Can someone please explain why UK is trying to keep Scotland?

Heres a taste;

Echooooooooooooo

Actually, all the Uk's money ends up in London, but in fact London is the biggest subsidised part of the United Kingdom. Its a colossal expense, mainly for Scotland. Over the last 45 years Scotland has produced more oil than Norway and More oil than Kuwait, and yet as a part fo the Uk Scotland is as broke as Wales. Scotland is the oil and gas capital of Western Europe and is now currently leading the was in renewable energy, which Scotland is also completely self sufficient for. Basically under the guise of the Uk England stole all of Scotlands money and used it to rebuild London, and much of England infrastructure. Meanwhile the Scottish dont even have a decent road between Glasgow and Inverness-shire. Scotland also has most of the Uk's drinking water, something England is running out of.

Scotland has never had preferential treatment, even before 1975. Its England that is subsidised, not Scotland. Think about it; The Uk Government wont even subsidise a spare bedroom for an Unemployed person, -you really think theyre going to subsidise an entire country? Scotlands money saved the UK from bankruptcy. All of this has come to light in the last 16 years or so, because they hushed it up.

Correct.

Actually, the 'Subsidy' question is a very simple one to answer really. Read Professor Gavin McCrones 1975 'McCrone Report' -was top secret for 25 years. You'll see very clearly that Scotland had all its wealth taken by England.

Yes they did, because they were conned into it like England was for Brexit. Another referendum is coming in 2023 according to their country's leader. I think the British Government are terrified of the Scottish leaving.

Basically under the guise of the Uk England stole all of Scotlands money and used it to rebuild London, and much of England infrastructure. Meanwhile the Scottish dont even have a decent road between Glasgow and Inverness-shire. Scotland also has most of the Uk's drinking water, something England is running out of.

Scotland is a country NOT a 'holding' or England. Thats the problem.

Not so fast, Scotland basically OWNS England. England has been subsidised by Scottish oil money since 1975 (and by subsidised I mean they've been stealing it) Now with 2Trillion of debt and rising Scotland will leave and take its oil, gas, electricity and water with it. Not to mention all the tax revenue for the whisky industry, valued at over 1 Billion annually. You cant blame the Scots though. Dragged out of the Eu against their country's will.

Isn't it the norm that any country tries to hang on to its holdings?

ZOMBIE THREAD!
Seven years old, FFS. And yet so contemporary.

Double zombie thread!!!!!

Because the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the UK and as British citizens have a right to have their democratic views respected.

How far do you go? With the silly subsidy argument?

Should London cut off the rest of England?

Hi, its very simple. Since 1975 all of Scotlands oil revenues have stayed in England, and continue to remain there with its oil revenues underwriting the English Pound Sterling. Without Scotlands oil money, Electricity, Export revenues, Whisky Taxes (the list is huge) England will struggle to meet its balance of payments. Former British Chancellor Dennis Healy said 'Westminster are worried stiff about losing the oil...' So its purely financial, they dont care about Scotland other than the fact that they really need its money. Even its vast water supply.

ZOMBIE

ZOMBIE

ZOMBIE

.

Currently North Sea Oil is costing money to produce and there is a gigantic bill for decommissioning coming down the line.

Only eats toast...

What's in you heeeeaaaad, in your heeeeaaaad

In my view the UK has nothing to do with it. Scotland is trying to keep scotland in the UK.

Zombie zombie zombie zombie

Simple really:

1. Following the so-called "Highland Clearances" (polite term for "ethnic cleansing" of Gaelic-speaking inhabitants), English aristos stole (sorry, "acquired") lots of large holiday castles and estates in Scotland. They want to hold on to these large estates. You would too - they're beautiful places.

1. Oil - Scottish oil kept the UK financially afloat from the 1970s. It's in decline now, or so we're repeatedly told by Unionists. Industry insiders dispute the Unionist doom and gloom merchants: www.scotsman.com/business/north-sea-oil-industry-will-recover-in-5-years-ian-wood-1-4036757 London knows this and does not wish to let go of such an important asset.

1. Without Scotland, the term 'UK' becomes a bit daft, and losing this very right-wing, monarchist national descriptor would upset many Unionists.

1. Strategic military importance in any renewed cold war. England has important military bases in Scotland. She'd obviously prefer to keep them.

It's therefore for solid economic and military reasons which all benefit England. The English love Scotland the territory; they're not that bothered about the Scots, whom they mostly hold in good-natured contempt (apart from house-trained Scots like Norman Lamont or Gove, who culturally and accent-wise are long since English).

Oh and on banks. Much has been made of banks redomiciling to rUK. The yes camp say this is just a paper exercise and not many jobs will be lost. The thing they don't say is "....at first".

To redomicile a company to the UK, the directors and treasury functions must tax resident in that country. So imagine you're the chief exec, financial director, whatever director of a major bank. You move to London. It's not a big deal. You're paid silly money anyway. You carry on working and your main office is still in Scotland. It's a bit of an arse but not the end of the world. Except 6 months later someone you work on a daily basis with resigns and you need to replace them. Do you recruit the replacement in Scotland? Or think "Oooh, i'll recruit someone in London. There's plenty of talent here, it's the financial hub of the world and they'll be able to work in the same office!"

Most sane people would do the latter. And that's the problem. Over time jobs will trickle to London. Of course the yes camp will say I'm scaremongering and there's no evidence of that, just like everything else that is much more likely to happen than high oil prices and never ending North Sea Oil.

There's been claims & counterclaims. It's so hard for the average person on the street to know who is telling the truth.

The facts that stick in my mind the most are that Alex Salmond was utterly convinced Scotland would automatically join the EU. Same with NATO. Oh and not long before the recent financial crisis, not only were the SNP doggedly against NATO, they were pro joining the Euro. Now it seems he accepts that Scotland will need to reapply to both and of course changed their stance on the latter. So from my point of view if they're wrong about such important matters, what else haven't they worked out properly and could be wrong on?

Their entire economic case rests on oil prices being high. Most people accept this is a very optimistic figure.

But.

Economics aside ultimately it comes down to emotions. Like a couple considering divorce, how successful you may be in the future is rarely the most important deciding factor. My point is if Scotland hates England that much now that it's willing to chuck away a union that's spanned 300 years, survived two world wars and many other stuff because they could get a Tory government then that to me is just incredibly short sighted.

However, like anyone who goes through a divorce will tell you, you don't get everything you want and long term financially you will both be worse off.

And that's where my main problem with the yes campaign lies. They're busy telling everyone that it will be jam today and jam tomorrow. Yet they're not explaining how on earth they will get everything on this HUGE wishlist.

Practical things like how do you convince 28 other countries to let you join the EU when for example Spain will be worried that it will encourage Catalonia. How do you convince Latvia/Estonia to let you in when you don't want to adopt the Euro. A currency they've had to implement to join the club. How do you convince NATO to let you in when you don't want to spend enough money to meet the 2% minimum spend of GDP on defence?

And anytime the no campaign try to call out these things, they just dismiss it with the 'scaremongering/bullying' line.