Will Scotland Leave the UK?

[jfman]

Sir Keir pressuring Richard Leonard to call it a day. The big question is will James Kelly step up to the plate?

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's about sovereignty and not being bullied by around by the UK.

Sovereignty is a big thing.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's about sovereignty and not being bullied by around by the UK.

.... also, in the case of Scotland, we dont bully them; we shuffle dosh their way and avoid heaping insults back at them while they merrily rant about our tyranny.

If they vote for independence on a grantable basis, then the settlement will be formulaic as in something like:

1. What waters are theirs (and thus resources);
2. What Scottish Government balances and other instruments we hold;
3. What Scotland owes us on the current account;
4. The tap turns off on S day.

Then some nitty gritty on border rules! It'll be messier than Brexit!

You can be assured that the moaning woman (if she's still First Minister) will castigate us to high heaven, call us bullies and so on when all we'll be doing is a strict accounting exercise.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But what do you really mean and think?

Wheeling out an ATM in the sky does not counter the sovereignty argument which has a strong emotional appeal. If the Scottish people have survived the Global Financial Crisis of 2008/9 and the Covid Crisis of 2020/1, they can survive devolution.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Wheeling out an ATM in the sky does not counter the sovereignty argument which has a strong emotional appeal. If the Scottish people have survived the Global Financial Crisis of 2008/9 and the Covid Crisis of 2020/1, they can survive devolution.

What as in if they can survive eating bef, survive drinking whisKy then they can survive painting windows.

Devolution In the sense of secession is nothing like devolution in the sense of the Union. .

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Wheeling out an ATM in the sky does not counter the sovereignty argument which has a strong emotional appeal. If the Scottish people have survived the Global Financial Crisis of 2008/9 and the Covid Crisis of 2020/1, they can survive devolution.

The cash argument is a big red herring. If it wasn’t cost beneficial for England to govern Scotland they wouldn’t be so vociferously opposing independence.

You’d have statements on the side of a bus. Scotland goes and we will give £350m a week to the NHS. The population of England will be delighted. Scotland goes off to carve its own path.

Oddly that’s not how the discussion plays out.

Originally Posted by jfman

The cash argument is a big red herring. If it wasn’t cost beneficial for England to govern Scotland they wouldn’t be so vociferously opposing independence.

You’d have statements on the side of a bus. Scotland goes and we will give £350m a week to the NHS. The population of England will be delighted. Scotland goes off to carve its own path.

Oddly that’s not how the discussion plays out.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that simplistic argument even yourself. I'm curious as to why you're even bothering.

Scotland has been a net financial beneficiary of the union for almost its entire existence - starting with England rescuing it from bankruptcy after its upper classes decided to try to get into the colonial business by buying a mosquito infested strip of land in Panama called Darien.

Scotland became a net contributor for a brief spell, in the second half of the 20th century, at the height of the north sea oil boom; the size of that contribution is however somewhat debatable because almost all the oil is in international waters and subject to an international treaty that can't be overridden just by drawing a fantasy offshore border between England and Scotland.

England's interest in Scotland has never been directly financial. It has always been - and still is - a matter of social and political stability. Scotland quickly began to thrive in the union and border raids into England duly became a thing of the past. Scotland benefits when England is forced to govern in Scotland's interests (which at Darien would have meant England preferring Scotland's concerns over its otherwise far more important treaty with Spain). England benefits when Scotland is prosperous, because the consequences of poverty and restlessness don't spill over the border.

Scotland has a massive public sector that it simply can't sustain as an independent country. Of course it could be independent - many far less wealthy countries manage it. But it can't both be independent of the UK and continue UK levels of public spending and welfare provision. That's the truth all too readily forgotten by those who think the issue can be reduced to the competing personalities of Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon.

[jfman]

Poverty and restlessness. You make Scotland sound like a third world country. England are subsidising Scotland to tune of billions is a laughable claim and only ever backed by UK calculations.

You’re assuming of course that Scotland would make the same taxation and public spending choices that the UK does, which it may not. Fiscal constraints reduce the ability of Scotland to make investment choices that suit Scotland and encourage investment in Scotland - not the rest of the UK.

