As it is probably known by people in the UK, the Scottish National Party is currently aiming to have a referendum on if Scotland should be completely independent from England, meaning they will have proper power over the people and our resources. I ask this, do you think Scotland should become independent? I personally think that they should. It's often misconceived that Scotland wouldn't economically survive on their own without subsidises and help from Westminster, but this is incorrect. Scotland has roughly 60% of the UKs natural resources, mostly from North Sea oil and our strong agriculture. People never think of this, because most of the gain from this is biased towards England, so if we were independent we would see much more of a benefit from the oil, and much more of a benefit from agriculture, especially since the Common Agricultural Policy would make that sector relatively stable. What's your views?
From an outsider POV - I dont have a problem with this.
Eh, there could be a hell of a lot of drama about it, the last thing we need in this world.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
Plus, doesn't it help the UK with Scotland being in the UK?
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32380811]Eh, there could be a hell of a lot of drama about it, the last thing we need in this world.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there would be that much drama.
Although it might be interesting if they did declare dependence.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jelly donut;32380828]I don't think there would be that much drama.[/QUOTE]
Thats what the US said. :v:
[QUOTE=Map in a box;32380839]Although it might be interesting if they did declare dependence.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
Thats what the US said. :v:[/QUOTE]
Elaborate please, I'm not sure what context you are putting drama under. Do you mean that England and Scotland would have a kind of rivalry between each other?
From an insider POV who lives in the capital itself, I would say that the act would do little beyond symbolic importance.
There would need to be a massive reorganisation of the governments involved, new border checks set up for passports and the such. There would be a lot of paperwork involved and the such when doing it.
Plus Scotland has not had the best record for running its own affairs. The trams being built in Edinburgh were cocked up royally and the SNP seems to focus on past glories rather than future opportunities.
Also curiously enough, most great Scots (Logie Baird, James Watt, Murdoch, Graham Bell, Carnegie, etc) left Scotland during their lives to seek better fortune elsewhere, which they did so very successfully. Whilst Scotland is decent at producing good minds it isn't very good at retaining them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32380932]From an insider POV who lives in the capital itself, I would say that the act would do little beyond symbolic importance.
There would need to be a massive reorganisation of the governments involved, new border checks set up for passports and the such. There would be a lot of paperwork involved and the such when doing it.
Plus Scotland has not had the best record for running its own affairs. The trams being built in Edinburgh were cocked up royally and the SNP seems to focus on past glories rather than future opportunities.
Also curiously enough, most great Scots (Logie Baird, James Watt, Murdoch, Graham Bell, Carnegie, etc) left Scotland during their lives to seek better fortune elsewhere, which they did so very successfully. Whilst Scotland is decent at producing good minds it isn't very good at retaining them.[/QUOTE]
The tram fuck up was on the behalf of the Edinburgh council. The SNP threatened to pull all funding if they were going to give up that early. The re-orgs, paperwork and such can be expected from such a bold move really, and the reason we aren't handling our affairs that well is because there aren't that many devolved powers for us. Immigration is the worst, we can't affect anything, it's all done by Westminster. They just punt asylum seekers up here where we look after them, and then give them the boot when they get round to it, which can take years.
The UK is small enough as it is, putting a border on a land mass which is pretty well knit already wouldn't really end well.
No, I don't want to have to use a passport every time I go to Scotland.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32381208]No, I don't want to have to use a passport every time I go to Scotland.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. I'm not an expert on the UK, but I figure that a good many people drive to work across where the intended border would be. Adding passport checks every time you go to work, or want to visit a relative would get a bit tedious.
I don't understand why people want scotland to be independent, it has nothing in the way of economic resources other than that tid bit of oil, and overall it would just be an inconvenient pain in the ass
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32381277]I don't understand why people want scotland to be independent, it has nothing in the way of economic resources other than that tid bit of oil, and overall it would just be an inconvenient pain in the ass[/QUOTE]
But FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOM
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32381208]No, I don't want to have to use a passport every time I go to Scotland.[/QUOTE]
That's a big point against it which I completely understand, my dad goes to England alot with his work, so this would be pretty tedious for him and others.
The thing about this subject is that personally, I used to be against it, then pretty agnostic, and honestly, I'd say I probably am still agnostic. While there are the good points, there are the bad points which sometimes makes the independence of Scotland seem like it will bring more pain than gain. It just dpemds on your viewpoint really. If Scotland doesn't get independence, I really won't mind.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32381277]I don't understand why people want scotland to be independent, it has nothing in the way of economic resources other than that tid bit of oil, and overall it would just be an inconvenient pain in the ass[/QUOTE]
It's the agriculture which is one of Scotland's strong points though, and the Common Agricultural Policy really strengthens it.
