An end to the UK?

[G. Adams]

According to this article, a majority of people in both Scotland and England wish to see independance for Scotland (or independance for the English, depending how you see it). The same poll talked about also shows 68% of the English in support of an English Parliament, a historic high.

Do you think that Scotland and England, perhaps Wales and Ulster too, should part ways? If so, in what way? A free state with Windsors as head of state, as in Australia? Or a republic?

Personally, I'd love to see it happen. Scotland is a net burden on England economically, it is over represented in Parliament and politically quite different from England. Scotland is overwhelmingly statist, while England is far more individualist. A seperation would allow socialist to move to a nearby, English speaking socialist regulation paradise, while Scotlands entrepeneurs could move a reduced regulation, liberal England. And those bastards Blair, Brown and Reid can all bugger off back to their own country. I don't care either way whether Scotland keeps the monarchy as their head of state or become a free republic, but it would be a good oppurtunity to get a proper constitution for England.

I don't mind the Welsh staying with England if they wish, but it'd be great to see and independant Scotland and re-unified Ireland.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As an American, I can't really comment on this, I have no idea about your local politics, I just can't see the point in creating countries so small!

[The Bacon Guy]

NOOOOOOOO!!!

Don't leave me up here under the power of the Scottish voters. If Scotland becomes self governing I am out of here like a shot. England is all that's keeping this country from going totally statist. Anyway, that's my totally selfish and principle-less response.

Really I think the separation is a good thing if the people want it. And heck, if a more liberal, constitutionally limited England is created it gives me somewhere to flee to. It has The Bacon Guy's blessing.

[theco805]

Hmmmm, considering I have never in-depthly studied the UK or either country referred to in this article...
I feel they should do as they feel is necessary, if a majority of the people want independence from either side, they should PEACEFULLY confront the others and discuss it....

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary As an American, I can't really comment on this, I have no idea about your local politics, I just can't see the point in creating countries so small!

England will always be small irrespective of whom Westminster governs. The borders of England were pretty much established to the North by Hadrian and his wall 1800 years back (give or take) before the English even arrived, and towards Wales by Offa and his dyke 1400 years ago.

What you mean is, I think, why make states so small. Why not? The government is closer to it's people. In this case it would also be more homogenous, representing the English people rather than the split interests of Scotland, Wales and Ulster. To demonstrate this, look at the last general election held. If England was independant, we would have a Conservative government in under Michael Howard.

The English economy would benefit. Scottish citizens get more per head of government spending than the English or Welsh do. The Scots are, as a population, quite unhealthy (1 in 3 Scottish children are overweight, as compared to 1 in 6 Americans, bang go the stereotypes) so NHS spending ends up weighted to them, pardon the pun. Moreover, getting shot of those statists would allow us to free up our economy and bring in more investment and cut the debt.

Our military wouldn't be seriously affected, as we would still recruit from Scotland as we do from Ireland, indeed everywhere from the Commonwealth.

As an Englishman I would be ecstatic to see the West Lothian question solved. I am tired of seeing Scottish MP's supporting policies for England that they oppose for Scotland, such as top up fees.

The only loss in my eyes would be to see Ming Cambell and good ol' Charles Kennedy out of my Parliament, but I can live with that seeing as we can send Gordon Brown and John Reid back across the border.

Bacon, your more than welcome in England.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: theco805 Hmmmm, considering I have never in-depthly studied the UK or either country referred to in this article... I feel they should do as they feel is necessary, if a majority of the people want independence from either side, they should PEACEFULLY confront the others and discuss it....

The problem is that none of the 3 major parties want independance. The Conservatives are against it on ideological grounds, while Labour and the LibDems are against it on electoral grounds (they both do very, very well in Scotland). The only party pushing for it is the Scottish National Party, who the English can't vote for since the SNP don't stand in England. Other than the SNP is a bunch of no hopers like the English democrats who I think hold a few local council seats somewhere or other.

I would dearly love the LibDems to grow a pair and suggest this. Their votes would grow in Scotland, and if the argument were made clearly, should at the very least keep place in England. However it won't happen in the near future.

[Jack]

You know, it's obvious that this is an issue solely because all of you really want to wear kilts. It's OK. If you like kilts, wear them. We promise we won't snicker.

[Compugasm]

[The Bacon Guy]

You know, Adams I think you might have just convinced me to vote SNP. I was honestly considering not voting at all in the next election, since I don’t see any of the current parties as worth my time. But, while I don’t really agree with a lot of their policies, if the SNP gain a decent majority in Scotland we’ll at least have a good case for independence.

