Scots enjoy £1,600 extra per head than their English counterparts

IveSeenTheLight

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

......again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

Plus ca change..........................

lol.
Who was one of the trader and financiers involved in this? A certain William Patterson.

Scots born trader and financier William Paterson had long been promoting a plan for a colony on the Isthmus of Panama to be used as a gateway between the Atlantic and Pacific — the same principle which, much later, would lead to the construction of the Panama Canal. Paterson, who had a huge capacity for hard work, was instrumental in getting the Company off the ground in London. He had failed to interest several European countries in his project but in the aftermath of the English reaction to the Company he was able to get a respectful hearing for his ideas. The Scots' original aim of emulating the East India Company by breaking into the lucrative trading areas of the Indies and Africa was forgotten and the highly ambitious Darien scheme was adopted by the company. Paterson fell from grace when a subordinate embezzled from the Company. The Company took back Paterson's stock and expelled him from the Court of Directors; he was to have little real influence on events after this point.[9]

Incidently William Paterson, later became Sir William Patterson was the founder of the Bank of England.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On a personal level, every single one of these Scotland independance arguments, whether it's on here, or in the media, on question time etc....it all leads to the same thing.

Arguing over who owns what, and every Englander being told he/she takes issue with the Scots if they don't agree with the proposals.

Of course any independance discussion does inevitably lead to how the assetts are distributed (similar to a divorce)

Graham_Devon wrote: »

and simply erecting a fence around the massive elephant in the room...that being the UK defecit.

Indeed not. As a Scot, keen on independance, I've seen many arguments try to be made on how independance will allow us to truly decide our own future. Something I agree on.

It's generally the nationalists who bring the discussion back to how the assetts will be split and queationing how Scotland can fund their future.

To be honest, it's becoming the "bogeyman" mantra, trying to scare voters from a 'yes' vote focusing on the short term (which I fully expect there to be a cost) to the detriment of the long term benefits.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

that being the UK defecit.

In simplistic terms, one could argure that Scotland is 8.3% of the UK and therefore should take on 8.3% of the debt.

Realistically however there is more detail required to ascertain how those debts were accumulated and therefore where the debts should lay.

dktreesea

I'm English, living in Scotland, and am mystified why any Scot would even consider voting No to independence. Scotland has far more in common with the Scandinavian countries than it will ever have with England. Living in England is like living in a poor cousin of the States. Scotland, in contrast, feels like a northern European county, complete with northern European attitudes.

Take crime. Here in Scotland the focus is on re-education and rehabilitation of prisoners. Down south it's all about punishment and exclusion from society. The NHS? I would much rather be ill in a Scottish hospital than an English one. For starters they are cleaner. And better staffed.

Scotland seems to me to be well run compared to England. Lothian buses, for example, is one of the best run public transport companies in Britain and hasn't been subsidised in years. Far from it - last year they paid a dividend to the councils that own it.

As to sinking after independence, I doubt it. 40 million descendants of Scots around the world, plenty of whom would invest in Scotland if it were independent and not occupied by England. It may be seen as a "union" in Britain, but to a lot of Scots around the world it's more like an occupation.

What's the big deal about the currency? The Scottish pound would presumably initially be pegged to the value of the pound sterling initially then be allowed to find its own level.

Cameron should quit worrying about his legacy if Scotland becomes independent. England would be awash with St George's Crosses flying from every window. And not before time. At least in Scotland Scots are proud of their flag and not shy about flying it, unlike the English where flying the flag seems to be seen as being racist. Plus for once a government in Westminster would be able to fully concentrate on governing their own country.

Put it this way, - go around the world and tell them you are Scottish, Welsh or Irish and the rest of the world welcomes you with open arms, not to mention sympathy for being from an occupied country, subject to English rule. Say instead you are English and half the people you meet won't be able to keep the contempt off their faces. England is like Serbia. It's about time the occupation ended and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all became independent.

IveSeenTheLight

dktreesea wrote: »

Put it this way, - go around the world and tell them you are Scottish, Welsh or Irish and the rest of the world welcomes you with open arms, not to mention sympathy for being from an occupied country, subject to English rule. Say instead you are English and half the people you meet won't be able to keep the contempt off their faces. England is like Serbia. It's about time the occupation ended and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all became independent.

Bit strong at the end there old chap, but I know what you mean.

The rest I fully agree with.

I fully expect there to be a cost for going independant.
I'm hopeful however it leads to a brighter, more opportunistic life for my children / grandchildren.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On a personal level, every single one of these Scotland independance arguments, whether it's on here, or in the media, on question time etc....it all leads to the same thing.

Arguing over who owns what, and every Englander being told he/she takes issue with the Scots if they don't agree with the proposals.

This isn't true, and there are few pro independance scotland individuals who appear to see this. As I've said, and others have said, we don't really care if Scotland goes independant or not, what we do care about is sharing the responsibilities. This is something bought on by Scotland and not the UK. Therefore, it stands to reason that it's those in favour who have to make their case, and make it a good case, instead of simply saying "oh you hate us" in retaliation to every issue bought to the table. It's getting tiring.

From what I have seen, the UK is stating fine, but if you go independant, you can't reasonably believe that you are going to be able to keep everything north of the border, but demand a slice of everything south of the border. It really isn't realistic, especially when the investment side is bought in to suggest the Scot's have invested in stuff south of ther border.

The question was raised over the setting of interest rates. Obviously with Scotland independant, we would raise or lower interest rates to suit OUR economy. However, it has already been argued that the UK should not do this, but take into account the Scottish economy too, as they would be pegged to the BOE. I mean, what gives....that's not independance!!

Sure they have invested....but we've invested in stuff north of the border too. Namely north sea oil. It appears to me, and not one argument has yet swayed my view, that the SNP see it as a case of being out for all they can get in terms of infrastructure and civil stuff, while wrapping every tangible asset north of the border in the scottish flag, and simply erecting a fence around the massive elephant in the room...that being the UK defecit.

Scottish Nationalism only ever paints Scotland in the role of down trodden and oppressed victim of the English.

Well, they got special dispensation as part of the UK to milk an astonishing amount of treasure and influence in return. Outside of the UK they can get to the back of the queue.

dktreesea

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Scottish Nationalism only ever paints Scotland in the role of down trodden and oppressed victim of the English.

Well, they got special dispensation as part of the UK to milk an astonishing amount of treasure and influence in return. Outside of the UK they can get to the back of the queue.

If Scottish policies get adopted for the rest of the UK by Westminster, presumably that's because they are better than the current situation.

You talk about the Scots "milking an astonishing amount of treasure and influence". Even if that were the case, and I am not saying it is, what excuse is there for the English not to provide exactly the same advantages for their citizens that the Scottish Government gives to its own citizens?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Scots should accept the same pathetic deal from their government that Westminster confers on the English?

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Realistically however there is more detail required to ascertain how those debts were accumulated and therefore where the debts should lay.

Shall we start with the Royal Bank of Scotland.........;)

chewmylegoff

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Shall we start with the Royal Bank of Scotland.........;)

let's not bother eh? i think we can all do without another 40 page thread filled with thousands of posts from scots insisting that RBS's losses occurred in london and therefore are nothing to do with scotland.

dktreesea

RBS and NatWest aren't dead in the water yet. Give them time. If the government hangs in there and waits a couple more elections they may yet make a return on their investment.