By the sound of it campaigning has already started:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-scotland-16478121 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-scotland-16478121)
Quote
Scotland to hold independence poll in 2014 - Salmond
10 January 12 20:17
Scotland plans to hold an independence referendum in the autumn of 2014, First Minister Alex Salmond has said.
He said this date would allow the Scottish people to make a "considered" decision on Scotland's future within the United Kingdom.
The news came as the UK government said a referendum would be unconstitutional without its authority.
It has said it wanted to work with the SNP-led administration amid a row over the timing and conditions for a poll.
Confirming the Scottish government's preferred date for a referendum, Mr Salmond - who wants Scotland to leave the UK - said holding a poll in 2014 would allow all the necessary legislation required to authorise it to be passed and for proper preparations to be made, he said.
'Made in Scotland'
Mr Salmond added: "The date for the referendum has to be the autumn of 2014. That's because this is the biggest decision that Scotland has made for 300 years. If you are going to do things properly and have the debate in the way it must be had then that is the date that we are going to move towards."
The referendum had "to be made in Scotland" and be approved by the Scottish Parliament and he warned the UK government about "trying to pull the strings behind the scenes".
He said: "What Scotland objects to is all the strings they (the UK government) are trying to to attach. They are trying to run a referendum by proxy."
Prime Minister David Cameron has warned that uncertainty over Scotland's future is damaging its economy and all three Unionist parties - the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats - have called for any referendum vote to be held as soon as possible.
In a statement to MPs, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said it was the government's "clear view" that the power to hold a referendum was "reserved" to Westminster under laws passed in 1998 paving the way for Scottish devolution and the Scottish government could not authorise a referendum on its own.
'Legal and fair'
The Lib Dem minister told MPs: "The consultation paper I am publishing today sets out different ways to deliver a legal, fair and decisive referendum.
"It explains how the powers for a referendum could be devolved under the Section 30 order-making provisions in the Scotland Act 1998 - our preferred approach.
"It also invites views on devolving the powers using other legislation, including the current Scotland Bill, and for opinions on the possibility of running the referendum directly.
"Given the clear legal problem that exists, we want to work with the Scottish government to provide the answer.
"This is not about the mandates of Scotland's two governments, or who calls the shots. It is about empowering the people of Scotland to participate in a legal referendum. That means that the UK government is willing to give the Scottish Parliament the powers to hold a referendum which they otherwise cannot do legally."
Mr Moore said the UK government was not suggesting a date for the poll in its consultation but it would recommend a single Yes or No question - rather than a third option such as increased financial powers for the Scottish government short of full independence.
'Clarity sought'
BBC Scotland's Political Editor Brian Taylor said the UK and Scottish governments were divided over the issue of the timing of the referendum, the question to be put to the public and who should oversee the voting process.
Among other areas yet to be clarified are whether the referendum will be legally binding or merely advisory and whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote - a proposal backed by the Scottish government but opposed by the UK government.
For Labour, the party's Scottish leader Johann Lamont called for cross-party talks in Scotland to determine the details of the referendum.
"At last a degree of clarity but this must just be the start," she said of Mr Salmond's announcement. "We need to know that there will be just one question, what that question is, and that the Electoral Commission will administer it."
And Ruth Davidson, the Conservatives' leader in Scotland, said the "decision has to be made by the Scottish people - not held up for years in the Scottish courts".
Personally I'd like to see a simultaneous vote in the rest of the UK asking if they wished to end the Union. :bowler:
What happens if the English vote to Kick the Scots out first?
"Vanguard force put on full alert."
I like the idea that we have referendum day. Scots, Welsh, and why not, the Cornish vote on independence, we all vote on EU membership and the X Factor final at once.
How much of the national debt will the hagis eaters be on the hook for?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 03:47:53 PM
I like the idea that we have referendum day. Scots, Welsh, and why not, the Cornish vote on independence, we all vote on EU membership and the X Factor final at once.
By why disenfranchise the vast majority, 48 million or so, in your plan ?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
How much of the national debt will the hagis eaters be on the hook for?
Lord knows. That and other practicalities would be worked out afterwards. It doesn't really matter at the minute.
The fiscal situation's an issue of contention though and it would be hell to work out. The SNP claim that they've run a surplus for four of the past five years. Which is true, unless you take away the Barnett formula money from the rest of the UK. They would then counter that we've taken their North Sea oil (and levied taxes on it) that would probably counter that.
But then of course RBS would have tanked the Scots if they weren't in the Union so they'd look like Ireland.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:51:57 PM
By why disenfranchise the vast majority, 48 million or so, in you plan ?
They at least get a vote on the X Factor final.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
Lord knows. That and other practicalities would be worked out afterwards. It doesn't really matter at the minute.
I'm not sure holders of British sovereigns would be totally enthusiastic with that approach.
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 03:51:57 PM
By why disenfranchise the vast majority, 48 million or so, in you plan ?
They at least get a vote on the X Factor final.
And EU membership.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 04:01:30 PM
And EU membership.
Maybe each county should get to vote in independence? The Worcestershire Republic could dominate the sauce industry.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 04:00:32 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
Lord knows. That and other practicalities would be worked out afterwards. It doesn't really matter at the minute.
I'm not sure holders of British sovereigns would be totally enthusiastic with that approach.
It, like everything else would be settled after the vote. It's not like the Scots vote 'yes' and the next day they're independent. There'd be a long period of negotiations to settle things like national debt, the armed forces, the Monarchy (they want to keep it), things like central banking reserves and all the rest. Even if they vote yes I imagine they'd only be independent by around 2020.
Also we've negative real interest rates on gilts so we can afford some worry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
How much of the national debt will the hagis eaters be on the hook for?
Lord knows. That and other practicalities would be worked out afterwards. It doesn't really matter at the minute
You'd think knowing how much debt you have due to your decision would be a pretty big priority for the voters
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2012, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 04:01:30 PM
And EU membership.
Maybe each county should get to vote in independence? The Worcestershire Republic could dominate the sauce industry.
