An Independent Scotland?
- Thread starter rz30
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 895
- Location
- Sydney
WHy would you not count revenue which can be accrued from your natural resources?
because if scotland leaves the UK they more than likely wont belong to scotland.
go do some research on the north sea
the union flag will change to reflect the change in the union. whats left of the UK could indeed leave the EU however i very much doubt it will, as no one in government ( or opposition ) has the testicular fortitude to do such a thing. Scotland hopefully won't pee away it's newly gained independance by jumping into bed with the unnacountable, flawed mess that the EU is rapidly turning out to be.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,245
- Location
- Inverkip
Oh, the irony. Scots constantly get baited as being anti-English but the overwhelming number of posts here that are clearly anti-Scottish is phenomenal.
Scotland, Wales and Ireland are culturally identical as they are Celtic countries while England was a Norman freehold.
Scotland, Wales and Ireland are culturally identical as they are Celtic countries while England was a Norman freehold.
Don't be silly. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Biohazard has Mel Gibsons Braveheart speech tattooed somewhere on his person
.
The word cleverly does not spring to mind.
It's clear that today Scotland (and Wales and NI) are an economic burden on England. As separate countries, England would be richer and the others poorer. However, England would be a diminished state compared to the UK we have today. It benefits all concerned to be part of the UK rather than an independent England/Wales/Scotland/NI.
Additionally, looking forward we can never know how valuable these other countries will be. Wales has more agricultural land per person than England does (and a wetter climate). If the South East becomes even drier as some climate models are suggesting, Wales could become a major source of water for the SE. Scotland also has a far better wind energy resource, both on and offshore than England, if the UK does end up getting some 30%+ of our energy from Wind in a few decades time, Scotland will be a major energy exporter to the England.
In short it's not in anyone's interest. Certainly not the Scots etc and also not for the English.
Indeed, the union is mutually beneficial, despite what the naysayers and independence advocates would have people believe. The bigger problem from an English point of view is devolution. The Union as a whole contributes to the bigger spend per head in the other home nations, footing the bill for ambitious healthcare, education and spending policies, defence spending and so on. And its not often the English benefit from most of these.
It's always ironic when it supports your point of view, isn't it? It's rife on both sides of the argument but the mods don't really seem to mind it.
I'd agree with eddie on this. There's very little anti-English abuse on these forums but every time a thread touches on something Scottish you get what is essentially racism from a select group of posters. It doesn't really bother me but it's hard not to notice it.
STV
Some interesting figures there which ought to make people at least question the prevailing notion of a subsidised Scotland. Most people seem to accept as fact that Scotland is an economic burden - after all, the London newspapers have decreed it.
Who can say with any certainty where Scotland will end up or which particular settlement would be the most beneficial? I can't, so I'm content to leave these questions in the capable hands of the Scottish people.