Originally Posted by jfman

Poverty and restlessness. You make Scotland sound like a third world country. England are subsidising Scotland to tune of billions is a laughable claim and only ever backed by UK calculations.

You’re assuming of course that Scotland would make the same taxation and public spending choices that the UK does, which it may not. Fiscal constraints reduce the ability of Scotland to make investment choices that suit Scotland and encourage investment in Scotland - not the rest of the UK.

Prior to the creation of the Union, in comparison to the major nations of Europe, Scotland was exactly that - or at least the early 18th century equivalent of it. This is history, not hysteria.

The rest of your post is waffle dressed up in technical language to disguise its lack of substance.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Prior to the creation of the Union, in comparison to the major nations of Europe, Scotland was exactly that - or at least the early 18th century equivalent of it. This is history, not hysteria.

The rest of your post is waffle dressed up in technical language to disguise its lack of substance.

Rubbish. Scotland lacks levers to run an economy in the interest of Scotland.

While I agree there’s some in Scotland who have their social attitudes a couple of hundred years out of date it’s a ridiculous claim to say that Scotland would become a third world country because of living conditions in the 18th century. While there may well be a positive case for the Union I’m sure most forum members would accept that’s patently not one.

Ahem ... strawman. I never said Scotland would become a third world country. I said it would no longer be able to sustain welfare or a public sector of the size the U.K. is able to maintain. The concept of “third world” did not exist at the end of the 17th century but given that Scotland had none of the trappings of rich European nations of the time - principally, colonies, naval power and useful international alliances - and was bankrupted by the Darien scheme, it was impoverished.

“An economy run in the interests of Scotland” is a self-serving nationalist argument. It boils down to the claim that the economy is not run in Scotland’s interests because it is not run in Scotland by Scots. The counter argument is that forcing England to reckon with Scotland as part of the home territory is very much in Scotland’s interest, as is the ability of Scottish MPs to sit in the Westminster parliament and see the entire territory governed as one - even on matters pertaining only to England, because even those issues have a knock-on effect in Scotland.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

The cash argument is a big red herring. If it wasn’t cost beneficial for England to govern Scotland they wouldn’t be so vociferously opposing independence.

You’d have statements on the side of a bus. Scotland goes and we will give £350m a week to the NHS. The population of England will be delighted. Scotland goes off to carve its own path.

Oddly that’s not how the discussion plays out.

No - it's much deeper than that. Englanders are forked between sod 'em and the Union, a much prised constitutional arrangement that suits this island configuration perfectly. Btw, I'm for the Union - but still, sod 'em.

From their side, they're equally forked. The more intelligent they are (I mean this), the more thinking they'll be doing and will understand the financial strength of the Union. The rest will stick their chests out and cry sod you to us.

Your second paragraph is a useful observation of how politics might turn if an English Scoxit Party was formed!

[nashville]

I really dread to think the disaster Scotland would be in if they got a yes.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nashville

I really dread to think the disaster Scotland would be in if they got a yes.

When it comes to the current exam grades fiasco, there's plenty of children and their parents in England who wish England adopted Scotland's solution so perhaps giving the country independence might not be the disaster you believe it will be.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When it comes to the current exam grades fiasco, there's plenty of children and their parents in England who wish England adopted Scotland's solution so perhaps giving the country independence might not be the disaster you believe it will be.

Disaster for whom? You prolly meant Scotland.

So what benefit might Scotland draw from independence in the circumstances you have set out?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When it comes to the current exam grades fiasco, there's plenty of children and their parents in England who wish England adopted Scotland's solution so perhaps giving the country independence might not be the disaster you believe it will be.

Essentially many people in Scotland see an independent state as a cultural attack on them, and all they have to link themselves to their cultural heritage is the outdated remnants of the British state. Monarchy, House of Lords, various titles of nobility.

There’s zero actual 21st century politics behind it.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Disaster for whom? You prolly meant Scotland.

So what benefit might Scotland draw from independence in the circumstances you have set out?

Control of our borders, economy, not to be dictated to from people we didn’t elect in a far flung city. To escape corruption and political appointees.

I’d have thought the Honourable Member for Wokingham would have been fully on board with this.