Can someone please explain why UK is trying to keep Scotland?(37 Posts)
I am a bit confused. Scotland has been told from the start of the Referendum campaign that it cannot stand on its own two feet and will be worse off without the UK but surely then the rest of the UK will be BETTER OFF without Scotland?
I lived in London for 4 years and the general consensus was that Scotland was heavily subsidized by the rest of the UK. Again why? This does not seem fair to other parts of the UK. I keep hearing now from some people in England that Scotland should not get further preferential treatment. Why does Scotland get preferential treatment?
Again, if Scotland went independent, the "so called" money that has been used to subsidise them would then be redirected back to the rest of the UK. Why do they (Westminster) want to carry a dead horse?! Why oh why is Westminster so determined to keep Scotland that it has used its might through the media and corporations to not let Scotland go. It makes no sense to me. I work in business and the basic principle of business is to keep your assets and get rid of your liabilities!!! The pound should soar when Scotland is gone from the UK as a huge amount of debt would be gone? Why are the politicians sending every MP possible to woo them back? It is clear that Scotland must have something that Westminster wants. What do you think?
They haven't been that heavily subsided, the money per head of population would only rise by a couple of quid if Scotland became independent. I will be surprised if they get the yes vote. However I'm also surprised by the ridiculous unthought out overtures that are currently being reported. So I suppose my face generally looks like this ... The cynic in me wants to shout 'fossil fuels'!!!!
It's because Scotland are actually the ones who subsidise the rest of the UK.
I think this is a really interesting question and I haven't thought of it this way before. If they cost us so much why are we bothering?
They don't cost us so much, it brings in less revenue then England, more then Wales. Population per space goes up massively without Scotland, as before money per person goes up minimally. Is it that we have more 'clout' as a nation? I still think a lot is to do with natural resources tbh. Has the queen said anything about it yet?
We want to keep the oil and lose the Tories.
International heft. Security. Pooling of resources. So yes UK as a whole may now benefit from oil and as oil reserves get more expensive to access, and with an ageing population Scotland may be in need of support in the future.
Queen has said it is up to the Scottish people.
In the short term the uncertainty and costs of a separation would (most likely) mean economic slowdown for both parties, for a few years.
SoonToBeSix ….. the oil is both running out and will get harder to lift, you’ll have sod all else to balance the Scottish economy and when was the last time in several decades did a socialist government leave the country in a better shape than they found it?
Oil came ashore here around 1976, around the time Labour called out the IMF to financially bail us out, when manufacturing had fallen from around 29% of our economy throughout the 1970’s.
For those Scots who hate the Conservatives, they seem to forget what happened after 1979, the economy they handed over to socialism in 1997, and what they have had to try fix, inheriting a £157 bil overspend.
Scotland at the moment just needs to know how to SPEND their money from Westminster, they don’t have to worry how to MAKE the annual cheque that comes in – and listening to all their threats to ‘stimulate’ the private sector investment and jobs creation by nationalising, splitting, and god knows what else, there is no reason to think they’ll be any more successful in running a sustainable economy than Labour.
P.S. As Scotland still pathetically mentions the Tory Poll tax (which arguably allocated per person was a better idea), why didn’t they complain when under Labour, the Council Tax alternative, went up over 110% in 13-years – or were the you all let off Scot free on that bill as well???
From a purely selfish point of view because I love visiting Scotland , how would they keep the highlands so spectacular with such a small population's taxes? All those deserted roads with amazing views to maintain, protecting the indigenous animals, forestry etc.
There are costs involved in separating, and I guess we'd lose the economies of scale. I also think lots of people want the union to be maintained for emotional reasons.
I have thought a lot about this in recent weeks. My BIL and DSis will be voting yes, and I completely understand their reasons. Personally, though, I hope it's a "no" vote because I genuinely think people would regret a "yes" further down the line - and I want what's best for my nephew's future. Having said that, if I forget about the individuals involved, a "yes" would be really exciting and interesting, and there is a part of me would just love to see how it all works out!
Because like the ridiculous Welsh assembly all an independent Scotland will do is provide jobs for second rate politicians and bureaucrats, who couldn't cut it in Westminster.
Oh and no doubt, they'll join the EC and we'll end up subbing yet more usless paper pushes there too.
There is an excellent article in this week's Economist if you are prepared to buy it. In an nutshell:
1. International gravitas - rUK unlikely to sit at top table anymore
2. To avoid financial chaos which will ensue in Scotland and will have a knock on effect in Scotland.
3. Currently, scottish oil subsidises UK
4. Trident - it will have to be relocated from Scotland - it will take around 20 years prob to do this (and will impact UKs NATO status
5. They like Scotland
6. A "no" vote may mean the lying, disingenuous toad Salmond crawls into obscurity (this is wishful thinking from me, it's not in the Ecnomist!)
But I am a "no" so it's best to read the article yourself as I am biased!
Independence is bad for everyone - it really, really is.
Because as the boundaries stand it looks as if the rest of us will have to put up with a Tory government forever including us here in Wales. Please don't leave us Scotland.
UK government will swing far right and probably leave EU.
Everyone totally fucked.
What's with the 'cost us money' business anyway? Who do we mean by us? England?
Please don't leave us stuck with UKIP Scots!!
www.yesscotland.net/sites/default/files/resources/documents/democracy_briefing.pdf Scotland's voters really can't make much of a difference in that, sadly.
It'll take about 20 years to establish a new permanent base for Trident (and I think that timeline is based on both replacement date that's needed anyhow and actual site-finding and building time).
But Trident could be temporarily docked at another NATO/nuclear nation's naval base (I've seen both France and US mooted as possibilities) and so I don't see impact on UK's military reputation as quite so serious.
I think 'Better Together' is based largely on the idea that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" - a view that opinion polls suggest about half of Scots share. If Scotland secedes, it will be expensive (probably worse for Scotland, but hardly insignificant for UK either) and will tie up an immense amount of bureaucratic effort. Some might say 'good' to that, but I'm not so sure the opportunity cost would be largely unnoticed.
Custardo, you say If they cost us so much why are we bothering? as if everybody on Mumsnet is from the rest of the UK and there are no Scots here. Wrong. I am a Scot but I have no vote in the referendum because I live in England. There are any number of English, Welsh and Northern Irish people living in Scotland who will have a vote. We are all intertwined and cutting those ties would be massively complicated and expensive, for the rest of the UK as well as Scotland.
I have every digit crossed that the NO campaign wins.
Well said Mimsy' that is what I was trying to say but you put it so much better.
The issue the Scottish have with the poll tax was that they used Scotland to trial it out.
It wasn't just the Scottish protesting about it once they'd rolled it out in England. It was very unpopular (except for the well off living alone in a large property) and the backlash against it and the results (increased costs in collecting it, and chasing the protesting non-payers) ultimately brought about the demise of Thatcher.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.