To think Scotland becoming independent wouldn't have any impact on the rest of the UK?

[lesley33]

Some in Scotland want it to become independent. I don't really understand why the coalition government is fighting against this happening. Will it really matter in the rest of the UK if scotland does become independent?

Take Cameron minchwards as well. Or would the clyde be worse punishment?

The Minch can accommodate plenty for lobbage.

I can't stand Alex Salmond, and dread the thought of him actually having real power. It would be ok if he actually gave a fuck about anywhere outside the central belt, and when the arse falls out of the oil industry we'll be utterly fucked.

In terms of NI Protestants, they're not technically British, in the sense that NI is part of the UK but not Britain. However, they mostly have some ancestry from Britain. The clue is in the surnames. So if anyone wants a justification that doesn't involve simply accepting people's national identity when they claim it, there it is.

NHS Scotland is indeed a sepearate legal entity. Learnt something new today.

Scotland's main source of income is whisky, electronics and finance services. I don't think we will be fucked when the oil runs out (any more than everywhere else will be) They think there's about 50 years left, and we are investing in alternative power.

So we can keep our hospitals, Serenity?

But they are British Flangelina! British is anyone from the UK, not just the island of Britain. I wouldn't say it's exclusively Protestants that call themselves British either, I've met a fair few Catholics who've called themselves Brits too.

Yes they ARE British but Northern Ireland is not part of Britain. That's why we need the term UK. That's one reason why any Northern Irishman can play rugby for "Ireland". "British Isles" as Maryzed says is a geogrpahical term not a political one, and in Ireland they're called The British and Irish Isles and The British and Irish Lions rugby team (excuse my rugby obsession)

I agree it doesn't matter and it causes shitloads of unnecessary problems. That's my entire point! All the shit that Andy Murray faces year in year out blah bllah blah....what the fuck does it matter?

Sorry Aries, but you're the one who said someone is Northern Irish cos they're from Northern Ireland not the isle of Britain and therefore not British.

If it doesn't matter to you what people call themselves, why are you shouting the odds? I personally feel both British and Scottish - I know many people who feel just English or just British or whatever. It's up to them how they define themselves, not my job to label them.

Dear Scotland,

If you do go independent, can Yorkshire come with you?

Please don't leave us with the Tories forever...

I think they have the right to call themselves British if that's how they feel, which was kind of the point of my post. However, I base this on a belief that the people of NI have the right to self define, not the geographical position of NI. Which isn't in Britain. They're not British in the sense that they're not from Britain. But they are British if they self-define that way, and if they choose to base their identity on their British ancestry.

You don't have to tell me that some NI Catholics define as British, either. DH is one, and he's British, Irish or Northern Irish depending on what option is most convenient to him at the time he is asked. He doesn't give a fuck.

Lastly, the term British Isles isn't entirely uncontentious either. 'These islands' is more neutral, but of course it only works when you happen to be standing on one of them. If you were trying to discuss them whilst in, for example, Jamaica, it would have a different meaning entirely. Other options are the Anglo-Celtic Islands and the north Atlantic archipelago. Neither of which have exactly taken off. 'Britain and Ireland' doesn't really work either, because that only means the island of Ireland and the island of Britain. Leaves out all the other little ones.

I am breathtakingly astounded by the anti-Scottish comments which always appear on threads like these, with the justification that all some Scottish people have called their sister's boyfriends brothers boss a wanker all because he is a wanker English.

I can't see any comments whereby the entire population of England is condemned as knuckled-dragging mouthbreathers, but apparently it's ok to say that about the Scots .

My English DH and I have lived in both Central Scotland and Hampshire and I can honestly say that I have encountered more negativity for being Scottish in England than my DH ever did for being English in Scotland. As an example, new starter in our team (professional workplace) on his second day, today, thought it was appropriate to mention that, in relation to contract negotiation, "Scottish people are generally rubbish at that type of thing", despite me being more senior than him and hopefully well respected in my contract negotiation role. Sometimes I despair... although I did smile sweetly and asked if an email from HR in his first week would be a personal best.

