Scottish Independence - Yay or Nay?

[pistolped7]

The SNP have now been elected into the Scottish Parliament and wish to get an independence referendum out within their five year term. So, simply put, independence for Scotland. Yes or no?

 

[Joel`]

From an English point of view; yes, go for it.

 

[ajt09]

Every country should be independent, should have control of its own borders and should pay its own way in the world. That includes England.As to whether Scotland can survive on its own – it should be borne in mind that the Act Of Union was largely a result of Scotland’s bankruptcy following the failure of the Darien Scheme. It seems that history is repeating itself with the recent collapse of Scottish financial institutions. Just make sure you don't have people in charge like Gordon Brown

 

[Calum]

no I'm Scottish and dont want idenpendence

 

[GodCubed]

As an Englishman, yep. As a Briton, I hope not.

 

[pistolped7]

I would personally, because I feel that a Scottish Parliament would have Scotland's interests at heart, as I feel a British parliament doesn't. Plus, the North Sea oil would provide a large source of income for us, rather than it going down south, as with things like fishing, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

no I'm Scottish and dont want idenpendence

Why not?

 

[Shay Given]

Yay.

 

[GodCubed]

I would personally, because I feel that a Scottish Parliament would have Scotland's interests at heart, as I feel a British parliament doesn't. Plus, the North Sea oil would provide a large source of income for us, rather than it going down south, as with things like fishing, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------



Why not?

Errr... you do realise that England subsidises you in Scotland massively, right?

 

[Calum]

I would personally, because I feel that a Scottish Parliament would have Scotland's interests at heart, as I feel a British parliament doesn't. Plus, the North Sea oil would provide a large source of income for us, rather than it going down south, as with things like fishing, etc.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------



Why not?

Why change something that works well?

 

[Joel`]

Errr... you do realise that England subsidises you in Scotland massively, right?

Which is why they can go be independent. It's beyond me how they've got the money for free tuition fees and prescriptions.

 

[pistolped7]

Errr... you do realise that England subsidises you in Scotland massively, right?

Yes, but I still feel that we'd be able to cope pretty comfortably on our own. I realise that England does contribute a lot financially, but I still feel that the English parliament sees us as a bit of a burden, as if they just don't care anymore.

 

[toddzy]

Nay for me. On the surface it looks like a cracking plan, but you're naive imo to believe we could cope.

 

[GodCubed]

Yes, but I still feel that we'd be able to cope pretty comfortably on our own. I realise that England does contribute a lot financially, but I still feel that the English parliament sees us as a bit of a burden, as if they just don't care anymore.

It makes your whole thing on North Sea oil utterly redundant, though, since any money you make from that is not only kept by you, but we also have to GIVE you money to stay afloat and fund the things you need. I don't think there would be any coping 'comfortably'.

 

[pistolped7]

It makes your whole thing on North Sea oil utterly redundant, though, since any money you make from that is not only kept by you, but we also have to GIVE you money to stay afloat and fund the things you need. I don't think there would be any coping 'comfortably'.

I'm pretty sure we don't keep all the North Sea oil money.

 

[Joel`]

It makes your whole thing on North Sea oil utterly redundant, though, since any money you make from that is not only kept by you, but we also have to GIVE you money to stay afloat and fund the things you need. I don't think there would be any coping 'comfortably'.

Plus Scottish employment is already higher than ours, and will only get worse without our funding.

In the long run sure you could 'cope comfortably' but it'd be a **** of a hard transitional process in my opinion.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

The oil isn't substantial enough - the Norwegians told the Scots that their idea of an oil fund was silly. There's almost no oil there, at all. When compared to Norway, who just found another few years worth of budgets, Scotland's minimal resources won't hold up. Scotland could do well in the future - but there are some problems that need to be addressed;

• Unemployment.
• Education.
• Health.

Scotland's got too high an unemployment rate for the pros to weigh up the cons. The system of education is good, but too many do worthless degrees or don't do any at all (this includes the EU as a whole, but Scotland as a small country would need expertise). Scottish health needs to be addressed as well, we're too unhealthy.

I would be all for greater devolution of power, but not for complete independence yet, at least until certain cultural aspects were sorted out.

 

[Joel`]

You could always just get Gordon Brown in charge for the first few years, spending money you don't have should keep you going for a while.

 

[Jack Fulham]

If Scotland want independence, they should get it. If you look at the economics of it, we may be better off without them.

 

[Joss]

Good luck to Scotland, but I think they may regret it. Beneficial financially for England without doubt if they have complete independence.

 

[Joel`]

If Scotland want independence, they should get it. If you look at the economics of it, we may be better off without them.

We would no doubt be better off. Scotland receives a larger average tax received per person than England does, and it's mainly England generating that tax in the first place.