Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
No independent analysis supports that as independent countries they couldn't be better off. Plus England would in your theory save money. Win win.
---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------
Speculative at best
---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------
We would make different choices is hardly a cop out answer. It's the very essence of how, and where, countries promote investment. Do we spend hundreds of millions on Japanese trains or do we spend more to build them here, recognising the consequent economic value of those jobs in their communities bringing subsequent value to their communities?
Do we build high speed train networks or high speed broadband networks?
These are at the very core of economic development.
|
There are of course locations within the UK where the heavy engineering and technology skills exist as a basis for a domestic rolling stock industry. They are however all in England, where hard economics dictates they would all remain because most of what any such facility produces would always be used in England. Much the same could be said of any other example of manufacturing you could name. Within the UK of course it doesn't really matter whether the rail engineering hub is in Darlington or Dundee. It would provide tax receipts to the UK government and machinery to the whole rail network, to the benefit of all. However when you start talking about these things while wilfully neglecting the fact that there would be a major international competitor to the south, you're really not making a very convincing point.