Most counties don't have identity. I could happily get behind an independent Wessex though. To use Dorset's motto, who's afeard? :menace:
A winning idea. The UK and EU benefit from having the Scots out of it, and the Scots get to control their own destiny.
Yay for mini-countries. <_<
It's funny how the federalists arguments are exactly the same as here.
Well, good luck to the Scots on whatever they choose.
@Yi:
following precedents in independance (ex-Yugoslavia, ex Tchecoslovaquia) it seems that it can be split either by the proportion of assets present in the newly formed country or pro-rata to the population. I believe that for Kosovo they used the asset method. For an occidental country not ravaged by war and with a complete social system in place, I do think however a split of the debt based on population would be fairer. It's not like governments endebt themselves solely for the purchase of assets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 04:07:22 PM
Indeed :w00t:
I just do not get what practical purpose they serve than satisfying the egos of nationalists.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Yay for mini-countries. <_<
Big countries like the US are the way to go. Strong economy, strong leadership, rapid reaction time from central governing authority, smallest possible government and absolutely no diseconomy of scale. Everyone lives in harmony with one another and despite some small differences, they always on the core issues, like debt ceiling, spending levels, social rights like abortion and gay marriage, etc. :)
Quote from: viper37 on January 10, 2012, 04:23:38 PM
Big countries like the US are the way to go. Strong economy, strong leadership, rapid reaction time from central governing authority, smallest possible government and absolutely no diseconomy of scale. Everyone lives in harmony with one another and despite some small differences, they always on the core issues, like debt ceiling, spending levels, social rights like abortion and gay marriage, etc. :)
Wait debt ceiling, spending levels, abortion, and gay marriage are core issues of a country? Those are more like wedge issues.
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2012, 04:24:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 10, 2012, 04:23:38 PM
Big countries like the US are the way to go. Strong economy, strong leadership, rapid reaction time from central governing authority, smallest possible government and absolutely no diseconomy of scale. Everyone lives in harmony with one another and despite some small differences, they always on the core issues, like debt ceiling, spending levels, social rights like abortion and gay marriage, etc. :)
Wait debt ceiling, spending levels, abortion, and gay marriage are core issues of a country? Those are more like wedge issues.
Thin or thick end ?
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2012, 04:27:46 PM
Thin or thick end ?
Thin, so you can pry votes away from your opponent.
Quote from: viper37 on January 10, 2012, 04:20:45 PMfollowing precedents in independance (ex-Yugoslavia, ex Tchecoslovaquia) it seems that it can be split either by the proportion of assets present in the newly formed country or pro-rata to the population. I believe that for Kosovo they used the asset method. For an occidental country not ravaged by war and with a complete social system in place, I do think however a split of the debt based on population would be fairer. It's not like governments endebt themselves solely for the purchase of assets.
I would use GDP, not population. Scotland is probably poorer than England, no?
Quote from: viper37 on January 10, 2012, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
Yay for mini-countries. <_<
Big countries like the US are the way to go. Strong economy, strong leadership, rapid reaction time from central governing authority, smallest possible government and absolutely no diseconomy of scale. Everyone lives in harmony with one another and despite some small differences, they always on the core issues, like debt ceiling, spending levels, social rights like abortion and gay marriage, etc. :)
I'd say we a lot more coherent pull and power than we would as set of 50 "completely independent" countries. That bit is in scare quotes as I don't see how a small state could really be independent from its near neighbors except in name.
Quote from: Zanza on January 10, 2012, 04:30:32 PM
I would use GDP, not population. Scotland is probably poorer than England, no?
Yeah. Far poorer.
Disgusting. Lay waste to Scotland if they dare secede! :mad:
I would prefer a vote sooner rather than later. I just don't trust the SNP. All being normal the vote would certainly be for the union to continue.
After the SNP have played their games for a few years though they might just trick enough people so they can sneak through with a small majority.
Pff, thats the trouble with votes like this. You say status quo then you can always have another referendum in a few years time, if it comes up independence though then thats that, the country is screwed...
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 10, 2012, 04:30:32 PM
I would use GDP, not population. Scotland is probably poorer than England, no?
Yeah. Far poorer.
Well, maybe they can sort that out once they become their own country. Ireland was very poor for a long time after breaking off. It only became an affluent country relatively recently. Since the late 1980's early 1990's.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 07:19:31 PM
Well, maybe they can sort that out once they become their own country. Ireland was very poor for a long time after breaking off. It only became an affluent country relatively recently. Since the late 1980's early 1990's.
And then only for a few weeks.
This is all because they have to field a unified Great Britain football team for the Olympics, isn't it? :huh:
Quote from: Tyr on January 10, 2012, 07:15:28 PM
I would prefer a vote sooner rather than later. I just don't trust the SNP. All being normal the vote would certainly be for the union to continue.
After the SNP have played their games for a few years though they might just trick enough people so they can sneak through with a small majority.
I love Salmond. They've not set the question yet. The SNP want the third option of maximum devolution.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 04:05:37 PM
the Monarchy (they want to keep it)
As in a personal union?
Quote from: dps on January 10, 2012, 07:57:03 PMAs in a personal union?
I'd be so annoyed if they kept on insulting England :(
I think so though. It's basically like Canada.
Oh, so now you'll know what it's like to have snooty northern neighbors.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 08:05:24 PM
Oh, so now you'll know what it's like to have snooty northern neighbors.
You don't have the moral authority to call Iowa snooty.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 10, 2012, 06:06:51 PM
Disgusting. Lay waste to Scotland if they dare secede! :mad:
Stop tainting my nuclear cleansing.
Hmm, looks like another William Wallace moment in the making! :hmm:
They should really take their colony in Northern Ireland with them if they gain independence.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 11, 2012, 03:16:50 AM
They should really take their colony in Northern Ireland with them if they gain independence.
AHRA (Anti-Haggis Liberation Army) soon?
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
How much of the national debt will the hagis eaters be on the hook for?
Lord knows. That and other practicalities would be worked out afterwards. It doesn't really matter at the minute.