OK. But British doesn't mean someone from Britain. It means someone from the UK.

I must admit, I have signed up for an account just to post on this thread. My wife pointed it out to me and, having read a few pages (sorry, not going to scroll through all 12 so if I miss something, I apologise) I have spotted quite a few misconceptions, although some are worse than others. I'm also a PhD student at a Scottish University and my thesis looks at a topic which is very closely related to this thread so I am qualified to make a few corrects.

The most major point concerns the type of view held by karetta who's post from 10.1.12 at 13:49 reads:

YANBU it would be fantastic and I hope Wales and Northern Ireland follow suit. They are a drag on England we would be well advised to get rid of them

By 'drag' I assume a financial burden and not bad aerodynamic engineering. Anyway, the point being made is that England is a net contributor to the United Kingdom and Scotland is a net beneficiary. The best place to start is to look the numbers, the best and most widely used are Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland 2009-2010 (GERS), which '...is a National Statistics publication. It estimates the contribution of revenue raised in Scotland toward the goods and services provided for the benefit of Scotland. The estimates in this publication are consistent with the UK Public Sector Finance Statistics for April 2011.' (www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/352173/0118332.pdf: page 5)

OK, so everyone can have a look at the figures on the hyperlink I have posted above. GERS is considered the best estimate of Scotland's revenues and expenditures within the UK by most independent commentators. They were first published in 1992 under the Scottish Office and have been published yearly ever since. If you go to page 5 of GERS once again, table E.1 shows the total public sector spend in Scotland at 9.3% of the UK total in 2009-10. Looking down at table E.2, you can see that, excluding Scotland's share of North Sea Oil, revenue in 2009-10 was 8.3% of the UK total. Right, so we spent more than we raised. However, if you go down the same column and look at that same figure with our geographical share of North Sea Oil accounted for, that figure jumps to 9.4% of the UK total. Now, these are tough times economically so revenue streams are down on their optimum, but these figures show that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK public purse however way you want to look at it, albeit by 0.1%. Looking at it a different way, the Scottish population account for 8.3% of the UK total, yet they pay 8.3% of its revenues without accounting for the oil that would be geographically apportioned to Scotland according to international law if the country was to become independent. In short, we contribute more than we receive back and, if you look at these figures over previous years, the balance of payments has been even more generous towards the rest of the UK than towards Scotland.

So, now you can see why many people don't mind that Little England attitude that we are a drain because, quite frankly, it suits us if you cut us adrift or we decide (as we should) to do it ourselves

However, I do absolutely agree with those people who say oil isn't a long-term solution. It is a short-term fix for a much wider problem in Scotland; the fact that the public sector is too large a proportion of the economy. The private sector is strong in Scotland, but not uniformly across the country. In order to make up the deficit in private sector revenues the government would probably need to do two things simultaneously; restrain public spending and cut taxation on business (rates, corporation tax, NI contributions) in order to encourage an influx of capital. Oil revenues are there as a buffer to meet current expenditure whilst over a period of time, say 5-10 years, the private sector can grow as a proportion of the economy and close that revenue gap. The beauty of oil revenues comes after that when they exist outside a relatively balanced budget and can be used for two key things; capital investment (roads, rail, airports, schools, hospitals, enterprise parks or whatever) and an oil fund similar to the Norwegians.

Now, we can never hope to amass an oil fund like the Norwegians which, staggeringly, will stand at over $700 billion at the end of 2012. In the worst case scenario, that fund will be worth over $400 billion in 2030 and in the best case scenario over $3000 billion!!! What do you think the Norwegians did during the financial crisis? Borrow money on the international markets to bail out their banks? Not a chance! The have a solid long-term policy there that is both sensible and desirable and makes one weep at the current stock of politicians in this country, particularly those muppets in the Labour party who have left the country on its knees for short-term populist gain without and economic foresight whatsoever (no, I'm not a Tory hating Scot, they're the best of a bad bunch).