I think realistically if it is ever going to happen we need the Lib Dems on board, but in the meantime I may as well support the cause through the SNP. And who knows, maybe if they get a respectable majority the Lib Dems will have the sense to join them in their support of independence.

I’ve been wanting to get out of Scotland and if we become self governing I have a damn good reason to. And it will change the English political landscape and maybe give me something I actually want to vote for.

[Praxius]

Go for it...... what's the worse that could happen? Australia? Canada? India? They're all doing pretty good for themselves... for the most part.

I mean, we here in Canada always have a certain select few in Quebec always wanting to separate from the rest of Canada for their own idiotic reasons.

I was always for Ireland and Scotland being their own countries from England, and without the pain in the ass balancing what one former country needs over another in one government, you have each one with their own government and might simplify things.

And the comment on having a country that small? Check out half the countries in Africa, Europe and Asia.

[Forthright]

Quote by: G. Adams Personally, I'd love to see it happen. Scotland is a net burden on England economically

Evidence?

This is actually propaganda and deliberate scaremongering by the Westminster Government over a number of years to undermine the argument for Scottish Independance. It comes from figures published by successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland) which it was claimed were an independent assessment of the situation produced by civil servants without the political interference of ministers. It has since come to light that this was not the case. An extract from the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang, makes this clear:

"The booklet I have had prepared and printed, setting out the details of the Government's expenditure and revenue in Scotland, I judge that it is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain our initiative and undermine the other parties."

The idea that Scotland is a "net burden" on the UK is patently rubbish. According to HM Treasury figures for the period 1975 to 1997 Scotland paid £27 Billion more in taxes than it received in expenditure. A fact which was suppressed by the Government until recently discovered under "Freedom of Information" legaislation.

You also seem completely ignorant of the current situation as to how Scotlands finances are run under devolution, which powers are devolved, which powers are "reserved" ie remain the province of the UK Government, and how the Barnett Formula works.

As an example, Defence is a "reserved" power ie the responsibility of Defence for the whole of the UK rests with the Westminster Government. It is only right therefore that a constituent part of the UK elects members of that Parliament to oversee how that defence is run is it not? This is particularly so when despite the fact that most Scots object to their presence, the UK Government insists on stationing its Trident Nuclear Deterrent on a Scottish river, the Clyde. Thats just one example. Employment. the EU, National Security, Broadcast Policy, Civil Service, Social Security, Constitutional Matters, Energy Policy, Foreign Policy, Transport & Safety Legislation are all reseved matters to be decided upon by a UK Parliament. Are you seriously suggesting that Scots should have no say in any of these matters which clearly affect all Scots? Furthermore, the powers which are devolved, ie purely Scottish matters such as Education, Health, Agriculture & Fisheries etc are funded out of Scottish taxation (The Scottish Parliament has the power to vary the rate of Income Tax above or below what is charged in the rest of the UK) and the Barnett Formula. I will grant that you have a point that MP's representing Scottish Constituencies should not be voting on matters which relate purely to England & Wales (ie Education) but surely this is an argument FOR full Scottish Independance, not against it.

You also don't seem to understand how funding for Scotland works under devolution using the Barnett Formula, or the "Barnett Squeeze" as it is called in Scotland for good reason. This formula is designed to ensure that public expenditure in Scotland goes up by less than it does in the rest of the UK. For example, if public spending in the UK, excluding Scotland, were to rise by say 10% then the yield to Scotland via the Barnett Squeeze would only be 8.1%. The formula is designed to ensure that Scotland gets the same or less than England, not more.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Forthright Evidence? This is actually propaganda and deliberate scaremongering by the Westminster Government over a number of years to undermine the argument for Scottish Independance. It comes from figures published by successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland) which it was claimed were an independent assessment of the situation produced by civil servants without the political interference of ministers. It has since come to light that this was not the case. An extract from the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang, makes this clear: "The booklet I have had prepared and printed, setting out the details of the Government's expenditure and revenue in Scotland, I judge that it is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain our initiative and undermine the other parties." The idea that Scotland is a "net burden" on the UK is patently rubbish. According to HM Treasury figures for the period 1975 to 1997 Scotland paid £27 Billion more in taxes than it received in expenditure. A fact which was suppressed by the Government until recently discovered under "Freedom of Information" legaislation. You also seem completely ignorant of the current situation as to how Scotlands finances are run under devolution, which powers are devolved, which powers are "reserved" ie remain the province of the UK Government, and how the Barnett Formula works. As an example, Defence is a "reserved" power ie the responsibility of Defence for the whole of the UK rests with the Westminster Government. It is only right therefore that a constituent part of the UK elects members of that Parliament to oversee how that defence is run is it not? This is particularly so when despite the fact that most Scots object to their presence, the UK Government insists on stationing its Trident Nuclear Deterrent on a Scottish river, the Clyde. Thats just one example. Employment. the EU, National Security, Broadcast Policy, Civil Service, Social Security, Constitutional Matters, Energy Policy, Foreign Policy, Transport & Safety Legislation are all reseved matters to be decided upon by a UK Parliament. Are you seriously suggesting that Scots should have no say in any of these matters which clearly affect all Scots? Furthermore, the powers which are devolved, ie purely Scottish matters such as Education, Health, Agriculture & Fisheries etc are funded out of Scottish taxation (The Scottish Parliament has the power to vary the rate of Income Tax above or below what is charged in the rest of the UK) and the Barnett Formula. I will grant that you have a point that MP's representing Scottish Constituencies should not be voting on matters which relate purely to England & Wales (ie Education) but surely this is an argument FOR full Scottish Independance, not against it. You also don't seem to understand how funding for Scotland works under devolution using the Barnett Formula, or the "Barnett Squeeze" as it is called in Scotland for good reason. This formula is designed to ensure that public expenditure in Scotland goes up by less than it does in the rest of the UK. For example, if public spending in the UK, excluding Scotland, were to rise by say 10% then the yield to Scotland via the Barnett Squeeze would only be 8.1%. The formula is designed to ensure that Scotland gets the same or less than England, not more.