Of course it matters. Only a fool promises to buy an item without knowing its cost.
And the English should have a vote on whether to dissolve the union as well.
Good luck to them but they should have to kiss goodbye to tax support from the rest of the UK.
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2012, 06:32:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 03:49:18 PM
How much of the national debt will the hagis eaters be on the hook for?
Lord knows. That and other practicalities would be worked out afterwards. It doesn't really matter at the minute.
Of course it matters. Only a fool promises to buy an item without knowing its cost.
And the English should have a vote on whether to dissolve the union as well.
This has been my view for some time as well. :bowler:
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2012, 07:19:39 AM
Good luck to them but they should have to kiss goodbye to tax support from the rest of the UK.
I thought that was a given even by the SNP (but of course that the SNP argues that they would gain more from North Sea oil revenues than they would lose from tax support).
Didn't someone mention the last time this topic came up that Brent is tapping out?
I think there's still a trillion quids worth down there, 90% in Scottish waters. There's also, I think, a lot of exploration going on around Shetland that looks promising.
Time to dig up zombie Edward Longshanks. [According to legend, it's what he wanted ... ]
QuoteA more dubious story tells of how he wished for his bones be carried along on future expeditions against the Scots.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 09:49:21 AM
Didn't someone mention the last time this topic came up that Brent is tapping out?
It is, although it's mitigated by rising prices so 2008/09 was a record year (£12bn)
I had to do the sums on Britain's oil reserves for someone too young to have been taught proper sums today:
The UK's proven, probable and possible oil reserves stand at 24 billion barrels. If it is consuming 1,590,000 barrels per day, how many years of oil has it got left?
Less than 41 and a half years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2012, 10:00:13 AM
I think there's still a trillion quids worth down there, 90% in Scottish waters. There's also, I think, a lot of exploration going on around Shetland that looks promising.
When I rather tongue in cheekly suggested in another one of these Scot threads that this was a cynical plan to take the oil for itself you said I was wrong and the North Sea oil was in decline didn't you? :hmm:
You are wrong and it is. It's still a decent amount though, but it is in decline. Shetland looks good, from what I understand, but nothing's actually been found yet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2012, 10:00:13 AM
I think there's still a trillion quids worth down there, 90% in Scottish waters. There's also, I think, a lot of exploration going on around Shetland that looks promising.
It's not worth a trillion quid if it costs a trillion quid to get it out. Oil output is declining pretty rapidly and England and Scotland whether jointly or seperately are going to have to adjust to losing a solid 2% of total Govt receipts.
It'll be fun watching Salmon crush Cameron tactically. I don't like Salmon but he is a world class politician, one of the best the UK has ever seen, while Cameron is inexperienced and inept and this kind of stuff.
Fishy guy, huh?
He's fine. It's really his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, you need to worry about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 11, 2012, 11:09:45 AM
He's fine. It's really his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, you need to worry about.
:lol:
Oh wait that really is his deputy :lmfao:. There definitely is something fishy about the SNP.
Quote from: Brazen on January 11, 2012, 10:08:27 AM
I had to do the sums on Britain's oil reserves for someone too young to have been taught proper sums today:
The UK's proven, probable and possible oil reserves stand at 24 billion barrels. If it is consuming 1,590,000 barrels per day, how many years of oil has it got left?
Less than 41 and a half years.
I don't see how you can conflate those three different terms together; possible means how much, exactly ? :hmm:
UK
proved reserves are 2.8 thousand million barrels giving an R/P of a bit under 6 years.
Or using your consumption figures, if things were hypothecated out that way, 1761 days worth or 4.8 years* !
* based on 2010 figures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 07:20:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 07:19:31 PM
Well, maybe they can sort that out once they become their own country. Ireland was very poor for a long time after breaking off. It only became an affluent country relatively recently. Since the late 1980's early 1990's.
And then only for a few weeks.
Ireland is still richer than the UK, Germany or France despite their massive recession.
Quote from: Zanza on January 11, 2012, 01:59:28 PM
Ireland is still richer than the UK, Germany or France despite their massive recession.
You're shitting me. :o
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 02:05:38 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 11, 2012, 01:59:28 PM
Ireland is still richer than the UK, Germany or France despite their massive recession.
You're shitting me. :o
In 2010, Irelands purchasing power per capita was at 128% of the EU average. Germany was at 118%, UK at 112%, France at 108%, USA at 148%. Actually, in 2010, only the Netherlands and Luxembourg of the 27 EU states were richer than Ireland. Figures from Eurostat. CIA Factbook is similar.
Quote from: Gups on January 11, 2012, 10:31:42 AM
It'll be fun watching Salmon crush Cameron tactically. I don't like Salmon but he is a world class politician, one of the best the UK has ever seen, while Cameron is inexperienced and inept and this kind of stuff.
I like Salmond and I think he'll be especially impressive in the campaign he's always dreamed of against the dream opponent. They'll probably get Rifkind, Scotland's Portillo, into the campaign too. Salmond could win it, especially if the papers are right and George Osborne is leading the cabinet on this issue. It's extraordinary that they're being led on this by someone who looks like an effete, sneering English landlord about to clear his tenants off the land.
The Tories really seem to rate George Osborne as a political operator, but I don't see it myself.
Tory bumbling and Lib Dem irrelevance wouldn't normally matter in Scotland, because Scottish Labour would do their job. I imagine Murphy, Darling and Brown will do well, but it's difficult to see Miliband or Lamont making much of an impression. It may not be enough. The dearth of talent, with the exception of Salmond, is incredible
Edit: Also I'm sure the SNP will be able to do something with the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn a month or two before the referendum. Given that they used to hand out leaflets in the lobby of cinemas showing Braveheart they won't disappoint :lol:
Is it really that surprising? Politics doesn't attract talented people the way that it used to, because talented people aren't really required. These days, they're just filling seats in the Commons and following orders from the PMO.
Quote from: Neil on January 11, 2012, 06:26:55 PM
Is it really that surprising? Politics doesn't attract talented people the way that it used to, because talented people aren't really required. These days, they're just filling seats in the Commons and following orders from the PMO.
