How would the UK fare without Scotland?

Zkr65

Scotland doesn't realise to what extent the country is bankrolled by the UK.

Scotland has 2 things the UK are interested in.. NS oil rig and Military assets..

Miltary units still form the British army.. under contract. The scottish wouldn't inherit them.. it would cost the UK to move bases.. and the units could choose to leave and join a Scottish force.. but scotland setting up an army from scratch vastly outweighs any costs to the UK..

The NS oil rig is almost dry.. amusingly its being pumped at the highest capacity just in case.. there's very little left there.. and the other areas far north towards Scandinavia are british owned..

The Scottish PMs policies of pick and choose are ludicrous.. he thinks he can choose to keep all the best bits of the UK.. and reject the bad.. its so ridiculously stupid and a majority of scots see through it.. i.e. scotland - we will stay in the EU and keep the pound.. Britain - No you won't keep the pound. EU - you'd have to go through the long membership process.

The English are generallu bemused by it.. as yes, it will affect our economy slightly (no more than a bad day on the FTSE) but Scotland will bankrupt itself overnight, and in the current geopolitical climate, there's noone there to bail them out.. as they lose all ties with the US, EU etc

Everyones a loser if a 'Yes' vote goes through.. but deep down a little part of me hopes it does, so that Scotland can then be purchased by Britain when it bankrupts itself.. and then it will cease to cause problems and will have less power than it has in centuries..

Also, why would you listen to the ravings of a man who's political elite all seem to be named after fish? Mr Salmon.. Mrs Sturgeon.. John West.. etc

Generali

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Many Scots don't care about their economy or wealth going forward and I've heard that from the horses mouth. They want separation at any cost as they hate the English. When heart rules head you are in for a fall !! Salmond made a big mistake in not allowing the English a vote as independence would be assured.

It's not an unreasonable basis on which to quit a country. If you really hate your neighbours so much that you just want shot of them then fine, leave.

The pretense that somehow Scotland will be richer too is the silly bit.

A year ago you'd almost never read stuff like your post. Now it's the stuff of English newspaper columns. Props to the SNP for running a nasty and divisive campaign of many years which has lead to this state of affairs. Thankfully this will all be forgotten in a few months, IMHO anyway.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Maybe that's the dumb thing that No had to do to hand victory to Yes who are getting rather badly beaten in this race. However, a quick Google seems to show supporters of Trident outnumber opponents by about 50:35. I suspect that you're making the mistake of believing that what people who agree with you that are Scottish think is the same as what Scots think. It's all too easy to do, especially in the Internet age where you are pushed news you agree with.

Yes continues to slip on Betfair.

I have no huge opinion on Trident. But the way this ammendment was done with no mention of it was extremely underhand. Almost as if the Scottish government had no say in the matter... oh wait...

As for your quick Google.. there were lots of problems with that last poll. I remember it at the time. With one question being asked north of the border about nuclear submarines, and another one down south about nuclear weapons.

The survey has already been criticised for asking two different questions on each side of the border, with those in England and Wales asked, "…should Britain’s nuclear weapons remain in Scotland,…"

I suspect if I'm a victim of confirmation bias. You have a severe case of Google-itis. In terms of the Scottish referendum, what's dumb is to think that Yes based views are pushed at the Scottish population all the time, even in the internet age.
Online those who want to know more have to make a real effort to seek any other side of the story that might be there to be read. Search on any issue an usually all there is are screeds of Blow to Salmond' headlines for the first 1 or 2 pages'. And those that aren't online kissed goodbye to any sort of meaningful balance in this debate the moment SNP won the last Scottish elections.

As for the betting.. been here before. That's not to say it will be a repeat, of course not. But SNP do have a bit of form on late finishes.. And the Yes campaign do have a lot of bodies on the ground compared to No who seem to be relying on politicians and headlines instead to carry the message. Turnout will be key I think.

He added: “You could have bet the SNP at around 6-1 about a month before the election. At that point, Labour was virtually unbackable because their odds were so short at 1-12 on.
“The prices then started to completely flip- flop and come the day of the election, it was the SNP that were 1-12.

http://www.holyrood.com/2011/05/betting-on-the-outcome/

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I have no huge opinion on Trident. But the way this ammendment was done with no mention of it was extremely underhand. Almost as if the Scottish government had no say in the matter... oh wait.......

Correct. The Scottish government has no say in the matter. Defence is a 'reserved matter' . There are a number of them. You can acquaint yourself with them by perusing Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Correct. The Scottish government has no say in the matter. Defence is a 'reserved matter' . There are a number of them. You can acquaint yourself with them by perusing Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

I rather think that you made my point better than I did. Bravo ! A 10 year agreement no one is even allowed to know the contents of...all to host nuclear weapons in Scottish areas..and the Scottish parliament doesn't even get a say, or even told ?

You'd be sooooo mad if those weapons were on the Thames ( or 20 miles from where you live ) under EU control.. And this sort of thing happened. You be running for an EU exit so fast your feet along with all the Telegraph/Daily Mail readers wouldn't touch the floor ! Calling it outrageous..

ash28

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I rather think that you made my point better than I did. Bravo ! A 10 year agreement no one is even allowed to know the contents of...all to host nuclear weapons in Scottish areas..and the Scottish parliament doesn't even get a say, or even told ?