As I didn't compile the statistics for spending I can't give details as to how they were gathered. However, if your from the UK as I would hazard to guess you are, you have heard the figures given out yourself that, per head, Scotland recieves more than England and Wales. If you wish to take those government figures and lay out how that is false, please do. If those figures are wrong, great, all the more reason for Scotland to leave the Union.


And did the English public receive more or less than they were taxed? I havn't seen figures for that and I'm not prepared to spend a week going through 30 years of tax and spend figures with my exam season coming up. Even so, I will suggest that the English public also lost money over that time because government itself is a net burden, putting less into the economy than it took out. This may be hidden through the public borrowing that goes on, however. Again, if you are right, Scotland should leave.

I am fully aware of how powers have been distributed since devolution, having studied British politics at college and university for over 6 years. I am not in support of devolution, I am in support of independance. Doing so would allow Scots the freedom to dictate policy within their own country in all areas. The only area that might have cross border importance is defence (as I would still like to see England having the ability to raise regiments from Scotland as we do other areas of the Commonwealth). However, seeing as this would be voluntary joining of a regiment, much like a Brit joining the Foreign Legion, I don't see the need for Scots to have a say in this after independance.

I have not however looked into the Barnett formula. However, that alone does not prove Scotland gets less than the rest of the UK, as it doesn't tell me how much Scotland was recieving prior to its implementation. It may be that it is a long term attempt to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the UK.

However, your just giving me more reason for Scotland to leave again.

In terms of economics however, freed from the bastion of statism England could allow it's economy to grow more rapidly and hopefully halt the growing theft of property through tax.

So despite all your attacks on that one point, you still havn't either improved or attacked the arguments for independance, merely given Scot's more reason for independance than the English. That still makes little difference as England will still gain from releasing Scotland.

[Forthright]

Quote by: G. Adams As I didn't compile the statistics for spending I can't give details as to how they were gathered. However, if your from the UK as I would hazard to guess you are, you have heard the figures given out yourself that, per head, Scotland recieves more than England and Wales. If you wish to take those government figures and lay out how that is false, please do. If those figures are wrong, great, all the more reason for Scotland to leave the Union. And did the English public receive more or less than they were taxed? I havn't seen figures for that and I'm not prepared to spend a week going through 30 years of tax and spend figures with my exam season coming up. Even so, I will suggest that the English public also lost money over that time because government itself is a net burden, putting less into the economy than it took out. This may be hidden through the public borrowing that goes on, however. Again, if you are right, Scotland should leave. I am fully aware of how powers have been distributed since devolution, having studied British politics at college and university for over 6 years. I am not in support of devolution, I am in support of independance. Doing so would allow Scots the freedom to dictate policy within their own country in all areas. The only area that might have cross border importance is defence (as I would still like to see England having the ability to raise regiments from Scotland as we do other areas of the Commonwealth). However, seeing as this would be voluntary joining of a regiment, much like a Brit joining the Foreign Legion, I don't see the need for Scots to have a say in this after independance. I have not however looked into the Barnett formula. However, that alone does not prove Scotland gets less than the rest of the UK, as it doesn't tell me how much Scotland was recieving prior to its implementation. It may be that it is a long term attempt to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the UK. However, your just giving me more reason for Scotland to leave again. In terms of economics however, freed from the bastion of statism England could allow it's economy to grow more rapidly and hopefully halt the growing theft of property through tax. So despite all your attacks on that one point, you still havn't either improved or attacked the arguments for independance, merely given Scot's more reason for independance than the English. That still makes little difference as England will still gain from releasing Scotland.

