rovex Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Whilst having no particularly strong feelings over Scottish independence, I do wonder whether England and Wales would be better off without Scotland? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2014 No. We should stick together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Oh dear. I predict this thread having a very short shelf life... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovex Posted February 27, 2014 Author Share Posted February 27, 2014 Oh dear. I predict this thread having a very short shelf life... You're probably right but if we could all try and be civil you may be surprised - although I doubt it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Dienstleiter Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I agree that the four countries are better off together. I do think though that there should be much more devolution from Westminster and not just for Scotland. However, perhaps it should be noted that the cost per head of the population of Scotland to the UK government is higher than the other three - even allowing for Ulster security costs - so in that sense, if Scottish residents do vote for independence, there would be a per capita cost reduction in the rUK ... there would be potential for a small reduction in taxes but that might be offset by the costs of border security between England and a newly foreign country. A foreign country which, we might note, is planning a defence establishment larger than that of Belgium and the Netherlands combined. What would all those troops be for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc435 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Hollywood has a more realistic view on the world than Holyrood! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two_sugars Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Can we bring back the reivers? editttted for spoolingngng Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2014 Can we bring back the reivers? editttted for spoolingngng You can if you want, me I live north of Derby and I would prefer peace and quiet thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I agree that the four countries are better off together. I do think though that there should be much more devolution from Westminster and not just for Scotland. That's probably the only way that the Union could be saved, either now or, if this referendum fails, in a generation's time. However, perhaps it should be noted that the cost per head of the population of Scotland to the UK government is higher than the other three - even allowing for Ulster security costs - so in that sense, if Scottish residents do vote for independence, there would be a per capita cost reduction in the rUK ... there would be potential for a small reduction in taxes.... Not exactly true, if Scotland did become independent the Treasury would loose more in tax income than it would gain by loosing it's present payments to Scotland. So an independent Scotland is likely to be better off and the rUK worse. ....but that might be offset by the costs of border security between England and a newly foreign country. That is pure paranoia. The borders between the UK and the Republic of Ireland have always been open, and I can see no reason for a different arrangement between Scotland and the UK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2014 Scotland already has its own bank notes that some places wont accept, more so the further South you are away from the Scottish boarder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2014 The only problem with devolution of power is the rise of another layer of politicians.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2014 Not exactly true, if Scotland did become independent the Treasury would loose more in tax income than it would gain by loosing it's present payments to Scotland. So an independent Scotland is likely to be better off and the rUK worse. If meaning oil revenues, I always find it amusing when in Shetland that they regard themselves more as Scandinavians and not Scottish, the general feeling was that the Scots were trying to claim something which did not belong to them. Seems you can't please anyone........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2014 So, after the referendum will it still be this?: Or will it be this?: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete 75C Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 As a bit of fun, I might open an imaginary book on this thread... I'll kick off with a bet that the thread reaches post #38 (with one warning from a moderator) before lock down... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I wish there was a device that could show what people were thinking vice what they were saying. Would be very useful with politicians (would probably blow a fuse). The whole debate is very complex and the inability of politicians to tell the truth or to reveal their true agendas makes it very hard for 'joe public' to get a true vision of the subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 As a bit of fun, I might open an imaginary book on this thread... I'll kick off with a bet that the thread reaches post #38 (with one warning from a moderator) before lock down... the use of 'repatriation' will probably be the trigger for lock down Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The only thing I'll add to this thread before it breaks down and is locked (typing feverishly) is that Mr. Salmond has a nice singing voice... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 The reason that Salmond can promise the earth is that the Scots don't have such a long life span as the English (too many deep-fried Mars bars?), so the pension bill will be less. Ed The answer to the OP is a definite NO, I certainly hope the vote is agin, but I suspect that even if it is we haven't heard the last of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Very hard to say. Financially, whether we would be better off "down south" without Scotland depends on exactly how you do the sums. The SNPs projections of an independent Scotland's financial future seem to assume a best case scenario with Scotland walking away from the UK national debt but keeping all the oil revenues. In that scenario, rUK would probably be worse off, even with the higher per-capita currently allocated to Scotland. However such a deal is extremely unlikely to be agreed, however much the SNP might want it. In fact, the most realistic proposal I have seen so far would be a straight oil-for debt swap. Curiously, if we assume that Scotland owes 8% of the national debt (on the the simple basis that 8% of the UK population live there) then 8% of the national debt is actually pretty close to the value of the estimated oil reserves remaining to be extracted from beneath Scottish waters. Based on simple per-capita calculations, rUK would benefit marginally from scottish independence as it would leave a slightly larger slice of the pie for those of us south of the border. However I suspect that any benefits would likely be lost due to the costs of having to duplicate legislative agencies and having to replace key national infrastructure such as Faslane. People often comment that lawyers are the ones who benefit most financially from a divorce and I suspect the same is true here. It will not be the voters on either side of the border who get any financial benefit from independence. Any gains will be swallowed up by the costs of duplicating organisations and infrastructure on either side of the border that is currently shared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 It seem to me that Westminster government have been sleep waking into this situation for the last 50 years. I have the feeling that very little serious thought has been given to how the lot of all the peripheral regions could be improved in terms of both economics and governance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2014 Who currently pays for Network Rail North of the border? If Scotland gain Independence who would pay for rail infrastructure in between the more important towns either side of the borders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 27, 2014 The London centered establishment would strengthen and those residents of the UK outside the M25 would probably be financially worse off and ignored more than usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 What seems strange to me is that the very many Scots who happen to live in another part of their United Kingdom are denied a say in what happens to their nation within the UK. In other words if you're a Scot who happens to live in Newcastle, which doesn't make you a migrant except perhaps in Mr. Salmond's eyes, you could effectively be turned into a foreigner without having had a say in it. If we hadn't been a United Kingdom then we probably wouldn't have had the combined strength to stand up to Hitler, the Kaiser or Bonaparte. That's worth a heck of a lot more than a penny or two on or off the income tax or making a few politicians in Edinburgh feel much more important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Y'know, I think recent events have given the satirical cartoonists a bit of a field day..... Peter Brookes in particular has really got it in for Salmond! Ziggy played Stranraer....! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted February 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 27, 2014 Speaking to a Scot who lives South of the border recently, they said that the reason they were denied a vote on their homeland was because they had chosen to leave it for work and felt it was the SNP sticking 2 fingers up to them for doing so. They also said that they had worked with Salmond in the past and feared that it was just a big vanity project for him with little hope of actually working. On a recent holiday the subject came up with a mix of Europeans and North Americans and all were completely bemused as to why Scotland would want to leave the UK, they also all felt that what they had seen and read had been nothing more than "soundbite politics" with nothing substantial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.