldn't just be blanket applied to every single county in the UK who feels hard done by the Tories. I mean, sure, if you guys want independence for the sake of independence, then sure.

I guess I just can't bring myself to understand the mindset of, 'Let's split off from a Union of hundreds of years. Odds are we'll be economically worse off and infinitely less relevant internationally, but hey! We'll be able to say we run our own little patch of land'.

I mean,w hat happens if Glasgow and Edinburgh then decide to go independent from the rest of Scotland? Or, a very real example, the Shetlands?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/17/scottish-independence-islands-home-rule

What if the Shetlands use Scotlands own logic against it and claim the oil nearest to them? And what if they do that and remain part of the UK? All of a sudden, a good chunk of Scotland's oil reserves become part of the UK, using the very precedent of independence and coastline recognition that Scotland will have just used in gaining their own independence.

 Ketara wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Maybe us Scots really want to become a living version of Tolkien's 'The Shire' maybe we dont want, the responsibility, for example, of hosting a nuclear deterrent on the Clyde

A dangerous one that was forced on the scottish people, that none of us want.

In other words, the best you stand to gain would be financial parity with what you have now, but with less of an international voice and economic clout.

Yet would finally have full domestic say in what we do.

I would find your statements more worthy of credence if they couldn't just be blanket applied to every single county in the UK who feels hard done by the Tories. I mean, sure, if you guys want independence for the sake of independence, then sure.

I guess I just can't bring myself to understand the mindset of, 'Let's split off from a Union of hundreds of years. Odds are we'll be economically worse off and infinitely less relevant internationally, but hey! We'll be able to say we run our own little patch of land'.

I mean,w hat happens if Glasgow and Edinburgh then decide to go independent from the rest of Scotland? Or, a very real example, the Shetlands?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/17/scottish-independence-islands-home-rule

What if the Shetlands use Scotlands own logic against it and claim the oil nearest to them? And what if they do that and remain part of the UK? All of a sudden, a good chunk of Scotland's oil reserves become part of the UK, using the very precedent of independence and coastline recognition that Scotland will have just used in gaining their own independence.

Its been due for a long time before the tories...its not just about them. They're just the confirmation that nothing will ever change unless a stand is made.

If there is legitimate evidence and concerns about the islands having their own say in their own land, they its fine if they go independent. I wouldn't have a problem with that. The people of every country deserve the right to be able to speak up for their area. Comfortable slavery is still slavery.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
The people of every country deserve the right to be able to speak up for their area.

I guess it kind of depends on how you choose to define what is and isn't a country...

Comfortable slavery is still slavery.

I think you have a very skewed idea about what slavery is. Not to mention a very skewed idea about how the UK (and indeed the real world) works...

Edit: Quote fix.

 purplefood wrote:

kronk wrote:On the Welsh thing, when I visited the UK about 6 years ago, I stayed at a small manor house (they called it a castle) for a few nights. When I was out and about, looking at old castles, we stopped at a small pub/diner for dinner. I went in speaking English (well, Texas English), asking if they were serving dinner yet and the lady just looked at me and spoke to her friend in Welsh (I'm assuming). After a bit of awkwardness, I just left. We came back by the next evening, a little later, and there were more cars, so we stopped. Others were being served food, so we gave it a shot.

She took our orders just fine in English that day. Odd. :-)

Do you know where in Wales?

It was a few miles up the road from here. If the link doesn't work, then toss "craig-y-nos castle" into google maps. That's the area we were in.

 Captain Roderick wrote:
Albatross - thanks for that. I'm guessing you're for reducing worker's rights then?

Not as a matter of principle. I'm not in favour of defending them as a matter of principle either.

And you're welcome.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Jog on, you patronising idiot.

The irony is palpable.

Go on...

 Cheesecat wrote:


Not really, Albatross is a fairly sensible guy (at least what I've read from him) he's just at times get's a little heated or acts strange with certain things (but then again who doesn't).

I just do what I do and accept the consequences. Life's more fun that way.

I do think Scotland would find things harder out of the Union than in, and England would find things easier without Scotland than with. It would save a lot of money.

The main problem would be where to site the nuclear weapons.

I found the latest exchange interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22251103 or look down for tl;dr version.

Salmond & the SNP wrote:
We may choose to retain the pound. And the rest of the British will perfectly happy to have us do so because we're their biggest trading partner. And because it would be difficult to take on our share of the national debt otherwise. In fact, if they don't let us keep the pound, we might abstain from taking any national debt at all! Win/Win!

Treasury &Osborne wrote:
Actually, I think its up to the rest of the British public whether or not they want to be in a currency union with you, its not a default accepted setting. And currency union for trade partner's sake is exactly what's causing the problems in the Eurozone, so we're not madly keen on it. And you're not very independent if Westminster controls your currency, are you?

Considering the SNP called the pound, 'a millstone around its neck' two years ago, they certainly seem to have changed their tune.

I have 3 things to say


1. I find it funny how when you type SNP and you hover over it ,it comes up "slow and purposeful" (lol)

2. IMHO the left in Scotland is farther left than the rest of the UK, but the UK is farther left than the US. Making left in Britain extreme in America, but left in Scotland socialist in the UK.

3. To the Englsih people who dislike Scotland having a say in things that only affect England, i agree if it's a matter that only affects England and Wales then Scottish and N.I M.P's shouldn't count to the result.

 Palindrome wrote:

Apparently the more money you have the more right wing you become.

That's crazy talk! It's almost like if you reap the benefits of a system you are more likely to want to maintain the status quo! Or Conserve what you have?