Actually the Commons is more rebellious than any point in the post-war era and getting more rebellious. Lots of MPs now have a personal relationship with their constituency, they're far less in thrall to the party leader. There are some very impressive MPs now, certainly far more than in recent years.
What I really mean though is that Scottish Labour's best politicians want to be in a UK cabinet, that's their burning ambition. For the SNP, on the other hand, all they want is to be in the Scottish government pushing for an independent Scotland.
The trouble with politics isn't so much that it doesn't attract talented people but that it has gotten too professional.
People go off to university with the plan of one day worming their way into being a politician. They use mommy and daddys money and connections to go off and do fancy internships and all that sort of thing and steadily squeeze their way into this desirable job.
The way it should be, the way it was, of course is that it is what some people go into because they want to improve the country/fix a particular thing, often after having a career actually doing something.
QuoteI think there's still a trillion quids worth down there, 90% in Scottish waters. There's also, I think, a lot of exploration going on around Shetland that looks promising..
I always love it when the SNP use the "Its Scotlands oil!!!" bollocks.
Why is the small area of the whole of Scotland entitled to it but not say the small area of the whole of Shetland?
Shetland could make a pretty penny if they were to go independent....
Quote from: Tyr on January 11, 2012, 07:12:55 PM
I always love it when the SNP use the "Its Scotlands oil!!!" bollocks.
Why is the small area of the whole of Scotland entitled to it but not say the small area of the whole of Shetland?
Shetland could make a pretty penny if they were to go independent....
Probably because of the way all countries' Exclusive Economic Zones are mapped.
I wonder if the government want to lose this. So far they've chosen George Osborne, Michael Gove and Nick Clegg to speak about the Scottish issue :blink:
The Welsh First Minister says there'd need to be a UK convention if the Scots go, to avoid England dominating Wales. It makes sense, we'd probably need a more Federal system.
If Scotland goes then England may as well quit as well, Wales and NI are insignificant and a bit of a nuisance, better off with a unitary England.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2012, 10:36:57 AM
If Scotland goes then England may as well quit as well, Wales and NI are insignificant and a bit of a nuisance, better off with a unitary England.
I agree. Independent England with home rule for Cornwall :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
I agree. Independent England with home rule for Cornwall :)
Why shouldn't every county have homerule? Why should Cornwall get special privileges?
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 10:43:24 AM
Why shouldn't every county have homerule? Why should Cornwall get special privileges?
I wouldn't object to that. But many counties aren't really set like US state (Cornwall is clearly defined) so the town I lived in was once in Berkshire but then was moved to Oxfordshire.
Plus the Cornish have a language, that counts for something.
Mebyon Kernow only got 4.3% of the vote in the last set of Cornwall Council elections, I think you are going a bit overboard here Sheilbh :hmm:
Sheilbh, why do you hate civilization so? :weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 10:48:50 AM
Plus the Cornish have a language, that counts for something.
...why? Are people who speak different languages better and deserve political rights others do not? Why should they have a larger say in how their county is run than any other region?
The Cornish (I'm half Cornish) do have a stronger identity than most parts of England (Yorkshire being the possible exception). But nobody speaks Cornish and the rise in Cornish nationalism relates almost entirely to the desire to make Cornwall out to be a region so it can secure EU objective 1 funding. As it stands Cornwall is pretty poor but it is lumped in with the otherwise prosperous south west.
Home rule for each counrt, Shelf? :bleeding: Have a word with yoruself.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
Mebyon Kernow only got 4.3% of the vote in the last set of Cornwall Council elections, I think you are going a bit overboard here Sheilbh :hmm:
:lol: True enough I am mostly joking. Though I do generally like the idea of massive decentralisation, including for the Cornish.
They are my favourite nationalists though.
Quote...why? Are people who speak different languages better and deserve political rights others do not? Why should they have a larger say in how their county is run than any other region?
Indicates a sense of separate identity behind the county which makes it more than just an administrative convenience.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 11:06:56 AM
Indicates a sense of separate identity behind the county which makes it more than just an administrative convenience.
Less than 1% of the Cornish population are able to have a conversation in the language. Precisely 0% speak it as a 1st language. . How can that possibly indicate a sense of separate identity.
It's a dead language, with the corpse kept twitching by a few enthusiasts
You don't need to speak a language to know it's there and distinctive. The same applies for Manx. No-one knows it, but lots of people on the Island know a phrase or two and it's part of what makes them feel different the mainland.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 10:40:58 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2012, 10:36:57 AM
If Scotland goes then England may as well quit as well, Wales and NI are insignificant and a bit of a nuisance, better off with a unitary England.
I agree. Independent England with home rule for Cornwall :)
Fuck, let's go all the way. INDEPENDENT RICHLAND COUNTY WITH HOME RULE FOR MY APARTMENT!
Ide would probably hate Sandy Springs, Georgia...
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 11:21:58 AM
You don't need to speak a language to know it's there and distinctive. The same applies for Manx. No-one knows it, but lots of people on the Island know a phrase or two and it's part of what makes them feel different the mainland.
Does the Danelaw still feel different? ;)
Another curious intervention by a minister in the independence "debate" :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090020/We-wont-whisky-break-away-Hague-tells-Scotland.html
Are the Tories just idiots or are they trying to provoke a breakaway vote?
Salmond will be chortling over his neeps and tatties as he contemplates the shortcomings of his opponents :scots:
Ugh I absolutely detest Cornish nationalists. Just look at their stuff on wikipedia and the fanatacism with which they twist facts and fight off all comers to present their strange version of fact.
No blood for tin.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 22, 2012, 05:44:46 AM
Another curious intervention by a minister in the independence "debate" :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090020/We-wont-whisky-break-away-Hague-tells-Scotland.html
Are the Tories just idiots or are they trying to provoke a breakaway vote?