If the vast majority want Independence give it to them.
But i can't see that happen any time soon.
Its better for them to stay together. To quote Lincoln "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I know we live in a more civilized age, but to me this seems almost the same as trying to divide the US in half or similar countries. You can't be a melting pot of culture for hundreds of years and then suddenly try to change it.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;32381342]That's a big point against it which I completely understand, my dad goes to England alot with his work, so this would be pretty tedious for him and others.
The thing about this subject is that personally, I used to be against it, then pretty agnostic, and honestly, I'd say I probably am still agnostic. While there are the good points, there are the bad points which sometimes makes the independence of Scotland seem like it will bring more pain than gain. It just dpemds on your viewpoint really. If Scotland doesn't get independence, I really won't mind.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
It's the agriculture which is one of Scotland's strong points though, and the Common Agricultural Policy really strengthens it.[/QUOTE]
once that oil runs out your economy would be run into the ground, and to be honest, it's not like you get treated badly while part of the UK, hell you get more benefits over in Scotland than we do here in England
Free university entry is one such thing.
[QUOTE=bigbadrick;32381369]Its better for them to stay together. To quote Lincoln "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I know we live in a more civilized age, but to me this seems almost the same as trying to divide the US in half or similar countries. You can't be a melting pot of culture for hundreds of years and then suddenly try to change it.[/QUOTE]
The main motive, is that people are fed up that we aren't allowed to control most of our matters. Some are devolved but most are reserved for Westminster.
From a Canadian POV, Scotland sounds a lot like Britain's version of Quebec.
Another problem is that Scotland is a tiny nation that produces very little, along with having a low declining population.
5,222,000 people live in Scotland, in 1975/6 it being 5,227,000.
The lowest was in 2002 when it was 5,055,000. The rise in population since 2002 being due to immigration, but there is still a declining birth rate and ageing population.
Were it to become independent it would be the 116th largest country in the world by population and 115th largest by landmass. (At 78,772 km squared)
Most of the population resides in the fertile lowlands. The traditional image of Scotland is that of the prosperous happy highlands filled with bagpipers. However the highlands of Scotland have barely any residents in them. Despite covering half of the landmass it has a mere 208,000 residents, around 4% of the population.
Most of the Highlands themselves are barren, the only houses being holiday homes or sheep crofters. Some forests exist for hunting or logging operations. Scotland today produces very little and is quite poor, one of the reasons that the Romans failed to establish themselves there. (Due to the fact most land here is terrible.) Even when some money was made off Jute and Wool for example, India and Australia took over those businesses due to those areas being more highly productive than Scotland. (And better suited for it.)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32381562]Another problem is that Scotland is a tiny nation that produces very little, along with having a low declining population.
5,222,000 people live in Scotland, in 1975/6 it being 5,227,000.
The lowest was in 2002 when it was 5,055,000. The rise in population since 2002 being due to immigration, but there is still a declining birth rate and ageing population.
Were it to become independent it would be the 116th largest country in the world by population and 115th largest by landmass. (At 78,772 km squared)
Most of the population resides in the fertile lowlands. The traditional image of Scotland is that of the prosperous happy highlands filled with bagpipers. However the highlands of Scotland have barely any residents in them. Despite covering half of the landmass it has a mere 208,000 residents, around 4% of the population.
Most of the Highlands themselves are barren, the only houses being holiday homes or sheep crofters. Some forests exist for hunting or logging operations. Scotland today produces very little and is quite poor, one of the reasons that the Romans failed to establish themselves there. (Due to the fact most land here is terrible.) Even when some money was made off Jute and Wool for example, India and Australia took over those businesses due to those areas being more highly productive than Scotland. (And better suited for it.)[/QUOTE]
>Romans
>Australia
You're talking millenia apart there man.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32381562]Another problem is that Scotland is a tiny nation that produces very little, along with having a low declining population.
5,222,000 people live in Scotland, in 1975/6 it being 5,227,000.
The lowest was in 2002 when it was 5,055,000. The rise in population since 2002 being due to immigration, but there is still a declining birth rate and ageing population.
