To wonder why England wants to keep Scotland?

[user1481215005]

Or am I being really thick? NS has been causing no end of grief the past few years always complaining about how bad Scotland has it (despite receiving more money for Scotland than Scotland gives back) also promising English votes for English laws and then changing that when something she didn't like can up. Her financial plan depends on the North Sea oil. If Scotland keeps rights to that it'll last fifty years tops before oil runs out. She just seems to be a constant pain and wants special treatment which wales and NI don't ever seem to get. I do love Scotland but right now I'm inclined to cheerily wave them off and wish the good luck.

Can I just point out that England does not own Scotland, therefore cannot 'keep' her. It's language like this that riles up nationalism on both sides. FFS, we are supposed to be part of a Union.

Re the tax take vs public expenditure, I had a look on Wiki, that fount of all knowledge. It looks as if until recently Scotland contributed more than the average (but it also got more back per capita, unlike, say, the southeast of England). However:
'As of 2014 and the release of the GERS report, Scotland had a higher deficit relative to the UK deficit as a whole and received an increased net subsidy from UK government borrowing, this deficit was attributed to declining oil revenues as the price of crude oil has fallen. This condition is predicted to only get worse should oil revenues fall further.'

I would personally prefer it if Scotland stayed within the union.

I really wish some would stop assuming Scottish = Nicola Sturgeon

I don't blame you; personally I'd hope most would have more sense than that - though perhaps the SNP wipeout in terms of number of MPs has swayed views a bit?

Yet another thing I really don't get, though, is the whinging from NS and others about being dragged out of the EU if Scotland remains in the Union. Since, if they voted for independence, they'd have to apply to rejoin as a "new" nation, what possible sense does this make??

Yet another thing I really don't get, though, is the whinging from NS and others about being dragged out of the EU if Scotland remains in the Union. Since, if they voted for independence, they'd have to apply to rejoin as a "new" nation, what possible sense does this make??

It's exactly the same argument that pro-Leave voters used against the EU - they want control over their own country and laws.

Arguably in Scotland's case, the argument actually carries more merit - unlike the UK in the EU, they don't have a veto, and are having major constitutional change that they voted against, imposed on them by an unelected Prime Minister who leads a party their country rarely votes for.

metal
the prime minister is not UNELECTED - it is not like a president and is a fundamental part of our parliamentary system. If labour were in power would you say corbyn was unelected because you personally did not vote for him because you are not a member of the party
TM is the leader of the party in power - just like NS, Blair, Brown and all the others who became prime minister by virtue of being the leader of the ruling party. And of course she was elected by her constituency.

I'm not the most political person in the world and my first thought with this was "more millions not spent on important services".

Unfortunately I do not think you can have a union of equals and pool resources. At the moment you have the uk government with the English having the most power, if the uk put each devolved (England getting one as well) on an equal footing the largest number of people could always be at a detriment. For the uk to have a union of equals similar to the EU then each member would need full fiscal autonomy and be in control of their own money with a membership levy for uk matters. But even the EU cannot make this model work as the larger prosperous countries still roar the loudest.

metal I understand about Scotland wanting to control its own affairs, but my point was more about the complaints that they're being dragged out of the EU against their will when, with independence, they'd have to reapply to join anyway

To believe they'd automatically be accepted seems a bit optimistic to me, and I honestly wonder how they'd get on as a tiny nation with limited resources and an ever-decreasing revenue from whatever oil and gas was still theirs

I'm not sure that England does want to 'keep' Scotland, tbh. Scotland is NOT a net contributor. Scotland is actually a drain on the UK purse and spends far more than it raises in either taxes or North Sea oil revenues (the latter have plunged in recent years from £11bn a year to something like £1.8bn, thanks to the drop in oil prices).

But does England want a economic disaster as its next-door neighbour? No. And do most Scots actually want independence? Not on the results of the last referendum or recent polls, they don't. The Scots I know are horrified by the thought of a small, weak, independent Scotland trying to get EU membership for itself (which given its current budget deficit it would never be accepted), losing its major export market (the rest of the UK), and trying to get its small population to bankroll the many things that Scots currently get for free and that are mainly paid for with English taxes (free university, free prescriptions, etc). The financial model for an independent Scotland simply doesn't add up. I can understand the desire for independence as a romantic ideal, but fiscally it doesn't make any sense for Scotland. They'll be bankrupt. End of story.

I realize we're talking hypothetically here, but it also begs the question of exactly where Scotland would expect to get bail out money if independence really did turn into a financial mess

Cut loose from the rest of the UK, and if at that point they weren't members of the EU either, it's hard to know who'd fund them ... and I really don't imagine Nicola Sturgeon would stick around to pick up the pieces

Hmmm

. I wonder where we'd stand on accepting refugees from the North when the looting begins. I think patrolling the border (and creating one) would cost a fortune. It's comments like this one that blow my mind. Honestly. Why is a democratic vote, that has been forced due to lies and misinformation and the right to self determination seen as a bad thing? The language on here is more divisive than anything the MSM pedaled. The rest of the UK is beginning to sound like a bitter ex telling us not to come running back if it doesn't work out. It's funny how TM doesn't get so much venom aimed at her as NS.