Salmond will be chortling over his neeps and tatties as he contemplates the shortcomings of his opponents :scots:
Reading the article, this was remark was said in a private meeting. I presume Hague made a point about what will become England's extensive network of embassies and consulates not promoting Scottish goods, of which whisky is a significant export. He probably mentioned a basket of goods but the Mail on Sunday journalist was not going to get his name on the byline by warning that knitted goods won't be promoted by England after independence.
Yes, it goes without saying that England can not be expected to promote Scottish products should the split take place. So I am surprised that he said it.
I suppose the real problem is that there is no longer such a thing as a "private meeting".
It does seem like everything the government's said so far is basically a threat towards Scotland if they leave the union. Someone needs to make the argument for the union. It needs to be about more than money too. There needs to be an emotional, romantic unionism, because nationalism's above all an appeal to the heart. You'll never beat it with patronising threats (Osborne) or a spreadsheet.
I hope there's someone in the cabinet able to explain Scotland rather than Osborne leading the way :bleeding:
Absolutely, it must be utterly infuriating to people in Scotland to keep on hearing that they couldn't make a go of it. Of course they could. They might be better off or worse off, who knows; but being Scottish, English or British is far more than mere beancounting.
I think that Alistair Darling should head up the Unionist case. For a number of reasons. He is a Scot himself of course, he also emerged from the debacle of the last government with great credit, he also has fantastic eyebrows.
If the Union is dissolved I would like it to be for substantive reasons, not because a bunch of southern English politicians annoy the people living in Scotland with their utter incomprehension of why people living outside the home counties may see things slightly differently to Westminster.
I agree. I'd get Gordon Brown involved too. He's still popular in Scotland, not least because there's a perception that he was done in by the Westminster, English journalists. Charles Kennedy would be very helpful too.
I have a horrifying thought that the Tories may send up Malcolm Rifkind as their representative. He was Scotland's Portillo in 1997. He was symbolic of the nation purging themselves of Tories, like Ireland of snakes.
The more I think about it, the more I think it would be a shame if the UK broke up. The Union of Scotland and England have been one of the happiest marriages in Europe. Admittedly, the other national unions have been pretty sad.
Yes, after all, the Tories, Labour and the Lib-Dems are all Unionist parties. It makes sense for them to campaign together on this issue. If the Tories do all the pro-Union campaigning there is a risk (certainty really) that they will taint it.
QuoteThere needs to be an emotional, romantic unionism, because nationalism's above all an appeal to the heart. You'll never beat it with patronising threats (Osborne) or a spreadsheet.
Emotional, romantic unionism? That isn't going to work; the Scots simply aren't going to buy it. This is a country, after all, with one Tory MP.
The unionists need to both persuade the Scots that there's no point in upsetting the status quo (in other words, stress the positive, pragmatic benefits of the union) and also counteract the myths that the SNP peddles about the dominance of "Westminster".
On the other hand some part of me in the back of my brain suspects the Tory Party would not be gutted if Scotland left; after all, as things stand, it would help ensure their electoral dominance for a generation, or until it pulls a reverse-Social Democrats and the frothing eurosceptics form a new party or join UKIP.
I agree the pragmatic benefits need to be stressed. It needs to be done in a way that highlights that these are the benefits of us being together, not benefits in the gift of England generously bestowed on Scotland. Similarly stressing those benefits shouldn't be done by saying what Scotland will lose if they leave. The focus needs to be on what we gain.
But I think those arguments are more or less known and accepted in Scotland. The myths the SNP peddle will always be believed when every Scottish politician of substance, outside of the SNP, wants to be in a UK cabinet not a Scottish one. The only way to answer those charges, I think, is for the other parties to take Holyrood as seriously as the SNP do. I've said it before it but the lack of talent in Scottish Labour, since Dewar's death, has at least as much to do with the SNP's rise as Salmond's skills. I mean McLeish looks statesmanlike compared with the current lot.
I think the Scots would buy a romantic unionism. It's an argument best made by a non-politician I think and is largely symbolic (in much the same way nationalism is) but I don't think you can simply say that the Scots won't buy it. An example is the anger felt when the Black Watch and other Scots regiments were to be amalgamated. There needs to be someone out there saying we're all better with a Black Watch and the Highlanders; that it's entirely right that a figure of the Scottish Enlightenment's on English banknotes; and who can point to Sherlock and says that's why we're together.
I actually hope that some Tories in Scotland make some sort of argument. I think it's unhealthy that they're perceived as being anti-Scottish and no centre-right party can survive if they're not even seen as patriotic. But it has to come from within the Scottish Tory Party, in Holyrood, not from London.
I've had the same thought on the Tories.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 22, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
I think the Scots would buy a romantic unionism. It's an argument best made by a non-politician I think and is largely symbolic (in much the same way nationalism is) but I don't think you can simply say that the Scots won't buy it. An example is the anger felt when the Black Watch and other Scots regiments were to be amalgamated. There needs to be someone out there saying we're all better with a Black Watch and the Highlanders; that it's entirely right that a figure of the Scottish Enlightenment's on English banknotes; and who can point to Sherlock and says that's why we're together.
I see your point but the Scottish romanticism has swung utterly the other way the last thirty years, and I really don't think British romanticism has much hold at all. Britishness barely even has a hold in England, it's not a phenomenon limited to north of the border. The anger over the regimental mergers was brilliantly summed up when a politician furiously pontificating over them was asked by a journalist, "Could you name the Scottish regiments?" It was a small slice of the military and unionist communities up in arms, whereas most Scots are actually rather more pacifist than the English, and have particularly been so post-Iraq.
Someone should point out that if Skyrim Scotland breaks away from the Empire Union, then the only real winners are the Thalmor French.
:lol:
France is Scotland's old and faithful friend. That isn't a bad thing.
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 22, 2012, 05:57:56 PM
France is Scotland's old and faithful friend. That isn't a bad thing.
France isn't anyone's friend, nor are they faithful.