Were it to become independent it would be the 116th largest country in the world by population and 115th largest by landmass. (At 78,772 km squared)
Most of the population resides in the fertile lowlands. The traditional image of Scotland is that of the prosperous happy highlands filled with bagpipers. However the highlands of Scotland have barely any residents in them. Despite covering half of the landmass it has a mere 208,000 residents, around 4% of the population.
Most of the Highlands themselves are barren, the only houses being holiday homes or sheep crofters. Some forests exist for hunting or logging operations. Scotland today produces very little and is quite poor, one of the reasons that the Romans failed to establish themselves there. (Due to the fact most land here is terrible.) Even when some money was made off Jute and Wool for example, India and Australia took over those businesses due to those areas being more highly productive than Scotland. (And better suited for it.)[/QUOTE]
Almost all of the highlands are barren due to the highland clearances, so yeah you are right, there is a large landmass where we can't really have anything, which is a huge disadvantage.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32381599]>Romans
>Australia
You're talking millenia apart there man.[/QUOTE]
The Romans saw little point in going to Northern Britannia. Australia can rear sheep more efficiently than the British isles can, hence the decline of sheep crofting in northern Britain. (A major reason for the highland clearances, in which many farmers were kicked off the land to make way for sheep.) The clearances did do good for Scotland as it became an industrial powerhouse along with the rest of Britain until the First world war ended, whereupon industry in Scotland went completely down the toilet.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;32381649]Almost all of the highlands are barren due to the highland clearances, so yeah you are right, there is a large landmass where we can't really have anything, which is a huge disadvantage.[/QUOTE]
One way would be to use the land for logging, but I think that there is some problems with setting that up, along with it taking decades for good results to show.
Scotland has darn good whiskey as well, it would be a shame to lose it.
[B]Edit:[/B]
Why the hell is there no opposition, this isn't so much a debate as it is a massive mutual agreement
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32381687]The Romans saw little point in going to Northern Britannia. Australia can rear sheep more efficiently than the British isles can, hence the decline of sheep crofting in northern Britain. (A major reason for the highland clearances, in which many farmers were kicked off the land to make way for sheep.) The clearances did do good for Scotland as it became an industrial powerhouse along with the rest of Britain until the First world war ended, whereupon industry in Scotland went completely down the toilet.
One way would be to use the land for logging, but I think that there is some problems with setting that up, along with it taking decades for good results to show.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you referenced the Roman Empire and Australia as if comparing the two in an economic competition scenario, the Roman Empire was around millenia before Australia, and therefore such a comparison makes no sense.
I imagine making scotland independent would cost a fuck load of money, which no one has right now. So how about leave it for a couple of years instead of crippling the entire UK right now.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32381697]Scotland has darn good whiskey as well, it would be a shame to lose it.
[B]Edit:[/B]
Why the hell is there no opposition, this isn't so much a debate as it is a massive mutual agreement[/QUOTE]
I myself am very much opposed to the idea of an independent Scotland. Nothing would be gained at all.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;32381783]Yes, but you referenced the Roman Empire and Australia as if comparing the two in an economic competition scenario, the Roman Empire was around millenia before Australia, and therefore such a comparison makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
What I meant is that Rome saw no point in Northern Britannia and that Britain itself could not compete with Australia in terms of wool production.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32381841]I myself am very much opposed to the idea of an independent Scotland. Nothing would be gained at all.
[editline]19th September 2011[/editline]
What I meant is that Rome saw no point in Northern Britannia and that Britain itself could not compete with Australia in terms of wool production.[/QUOTE]
Well that's what I mean, everyone agrees that an independent Scotland is a pointless idea
[QUOTE=bigbadrick;32381157]The UK is small enough as it is, putting a border on a land mass which is pretty well knit already wouldn't really end well.[/QUOTE]
There more than likely wouldn't be any border control. I lived in Ireland on the border to Northern Ireland (which is the UK), and travelled over the border at least twice a week (return). I was never once asked for a passport.
If Scotland did break away from the UK, there would have to be a huge reduction in public spending. I can't find the source (sorry) but I read somewhere that if Scotland was an independent nation and maintained the same level of spending it has with the UK, it would have the largest deficit in Europe.
That said, I'm Irish, and I love the fact that we are independent and not part of the UK anymore.
Waste of time, it will cost a shit ton of money, make crossing the border difficult. Not to mention the difficulty with who is what nationality, I'm a quarter Scottish and three quarters
English. Also one other thing I would always call myself British and I'm not sure thats its a good thing to split up Britain
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.