. I wonder where we'd stand on accepting refugees from the North when the looting begins. I think patrolling the border (and creating one) would cost a fortune. It's comments like this one that blow my mind. Honestly. Why is a democratic vote, that has been forced due to lies and misinformation and the right to self determination seen as a bad thing? The language on here is more divisive than anything the MSM pedaled. The rest of the UK is beginning to sound like a bitter ex telling us not to come running back if it doesn't work out. It's funny how TM doesn't get so much venom aimed at her as NS.

As far as I'm aware Nicola Sturgeon has been pretty keen on keeping human rights too... Unlike our lovely, unelected PM

When remainders demanded a second referendum they were told to shut up and respect democracy. NS was revving for a second indyref as soon as the result was in, Brexit has nothing to do with it. I'm English, my mum is Scottish and to be completely honest I couldn't give 2 hours either way. I think a lot of Scottish people think a lot of English people are more bothered than they actually are.

As far as I'm aware Nicola Sturgeon has been pretty keen on keeping human rights too... Unlike our lovely, unelected PM

How is our PM unelected. We don't have an American system where we directly elect our leader. We all got a representative. Our representatives have not changed just the leader of the party which was (democratically) elected into power. The proportional votes in parliament are still the same.

Since so much of the thread seems to be about what Nicola Sturgeon wants, can anyone explain to me why she's asked for a second referendum to take place in late 2018? Surely it would make more sense to hold one when negotiations over Brexit are more or less complete, so Scots can make an informed decision on what staying in the Union would look like and if they want to be part of that?

Or - putting my cynical hat back on - does she want it earlier so that, if the vote doesn't go her way, she can demand yet another one because "the final deal massively changes things"?

why she's asked for a second referendum to take place in late 2018? Surely it would make more sense to hold one when negotiations over Brexit are more or less complete

In theory the negotiations need to be complete by end 2018 / early 2019. Assuming we don't want to just crash out of the EU with no deal then negotiations will need to be over by then so there is time for the agreements to go through our Parliament, and to be ratified by all of the other EU nations which will take several months.

I don't. If Scotland wants to stay in the UK that's fine by me; happy to have them but if they want to leave then good luck to them.

How is our PM unelected

As I understand it (and happy to be corrected)

Sturgeon was elected as FM by getting the majority of the MSPs across all parties to vote for this.

May was appointed as PM by the Queen as she is leader of largest party in parliament.

Why is a democratic vote, that has been forced due to lies and misinformation and the right to self determination seen as a bad thing?

At least you agree the Scots are being lied to. I don't understand how you wouldn't think that this is a bad thing. Independent Scotland is not financially possible. You would not be part of the EU before A50 was triggered meaning you were alone. No UK backing, nothing from the EU. You'd be properly fucked. These referendum's cost a fortune. They are weighted in favour of the SNP and still lost to Unionists. The same as remainers wanting a second ref., you can't keep having votes until you get the result you want.

The rest of the UK is beginning to sound like a bitter ex telling us not to come running back if it doesn't work out.

Without the 'bitter' part, you're spot on. England and the UK have supported Scotland for a long time. Many (minority of those who voted) didn't like it. Fair enough. The majority of the voting public did like it and wanted to stay as part of the Union. I would be worried about bordering a bankrupt country and that's why I am in favour of keeping the Union.

Being English and having lived and worked in Scotland I have witnessed and experienced racism towards the English at many levels of Scottish soceity. I have seen how Scots blame everything on their neighbours when the fault actually lies at home. Reaction to the Ford decision to invest in Portugal being a classic example..

I have also felt the genuine sense Scots have of being a separate country with their own identity. Emotionally Scotland will be better off as an independent country.

So from here in the deepest sarf of England I support Scotland standing on their own two feet. And with that of course should come the end of all UK expenditure in places like Rosyth the Clyde, the Beeb and HMRC. As to the Royal Bank of Scotland... I do wonder why the English taxpayer should continue to bail out a problem caused by a Scot.

egosumquisum1

Because we're better together, more people have better negotiating power, people from Scotland can come and work in the rest of the UK and vice versa, it makes trade easier, no customs barriers, no tariffs....

I think that's the argument for Remaining in the UK.

It's probably the argument that Brexiteers want to make to keep Scotland in the UK.

Yep, exactly. Suddenly being in a Union is the best thing ever. I noticed TM making that argument.

There's going to be 5-10 years of instability and negotiations and trade dealing anyway. If Scotland gets out of the UK, they can perhaps shortcut some of all the crap by only having to apply for membership in the EU, which is a well-established process.

Scotland would already meet all the legislative, political and (probably) economic requirements for EU accesssion.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-nicola-sturgeon-scotland-indyref2-independence-europe-theresa-may-hypocrite-a7629686.html