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 22, 2012, 05:57:56 PM
France is Scotland's old and faithful friend. That isn't a bad thing.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10172%2Faug08_031.gif&hash=a5248032d532f0e417bff033cbafdcc70693a61f)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 22, 2012, 11:27:55 AM
If the Union is dissolved I would like it to be for substantive reasons, not because a bunch of southern English politicians annoy the people living in Scotland with their utter incomprehension of why people living outside the home counties may see things slightly differently to Westminster.
Some southern Tory politicians don't even seem to understand how some of their constituents live in their villages.
Quote from: Warspite on January 22, 2012, 12:23:42 PM
..
The unionists need to both persuade the Scots that there's no point in upsetting the status quo (in other words, stress the positive, pragmatic benefits of the union) and also counteract the myths that the SNP peddles about the dominance of "Westminster".
On the other hand some part of me in the back of my brain suspects the Tory Party would not be gutted if Scotland left; after all, as things stand, it would help ensure their electoral dominance for a generation, or until it pulls a reverse-Social Democrats and the frothing eurosceptics form a new party or join UKIP.
:yes:
This is my concern as well.
I don't think permanent Tory rule is a real concern if Scotland was taken out of the electoral equation. They would overplay their hand and infuriate the electorate, or possibly split. The Labour party would have to move even closer to the centre ground, but, apart from 1945, they have always been hammered at the polls whenever they suggest a spot of socialism rather than a mixed economy, so no important change there.
I also think that Labour would still have won in 97, 01 and 05 without Scottish votes. So the only recent election that would have a different result would be 2010.
Indeed, and going further back..........to the 50s and 60s..............there used to be a strong Tory party in Scotland. If the Scots do gain their independence I would imagine they will soon have a strong party of the right, there are plenty of tories in Scotland it is just that Britain's right-wing party has come to be seen as an English party.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 02:30:59 AM
Indeed, and going further back..........to the 50s and 60s..............there used to be a strong Tory party in Scotland. If the Scots do gain their independence I would imagine they will soon have a strong party of the right, there are plenty of tories in Scotland it is just that Britain's right-wing party has come to be seen as an English party.
A certain kind of English even.
There are quite a lot of people out there with views that are actually quite shockingly right wing (some of the stuff I have to give my dad a verbal slapping down for....jesus) but vote labour because...well the tories are posh twits who want to kill us all. Or something.
Interesting report:
http://www.ippr.org/publications/55/8542/the-dog-that-finally-barked-england-as-an-emerging-political-community
Main points:
QuoteIn respect of English attitudes to devolution and the union, the report finds that:
...
• While support for Scottish independence remains low – only 22 per cent say Scots should go it alone – the English strongly support the view that the current devolved settlement should be reformed. At fully 80 per cent, there is also overwhelming support in England for 'devolution-max' (full fiscal autonomy) for Scotland, with 44 per cent agreeing strongly. 79 per cent say Scottish MPs should be barred from voting on English laws, with an absolute majority agreeing strongly with that proposition.
• There has been a sharp rise since 2007 in the proportion of English voters who say they agree strongly with barring Scottish MPs from voting on English laws and 'devolution-max', which underlines the intensity of feeling now associated with these reforms.
In respect of English views on how they themselves are governed, the report finds that:
...
• English voters appear to want what we call an 'English dimension' to the country's politics – that is, distinct governance arrangements for England as a whole.
• At present, though, views as to what form this English dimension should take have yet to crystallise around a single alternative, with support divided between some form of 'English votes on English laws' and an English parliament.
In respect of trends in national identity, the report finds that:
...
• The proportion of the population that prioritise their English over their British identity (40 per cent) is now twice as large as that which prioritise their British over their English identity (16 per cent). 60 per cent of English respondents believe that the English have become more aware of Englishness in recent years.
• English identity appears to be stronger than British identity – or the English component of dual English-British identity stronger than the British component – across England's diverse regions (including London) and across all social and
demographic groups, with one exception: members of ethnic minorities, who place much greater emphasis on their British identity. The report, however, also points to tentative evidence of a growth in English identification within ethnic minority communities in recent years, albeit from a lower base.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html)
QuoteSpain could wield veto over Scotland's EU membership
Independence for Scots could embolden separatists in Catalonia and Basque region, Madrid fears
Spain is standing in the way of Scotland's ambitions to become an independent nation within the European Union because of fears that it could spark the break-up of the Spanish state.
Spanish officials have registered concerns with counterparts in the United Kingdom over the Scottish government's independence blueprint, senior Whitehall sources confirmed yesterday.
Spain has indicated it could block an independent Scotland's accession to the European Union, sources said. It has already refused to recognise Kosovo's existence as an independent state. Madrid fears such moves will encourage separatist ambitions in Spanish regions, particularly Catalonia and the Basque region. Spain's refusal to recognise Kosovo has frustrated the former Serbian province's ambitions to enter the union.
Quote from: mongers on January 22, 2012, 07:31:07 PM
Quote from: Warspite on January 22, 2012, 12:23:42 PM
Quote
..
The unionists need to both persuade the Scots that there's no point in upsetting the status quo (in other words, stress the positive, pragmatic benefits of the union) and also counteract the myths that the SNP peddles about the dominance of "Westminster".
On the other hand some part of me in the back of my brain suspects the Tory Party would not be gutted if Scotland left; after all, as things stand, it would help ensure their electoral dominance for a generation, or until it pulls a reverse-Social Democrats and the frothing eurosceptics form a new party or join UKIP.
:yes:
This is my concern as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2012, 05:05:57 AM
Interesting report:
Kind of sad to see. Nationalism on the rise.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 08:05:28 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2012, 05:05:57 AM
Interesting report:
Kind of sad to see. Nationalism on the rise.
I don't think it's sad. The best news is that Englishness seems to be becoming more open and inclusive, which is great
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2012, 08:08:45 AM
I don't think it's sad. The best news is that Englishness seems to be becoming more open and inclusive, which is great
Yeah that second part which is, indeed, a good thing. The Ethnic minorities cheering on the English Lion and all that.
The English are simply recognising the blatant inequity of the failure to answer the West Lothian Question, that's all.
The surprise is that people aren't more outraged.