All of which entirely misses the points I was making. I am completely in favour of Scottish Independance. Im against, however, the constant propaganda nonsense that Scotland gets more than anyone else out of the Union and that as a consequence, Scotland will struggle without the Union which I believe is absolute cobblers. There are plenty of nations of a similar size to Scotland and indeed smaller who do perfectly well thank you. Indeed the only two nations to operate a surplus in 2005 were Finland and Luxembourg, both similar in size to Scotland.

BTW, you state you havent looked at the Barnett Formula and you state that per head, Scotland receives more per head than England and Wales. Therefore I would suggest that at this point you dont know what you are talking about becasue the two are intimately related. Initially, upon devolution, your are correct that Scotland received more per head than England or Wales (although not as much as Nortehrn Ireland - a point which is always missed out). This was so that it would give a devolved Scottish Parliament time to organise the funding of devolved powers through its own tax variance powers. The Barnett Formula gradually reduces over time the amount that comes from central UK Government to the Scottish Parliament which in effect means that Scotland gets, in percentage terms, less in public spending than England or Wales (The Barnett Squeeze). The point being that this was meant to ensure "convergance" and by now the amounts per head are at parity. So the argument, whilst having some foundation several years ago (although totally ignoring the reasons for so doing) has absolutely none now and yet it keeps being repeated ad nauseam.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Forthright BTW, you state you havent looked at the Barnett Formula and you state that per head, Scotland receives more per head than England and Wales. Therefore I would suggest that at this point you dont know what you are talking about becasue the two are intimately related. Initially, upon devolution, your are correct that Scotland received more per head than England or Wales (although not as much as Nortehrn Ireland - a point which is always missed out). This was so that it would give a devolved Scottish Parliament time to organise the funding of devolved powers through its own tax variance powers. The Barnett Formula gradually reduces over time the amount that comes from central UK Government to the Scottish Parliament which in effect means that Scotland gets, in percentage terms, less in public spending than England or Wales (The Barnett Squeeze). The point being that this was meant to ensure "convergance" and by now the amounts per head are at parity. So the argument, whilst having some foundation several years ago (although totally ignoring the reasons for so doing) has absolutely none now and yet it keeps being repeated ad nauseam.

I don't know what I'm talking about? You have just confirmed what I wrote

I have not however looked into the Barnett formula. However, that alone does not prove Scotland gets less than the rest of the UK, as it doesn't tell me how much Scotland was recieving prior to its implementation. It may be that it is a long term attempt to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the UK.

Now you have told me the Barnett formula was implemented at the time of devolution, where Scotland was receiving more per head. The squeeze was aimed at convergence, or as I put it, bringing Scotland into line with the rest of the UK. I didn't know of the Barnett formula, yet I guessed as to it's intention correctly. You however, made it out to be something other that it is, note your statement

The formula is designed to ensure that Scotland gets the same or less than England, not more.

By saying this and failing to add that this Barnett formula would cease upon convergence you are suggesting that Scotland is losing from the Union.

And seeing as this is my thread, and the purpose of it is to discuss whether or not Scotland should become independant, could you kindly keep the bulk of your posts on that topic, not on a tangent that the initial post raises for you.

[nish81]

I can't really say much about this subject, but one clear thing seems to be that if a majority of the population in England and Scotland support independence, then clearly the government should look to move in that direction.

[pubmanager]

How would independence affect the north sea gas and oil fields? who would get the rights and how would it affect the English economy if Scotland were to get sole rights as I imagine the fields lie in their territorial waters?

[ByaKya]

it looks like Scotland is similar to the southern states of america, welfare states that eat up most of the tax money and give very little in return.

[pubmanager]

Another thought...

The break up of the UK may give us an opportunity to get rid of the Monarchy by stealth:

Duke of Edinborough - Scotland keep him
Prince of Wales - Wales keep him
Queen - Old and fading fast stays with England

Line of succession broken on account of there being no heir to the throne = Republic of England

Bring it on!

[Autolykos]

If the Scots want to leave the United Kingdom, I say let them. Of course, that would toll the death knell for the United Kingdom.

Who knows? Perhaps this will lead to the last vestiges of British imperialism being thrown out.

- Rob

[brien]

it'd be great to see and independant Scotland and re-unified Ireland.

I will raise my glass to this.