The UK is dead-duck country that is heading for long-term economic decline. Scotland has a chance to break away from this sinking ship and chart her own course in the world according to her own political, social and economic values. I really hope that we decide to become and independent country and I think we are on the brink. There is only so much times you can be told that you cannie dae that.

Yellowraincoat, that isn't technically correct. It just gets used to mean that.

As for the plans to encourage the private sector in Scotland, I do hope it works out that way. It would be to my advantage as an English person not to have another economic basket case next door. And it would offer me the chance to emigrate easily to somewhere wealthy and close, if Scotland does really well. However, it's not going to be straightforward. Scotland, as with the rest of the UK, is in a recession. And we as a country are in a lot of debt: I highly doubt that an independent Scotland would be allowed to simply start again with a clean slate, given that some of the money the UK borrowed was certainly spent there. AberdeenButtery correctly points out that the public sector is going to have to shrink, which won't be easy, and I suspect won't be very acceptable to a lot of the Scottish public. So I think 5-10 years is a very optimistic estimate.

The points about Norway's sensible attitude were interesting, although I don't think Britain could have done as well as they have even if we'd invested it all. Certainly they've been much smarter than us, but even if we'd also put it in a fund we wouldn't be anything like as rich. There are a lot more of us, and less oil. The Norwegians are in the very fortunate position of having shitloads of resources to share between a teeny population!

FlangelinaBallerina, couldn't agree with you more. We would have to take our share of the national debt and, because any referendum is only consultative and thus provides a mandate to begin negotiations with Westminster, we'd never be able to run away from that debt.

You're right about Norway in terms of its size and sheer good fortune. If you look at when oil revenues were at their peak (relatively), which was in the 1980's, the Thatcher government pissed that all away keeping the books in the black (I wonder why she was so anti-devolution, perhaps why Charles Kennedy called her the greatest Scottish nationalist of all time).

I am probably being optimistic about private sector growth, but I think my overall jist is pointing the right way; Scotland must move to the right after independence, at least in terms of fiscal policy. That's my biggest fear of independence actually, that we get some public sector-inflating, quasi-left-wing populist party (i.e. Labour and potentially the SNP if some of them get their way) that destroys the seeds of economic stability before they even get a chance to grow. Independence is not a panacea, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

The Tories want to keep Scotland as part of the UK. Why? It's not as if the unionist parties have any support in Scotland.....it only leads me to think that there must be some benefits somewhere along the way.....

K999, absolutely. If you think about the PM's position on the Union, he's 'for it' but he really doesn't know why.

Actually, full fiscal responsibility/devolution max is perfectly suited to the conservatives. It would mean enhanced accountability for money raised and spent, subsidiarity and the end of the fudge that is the Barnett formula. When Murdo Fraser ran for the leadership of the Scottish Tories, I assume he had something like this in mind. However, the membership are largely older folk who elect a non-entity like Ruth 'Scotland Bill and no further' Davidson who appeals to the so-called bed-blockers. Once this demographic of the Tory party membership dies off then they'll find their progressive stance.

On unionist parties, don't forget Labour. However, Labour's opposition to independence has got nothing to do with independence/union and everything to do with fear of never getting a majority in the rest of the UK if Scotland was to leave.

K999 - land, land ownership,land theft, mineral rights, press censorship, subsidies from the public purse, money, power.....

FlangelinaBallerina, do remember that an independent Scotland has a population much closer to that of Norway, 5.2 million to Norway's 4.9 million so an oil fund is a much more feasible policy option. Also, green energy might be a source of a future radical and innovative capital generation scheme; we've got plenty in Scotland, more than we could ever use.

Great so if the Scotts and Welsh bugger off we are left with a Tory government forever. Not a happy thought.

Hopefully. I'd love to see green energy become more important, although suspect nuclear might be the way we all end up going. Although is there any reason why Scotland couldn't make that too/instead, other than political opposition to the idea?