I think most English peole just don't think they have anything in common with the Scots, not more than other English-speaking people at any rate. I fell just as close, if not closer, to Aussies, Kiwis, Irish, Yanks, Canadians etc. It's time to end the union and move on.
England != the south.
I feel a lot closer to the Scots than I do southerners.
You aren't typical.
Going by Shelf's report, there's no difference between English regions on the subject.
Quote from: Neil on January 22, 2012, 06:13:22 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 22, 2012, 05:57:56 PM
France is Scotland's old and faithful friend. That isn't a bad thing.
France isn't anyone's friend, nor are they faithful.
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=7313
Omni Modo Fidelis. :frog:
Soooo if Scotland joins the EU, they will eventually have to adopt the euro, right?
QuoteYou aren't typical.
Going by Shelf's report, there's no difference between English regions on the subject.
It doesn't say anything about that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2012, 05:05:57 AM
Interesting report:
http://www.ippr.org/publications/55/8542/the-dog-that-finally-barked-england-as-an-emerging-political-community
Main points:
QuoteIn respect of English attitudes to devolution and the union, the report finds that:
...
• While support for Scottish independence remains low – only 22 per cent say Scots should go it alone – the English strongly support the view that the current devolved settlement should be reformed. At fully 80 per cent, there is also overwhelming support in England for 'devolution-max' (full fiscal autonomy) for Scotland, with 44 per cent agreeing strongly. 79 per cent say Scottish MPs should be barred from voting on English laws, with an absolute majority agreeing strongly with that proposition.
• There has been a sharp rise since 2007 in the proportion of English voters who say they agree strongly with barring Scottish MPs from voting on English laws and 'devolution-max', which underlines the intensity of feeling now associated with these reforms.
In respect of English views on how they themselves are governed, the report finds that:
...
• English voters appear to want what we call an 'English dimension' to the country's politics – that is, distinct governance arrangements for England as a whole.
• At present, though, views as to what form this English dimension should take have yet to crystallise around a single alternative, with support divided between some form of 'English votes on English laws' and an English parliament.
In respect of trends in national identity, the report finds that:
...
• The proportion of the population that prioritise their English over their British identity (40 per cent) is now twice as large as that which prioritise their British over their English identity (16 per cent). 60 per cent of English respondents believe that the English have become more aware of Englishness in recent years.
• English identity appears to be stronger than British identity – or the English component of dual English-British identity stronger than the British component – across England's diverse regions (including London) and across all social and
demographic groups, with one exception: members of ethnic minorities, who place much greater emphasis on their British identity. The report, however, also points to tentative evidence of a growth in English identification within ethnic minority communities in recent years, albeit from a lower base.
This makes me cry.
Fuck Englishness. I don't see myself as English at all unless there's football or maybe rugby involved. I hate being a minority, especially on such potentially dangerous topics. :(
Which is funny because football is heavily to blame for the subdivision first attitude of many Brits.
But, Languish, nationalism is so moé!
If I was English (and I'm not, but I'm pro-England and anti-Scotland) I'd be fine with Scotland leaving but I'd question how you divvy up the oil in the North Sea. I don't know much about the region, but if I was English I'd fear Scotland would get a huge swathe of an exclusivity zone up there.
I'd insist on some sort of settlement which preserves the UK's current zone, perhaps with an independent Scotland being a partner in using it. It's one thing for tiny Norway to have such a vast exclusive region, but I see no reason the UK should stand for losing so much potential wealth. Who has really developed the oil fields in Britain's exclusive zone? Has it been Scottish oil companies or more likely international / British oil companies (obviously Scotland is part of Britain, but a tiny part.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 24, 2012, 12:03:54 AM
If I was English (and I'm not, but I'm pro-England and anti-Scotland) I'd be fine with Scotland leaving but I'd question how you divvy up the oil in the North Sea. I don't know much about the region, but if I was English I'd fear Scotland would get a huge swathe of an exclusivity zone up there.
I'd insist on some sort of settlement which preserves the UK's current zone, perhaps with an independent Scotland being a partner in using it. It's one thing for tiny Norway to have such a vast exclusive region, but I see no reason the UK should stand for losing so much potential wealth. Who has really developed the oil fields in Britain's exclusive zone? Has it been Scottish oil companies or more likely international / British oil companies (obviously Scotland is part of Britain, but a tiny part.)
"Its Scotlands oil!!" is a big SNP argument.
To which of course I can't help but wonder shy Shetland doesn't go independent with all its oil. Or indeed why north east Scotland doesn't break away with its oil, so it isn't subsidising Glasgow on the west coast with it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2012, 04:22:24 PM
Soooo if Scotland joins the EU, they will eventually have to adopt the euro, right?
Yep. But they'd have to join like Croatia or Poland one day has to join.
As with the national debt question I think it'll be settled after the vote. I don't think anyone can predict even whether there'll be a Euro in 2014, when they vote, or 2016-17 which would be the earliest they could become independent. At the moment the SNP have said they'll keep the pound and George Osborne said he won't let them (:bleeding:), but chances are they'd keep their currency pegged to Sterling for a while at least.
QuoteI'd insist on some sort of settlement which preserves the UK's current zone, perhaps with an independent Scotland being a partner in using it. It's one thing for tiny Norway to have such a vast exclusive region, but I see no reason the UK should stand for losing so much potential wealth. Who has really developed the oil fields in Britain's exclusive zone? Has it been Scottish oil companies or more likely international / British oil companies (obviously Scotland is part of Britain, but a tiny part.)
You can't divide Scottish companies from British companies. The oil itself has been explored and pumped by the major companies like Shell and BP. But Aberdeen is the home of many firms that grew up to explore the oil, to maintain the rigs, deal with spills and lots of other engineering companies. They go for global contracts now. So the oil companies are basically multi-nationals but there's a very strong sector around them in Scotland that competes worldwide.
Scotland would get the oil. In recent years I believe, but could be wrong, that the revenue stream from oil has been less than the Barnett formula subsidy.
