Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

chewmylegoff

sss555s wrote: »

But what happens when a company from Manchester puts a quote in for 30% cheaper because their overheads are lower?

why hasn't that already happened though? there is nothing to stop an insurance company based in manchester putting in a quote for 30% less at the moment. by your logic london should be dead already?

McVitie's (named after a Scot ) is owned by united biscuits. I'm hoping you were joking They are liable to be sold to the Chinese or Americans when ever the right offer is placed on the table. At that point the SE will probably be too expensive to be used for manufacturing.

I'm surprised your not a bigger (quality) manufacturing fan LM, with your South Korea background.

any private or publicly listed company is liable to be taken over at a whim by some foreigners with some money. why does this only apply to things based in the SE?

Question for the ones who think Scotland will crash and burn if they go it alone.

If Scotland leave the UK will the english economy have a boost?

i don't see why it should make much difference, actually. i would have thought that the biggest economic drag would be the cost of paying a load of idiots to decide how to divide everything up, which would logically fall equally (in terms of cost per capita) on both countries.

robmatic

zagubov wrote: »

Agree with allthessss. The UK is badly put together. It looks as though somebody took the country stood it on its end and let all the money jobs and people fall to the bottom in a heap.

And then looked on their handiwork thought it 's better this way.:D

Scotland wasn't all that well planned either. All the wealth is in either Aberdeen or Edinburgh - one of which is miserable and far away from civilisation, and the other infested with the English.

Andy_L

robmatic wrote: »

Scotland wasn't all that well planned either. All the wealth is in either Aberdeen or Edinburgh - one of which is miserable and far away from civilisation, and the other infested with the English.

er....which ones which?

kabayiri

Most of the arguments (okay 'discussions') in both here and on DT about Scottish independence are usually based on some level of logic and reason.

But, honestly, will this be the criteria in the minds of the average person in Scotland? They won't spend time trying to assess details such as currency issues. They will accept what they are being told is provided in good faith.

So what will it boil down to? Salmond & co telling everyone "we know Scottish peoples' needs much better than Westminster" vs Dave C & co telling everyone "you're safer sticking with what you know and have now, there's a lot could go wrong down the independence route".

I bet the average voter who voted back in the 70s whether to remain in the EEC or not, didn't really know the ramifications years down the line.

zagubov

kabayiri wrote: »

Most of the arguments (okay 'discussions') in both here and on DT about Scottish independence are usually based on some level of logic and reason.

But, honestly, will this be the criteria in the minds of the average person in Scotland? They won't spend time trying to assess details such as currency issues. They will accept what they are being told is provided in good faith.

So what will it boil down to? Salmond & co telling everyone "we know Scottish peoples' needs much better than Westminster" vs Dave C & co telling everyone "you're safer sticking with what you know and have now, there's a lot could go wrong down the independence route".

I bet the average voter who voted back in the 70s whether to remain in the EEC or not, didn't really know the ramifications years down the line.

I wonder if we should ever have left EFTA to join the EU (EEC) . Vanity of politicians comes to mind. EU's seen as the Big League I suppose. But it's probably not the best place to be.

pqrdef

Enough of this nonsense. There is no such thing as "Scottish independence", because Scotland is not a dependent territory.

In Salmond's fantasies, Scotland is some kind of victim state, an occupied territory ruled over by the jackboots of a foreign power. And we've let him get away with selling this idea. But it is not the case.

England and Scotland were both dissolved by the Acts of Union and replaced by a single new nation state, Great Britain, with a new monarchy and a new Parliament, which represents the whole country uniformly.

To remind us, the last PM sat for a Scottish seat, as did the last two LibDem leaders. In fact the Scots punch above their weight at Westminster.

Obviously there is not now going to be a United Kingdom of Great Britain (without Scotland) and Northern Ireland. That's nonsense. Great Britain (originally the brainchild of James VI/I) is nothing without Scotland.

What we're talking about is the break-up of Great Britain. It would have to be abolished and replaced by two new states with two new monarchies and two new Parliaments. This affects England as much as Scotland.

Everything will have to be split, the assets and the debts. It's not a secession. Britain is not England, and there is no presupposition that everything British becomes English by default.

Fella

sss555s wrote: »

Because the south east is the drain on the UK. The rest of the UK would not want or be able to keep the south east bubble to the same extent with Scotland out of the equation.

Net importers of oil, gas, electricity and water

SE house: £600k with wages to match

Rest of the UK equivalent: £300k with wages to match

We know what Scotland exports but what do they actually manufacture in the SE to export?

Maybe if they moved parliament to the heart of the UK, or even Manchester then we would all feel we had a fairer crack of the whip. As a country it seems we are not making the best use of our assets when everything is run from the derriere.

What on earth are you talking about, the South of England subsidises the rest of Britain. That's not opinion it's simple fact. Manufacturing is just one way to make money, the service industry generates billions & billions.

tina_malteser

in theory english Notes are not legal tender outside of england and wales and scottish money ...Scottish Banknotes are legal currency – i.e. they are approved by the UK Parliament. However, Scottish Bank notes are not Legal Tender, not even in Scotland. In fact, no banknote whatsoever (including Bank of England notes!) qualifies for the term 'legal tender' north of the border and the Scottish economy seems to manage without that legal protection.

System

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

am surprised that this position seems not to be favoured by Scottish people.

Because there is no satisfaction in fighting for your independence if your mother wants to kick you out anyway.

System

pqrdef wrote: »

What we're talking about is the break-up of Great Britain. It would have to be abolished and replaced by two new states with two new monarchies and two new Parliaments. This affects England as much as Scotland.
.

That wasn't what happened when Ireland became independent. Ireland obtained home rule in 1922, and remained part of the Commonwealth recognising the king until 1946 or thereabouts, when it became a republic.