You'd be sooooo mad if those weapons were on the Thames ( or 20 miles from where you live ) under EU control.. And this sort of thing happened. You be running for an EU exit so fast your feet along with all the Telegraph/Daily Mail readers wouldn't touch the floor ! Calling it outrageous..

Well actually, there is a rather large atomic weapons research establishment not all that far from the Thames, within 10 miles of where I used to live in Berkshire and within 30 miles of central London. It didn't particularly bother me or the thousands of other people who live in the vicinity. Aldermaston is part of our nuclear deterrent too, and is responsible for the design, manufacture and support of nuclear warheads. And then there is Burghfied just a few miles away where the missiles are assembled.

I'm fairly ambivalent when it comes to the nuclear deterrent.....in the scheme of things, would I rather we had a nuclear deterrent than not....yes I think I would.

However, it is under UK control and not the EU. I'm not sure how I would feel if it was under EU control - I'd probably be alright with it tbh, the thought of somewhere like Iran developing nuclear weapons along with the potential for extremism and political destabilisation in the Middle East makes me rather relieved, in some ways, that we have a deterrent.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I rather think that you made my point better than I did. Bravo ! A 10 year agreement no one is even allowed to know the contents of...all to host nuclear weapons in Scottish areas..and the Scottish parliament doesn't even get a say, or even told ? ...

No really. There are a whole list of things which are reserved matters and therefore have nothing to with the Scottish government, but are the business of the UK government. You know, the one that gets chosen as a result of a General Election, were the Scottish get to vote as well as everybody else, and send 59 MPs to Westminster. Which is, of course, slightly more than the number of MPs that they should have on a strict population basis.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.....You'd be sooooo mad if those weapons were on the Thames ( or 20 miles from where you live ) under EU control.. And this sort of thing happened. You be running for an EU exit so fast your feet along with all the Telegraph/Daily Mail readers wouldn't touch the floor ! Calling it outrageous..

There you go ranting away again.

ash28 wrote: »

.....However, it is under UK control and not the EU. ...

For practical purposes, I'd tend to the view that it is under US control. But that might just be me being over-cynical.:)

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

No really. There are a whole list of things which are reserved matters and therefore have nothing to with the Scottish government, but are the business of the UK government. You know, the one that gets chosen as a result of a General Election, were the Scottish get to vote as well as everybody else, and send 59 MPs to Westminster. Which is, of course, slightly more than the number of MPs that they should have on a strict population basis.



There you go ranting away again.



For practical purposes, I'd tend to the view that it is under US control. But that might just be me being over-cynical.:)

Yes the whole list of things "which are reserved matters and therefore have nothing to with the Scottish government, but are the business of the UK government. "

Is kind of the whole point of the referendum ? Like I said, you make my points for me very well.

Scotland in it's entirety can vote one way, and get another result. We're starting to notice somethings up. Sometimes as a collective entity of voters we've been happy with that in the past, sometimes not so but we've accepted it and the way democracy works in the UK.

More recently though.. it's been really NOT so happy. Not with either of the 'big parties' in contention for UK power. Et voila.. you have an SNP party in power in Scotland. And a referendum on whether we'd like to stay with things as they are or do things differently.

But certainly the situation whereby Scotland votes in 1 Tory MP and still gets the Tory party in government isn't something a lot of us wish to continue with. And the same would go for any party actually. 1 MP up here but that party in power UK wide.

It's a strange state of affairs for any country to accept. I doubt the English would put up with it for long either !

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes the whole list of things "which are reserved matters and therefore have nothing to with the Scottish government, but are the business of the UK government. "

Is kind of the whole point of the referendum ? Like I said, you make my points for me very well.

Scotland in it's entirety can vote one way, and get another result. We're starting to notice somethings up. Sometimes as a collective entity of voters we've been happy with that in the past, sometimes not so but we've accepted it and the way democracy works in the UK.

More recently though.. it's been really NOT so happy. Not with either of the 'big parties' in contention for UK power. Et voila.. you have an SNP party in power in Scotland. And a referendum on whether we'd like to stay with things as they are or do things differently.

But certainly the situation whereby Scotland votes in 1 Tory MP and still gets the Tory party in government isn't something a lot of us wish to continue with. And the same would go for any party actually. 1 MP up here but that party in power UK wide.

It's a strange state of affairs for any country to accept. I doubt the English would put up with it for long either !

you have, of course, carefully checked that the EU government (Council of Minsters) have fully represented the views of the Scottish voters over the last 20-30 years?

Any you are sure the Scots fully support the austerity measured forced on Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal especially when compared with the much more modest measures in the UK?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

you have, of course, carefully checked that the EU government (Council of Minsters) have fully represented the views of the Scottish voters over the last 20-30 years?

Any you are sure the Scots fully support the austerity measured forced on Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal especially when compared with the much more modest measures in the UK?

Ooooh let me think... oh yes. The Scottish Government has only been in existence for the last 15 years and in that time.. has had absolutely no say whatsoever on EU issues concerning Scotland or anything vaguely connected with it. Even when it directly affects Scottish businesses, agriculture or fishing. Or the economies that surround them.

So no I haven't had the chance to carefully check anything that has never actually ever been in existence...

Mabye it's time we had a stab at it ?