The oil is a mixed blessing anyway. Back in the early 1980s recession the £ rose very high as it had the status of a "petro-currency"; we therefore lost a lot of decent firms as well as the dross during that period. In 1984, IIRC, it suddenly dropped in value for reasons that are unclear, but by then much of the damage had been done.
Regarding Tyr's feeling of closeness to Scotland, I come from the same area of the country and do not share it at all. England definitely includes grim Northern towns and cities, it is not the monopoly of a load of poncey southerners living in idyllic villages :P
I still think that the main risk posed by Scottish independence is to Ulster and Wales. How come England gets to keep the burden of looking after those losers? The protestant Northern Irish in particular, there is no affinity with them at all.
It's your own fault, you guys wanted the entire island.
I blame our French kings, clearly Ulster should go to France on the dissolution of the UK. It can be an overseas department.
Pass. We kill our protestants. :)
Quote from: Tyr on January 23, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
QuoteYou aren't typical.
Going by Shelf's report, there's no difference between English regions on the subject.
It doesn't say anything about that.
Sure it does. There's at least three pages in the report on it. Obviously you haven't bothered looking at it.
Quote from: Gups on January 24, 2012, 03:51:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 23, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
QuoteYou aren't typical.
Going by Shelf's report, there's no difference between English regions on the subject.
It doesn't say anything about that.
Sure it does. There's at least three pages in the report on it. Obviously you haven't bothered looking at it.
So its in the report now? Not his post?
Look at the report, like Gups I detected little if any differences between the regions on the question of Englishness.
I thought table 3.2 was particularly notable btw. London and the South-East shovel out money to the other English regions. Yet even in London and the SE the majority thought that the government favoured those particular areas rather than other English regions. I take this as a good indication of strong solidarity within England itself.
Tyr- yep, that why I said "report" rather than "post".
Dick - I think this may be because the redistribution from London and the SE is not that obvious. Thos regions pay a larger amount of tax while the northern regions receive higher sums in expenditure on welfare, health etc. But it's the capital projects like Crossrail and the Olympics whcih usurprisingly get the publicity. You can't blame people for thinking that London gets the investment, althoguh the reality is that if London and the SE kept all its oncome it would be much, much better off.
Looking at the report I still can't see anything about northerners feeling closer to southerners than Scots.
Its just common sense really- considering how close Scotland is and how far London is, many of us have been to Edinburgh but not London.
And given the title of this report...I'm not going to go as far as to shout its wrong because it disagrees with me but it does seem they set out to find a certain set of results and got them.
London and funding- London is rich because it gets all the money and it gets all the money because it is rich. Its a catch 22 which will only get worse if things aren't changed.
Not much point in arguing with you Tyr. You clearly live in some kind of bubble. You don't even know that many of the most populous cities in the north - Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester are closer to London than to Edinburgh or that hundreds of thousands of northerners live in London.
And London isn't rich because it gets all the money (it gets less per head than the north, Scotalnd, Wales or NI). It is rich because it is a world city.
See this, admittedly rather old, academic study
http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/regcont.pdf
There's also a difference between sympathising or liking the South and feeling 'English'. The point of something like national identity is that lots of disparate groups share a feeling towards it, even if they don't necessarily like one another.
It's like Everton and Liverpool fans all feeling Scouse. When some outsider (The Sun <_<) has a go, the bigger bit of your identity comes out. Northerners and Southerners may not get on, but according to these polls they all feel more English.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 24, 2012, 02:54:09 AM
I blame our French kings, clearly Ulster should go to France on the dissolution of the UK. It can be an overseas department.
More like a new Elsass-Mosel probably (protestants there too and no
laïcité. Enforcing
laïcité to unite both Catholics and Protestants at last against something would be worth a try though ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 01:20:23 AMScotland would get the oil. In recent years I believe, but could be wrong, that the revenue stream from oil has been less than the Barnett formula subsidy.
This is why you guys are in the Nursing Home of History, being English used to actually mean something. Now you're a punch of pussies who will sign away everything you've ever fought for...England is obviously a first world country and a better place to live than 90% of the globe, but an American would never just concede something like that. Hell, we even fought for and won rights to use the Newfoundland fisheries when we broke away from the Crown, even though they obviously weren't geographically connected to any American state.
As I said, I know little about North Sea oil, but I just have serious doubts that in a nation of 62m, the part of it containing 5.5m is more responsible for having developed those fields than the other 58. Obviously it's really private industry that has physically done the work, and in the oil industry that almost always means large multinationals and various smaller firms which are pseudo-part of the multinationals in any case. But I am willing to bet there are more people who live in England and receive a wage related to North Sea oil in some way than there are in Scotland.
I'm not saying Scotland wouldn't get some oil, but if I was the Prime Minister I'd insist on the UK getting very favorable terms, and still having significant rights even in waters around Scotland itself. The last I heard Westminster has to essentially be on board with any independence vote, even though politically I understand Westminster won't block independence if the Scottish go for it, to not at least manfully negotiate with
self-interest in mind would be ridiculous.
Quote from: Gups on January 24, 2012, 05:44:28 AM
Not much point in arguing with you Tyr. You clearly live in some kind of bubble. You don't even know that many of the most populous cities in the north - Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester are closer to London than to Edinburgh or that hundreds of thousands of northerners live in London.
:rolleyes: Of course I know that. The north in the northern definition= Leeds is dubiously borderline. :p
And I never said anything about northerners living in London or not .:huh:
Quote
And London isn't rich because it gets all the money (it gets less per head than the north, Scotalnd, Wales or NI). It is rich because it is a world city.
See this, admittedly rather old, academic study
http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/regcont.pdf
And a key reason it does so much better than the rest of the country making it a world city is it gets more of the money which it gets because it does better, etc... etc.....
Less per head isn't a great way of doing things there since population densities are greater meaning its cheaper to get things done and affect a lot of people there- its a key reason Scotland gets so much thrown at it, that it costs so much to give the Highlands the same services as civilized parts of the country.
Go back 100 years ago and London was unquestionably the richest city in the country still but the gap was far smaller with there being several other quite respectably ranked world cities about too.