Farewell UK. Breakup inevitable says top civil servant

Generali

wellused wrote: »

Great Britain would never have reached the level of excellence that it has if it wasn't for the Scots, Scottish engineers and soldiers built the empire. And where would we be today without the input of their football managers and of their political classes?

There'd be no Labour Party to speak of for a start. How many times have they won a majority in the British Parliament, discounting the Scottish MPs? Not many AIUI.

My guess would be 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 (the Labour majorities > 30). Would forming a Government every 20 or 30 years be enough to keep a party as a political force? I have my doubts.

kabayiri

Surely the biggest stumbling block would be "oil". ie Who owns what. Without the revenue from those icy waters Scotland would struggle.

I can foresee many a barrister licking their lips at the juicy court battles which would ensue.

ruggedtoast

With the shale gas reserves that have been discovered in England, and the potential oil deposits the Falkland Islands have, I dont think we need Scotland for their oil.

ruggedtoast

Mary Dejevsky: Breaking up should not be so hard to do
Separation is eminently feasible, where a strong sense of nationhood and accepted borders exist...

This is something for us, the English, to ponder. In many ways, our situation is akin to that of Russians in the old Soviet Union – the dominant state with no instruments of representation or government to call our own. Independence for the Scots would end that. Their independence would also be ours.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mary-dejevsky/mary-dejevsky-breaking-up-should-not-be-so-hard-to-do-6280689.html

zagubov

What's all the fuss about? Will we be contesting whether the North Sea gas is really English after the split, next. And the Falklands belongs to whom exactly? But funnily enough, the arguments are never put that way round are they?

The way the SNPs opponents blocked a referedum and now are pushing for an early one befofre the promised date, really makes me ponder about the kind of political pygmeys we've had to get used to recently.

Now it's about time we got used to politicians who say they're going to do something and then jolly well do it. 2014-16 sounds about the right time, and its what the man said, so let him stick to it.

And why not let him choose the wording- he's leading the only majority government in the British Isles.:cool:

ILW

At least we would not need much of a navy to go to war with Scotland.

prowla

Generali wrote: »

There'd be no Labour Party to speak of for a start. How many times have they won a majority in the British Parliament, discounting the Scottish MPs? Not many AIUI.

My guess would be 1945, 1966, 1997, 2001 and 2005 (the Labour majorities > 30). Would forming a Government every 20 or 30 years be enough to keep a party as a political force? I have my doubts.

Curious isn't it - the Scottish want to separate, but they're responsible for the decaude of NuLab that wrecked the country.

Cash-Cow_3

wellused wrote: »

"Scotland will be in an arc of prosperity stretching from Ireland in the west to Iceland in the north", Alec Salmond.

........................

:rotfl:

pondskater_2

Great, is it not that you need to watch you Ps and Qs regarding religious and racial bigotry towards all kinds of foreigners but you can speak about your fellow Brits like they are !!!! on the bottom of your shoes. :mad:
For what it is worth, I am Scottish and proud of it and I am British and proud of it and no, I will not be voting for independence, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

ILW

Why should anybody be proud of the nationality of their birth?
It's not exactly as if you had any say in it.
Surely pride comes with personal achievement.