Ironically, if you held a vote in England for Scottish independence then it would probably pass, once it was pointed out that Scotland is the main reason that the Conservatives have such difficulty in getting power.
It has very little chance indeed of passing in Scotland - it would need some kind of interesting event to change that. But interesting events happen all the time…
I’ve always found this to be rare. I’m an English/Scottish mutt and so quite regularly over the years have had Scottish money. I don’t think I have ever had a problem spending it in England.
Then again, it has been years since I’ve had a Scottish pound note. According to Wikipedia only one of the Scottish banks issues them anymore. I can see those confusing people in England seeing as the one pound note disappeared there ages ago.
Why?
Really, why?
What difficulty is that? There have been seven Tory PMs since 1952 (over 28 years) and five Labour (with 22 years between them). In my lifetime (I was born in '82), there have been 13 years of Labour government and 17 of Conservative government. Granted, Cameron needed a coalition, but so did Harold Wilson.
I’ve not had one for years either, and I live here. I don’t think they issue very many of them.
Labour would have had a majority in all three of Tony Blair’s governments even without the Scottish constituencies, but I know what you are saying. It just hasn’t been that much of a factor recently.
Tricky thing with that is the question of EU membership. It’s a bit up in the air, but if a newly-independent Scotland has to apply for membership, then using the Euro is a pre-condition. Getting out of that takes a major treaty amendment.
Our union is completely intermixed - it would be an unmitigated disaster to unwind it.
I’m English, married to a Scot, living in Scotland but my job is located in England. I’m what I’ve heard is sometimes called a WILLIE (Works in London Lives in Edinburgh). Frankly, given the anti-English traits of many Scots (albeit mainly in Glasgow and Aberdeen) I’ve been called a lot worse.
Amongst the nonsenses which the SNP either lie about or refuse to discuss are:
They peg a “Scots Pound” to the English pound, land and the Bank of England run the interest rate. How the hell is that independent. Oh, it get better, the smug bloater (aka First Minister Salmond) assures us the Scots will somehow have a seat on the board of the Bank of England interest rate setting committee. I hardly think so, nor do I think the BoE interest rate will be set for anything other than the benefit of the rump of the UK. Naturally the BoE know nothing of what the bloater assures us.
The alternative is to have a truly independent currency but then smug bloater also tells us that post independence Scotland would be automatically be part of the EU. The problem being that Brussels have said any independent Scotland would have to apply like anyone else. New members have to sign up to the Euro too by the way. The SNP refuse to discuss this of course.
They want to chuck out the Nuclear base of Faslane, as an independent Scotland is to be a nuclear free zone. But they assure the folk around the base that Faslane will stay open and they will not all lose their jobs as the independent Scottish Navy (maybe one fishing boat) will keep the base open. Scotland is littered with British military bases, contributing greatly to some rural economies, but they will stay open too the bloater assures us as he will sign agreements with the rump-UK to that effect.
Everything good will be just as it is now (the pound, the queen, NATO, military bases) but everything bad will disappear.
Oh and they won the mandate for the referendum on the basis of only 18+ aged voters but now plan to hold the referendum on the basis of opening up the vote to 16+ aged voters. Eh? Surely that is anti-democratic - not that that would bother the bloater. I have nothing against 16+ being the voting age per se, but you cannot include it for the first time on what is one of the most important votes in Scottish history when the mandate to hold such a vote was won with a different electorate!
I could go on. Fortunately I don’t think the SNP have more than a one in ten chance of winning but if they pull it off we would have to look at leaving - there would be too much risk in doing otherwise for us. If they lose hopefully that will kill the independence question for a generation at least.
It would be a shame as Scotland is a lovely place to live, but I would resent being made a foreigner in my own country. Alex Salmond and the SNP are really the lowest form of life imaginable…
And Spain at the very least is threatening to block Scotland’s accession - don’t want to encourage their own separatist movements.
Clearly it’s on the hope that younger votes are more likely to be pro-independence (read: more hot-headed and more likely to think big, sweeping changes are best).
I was reading yesterday that this concession may be a Pyrrhic victory for Salmond: only two years until the referendum, and it will be a major logistical exercise to get 16 and 17 year olds registered for voting in that time. What’s more, given the performance of 18 year olds at the last election ensuring they actually come out and vote will be an uphill struggle.
Scotland has suffered in the post-WW1 era (and I mean as basically everything), but it’s partly as a side effect of the general way of earlier English politics. And unfortunately, a great many earlier problems stay with us today. That Post WW1 era was filled with a lot of vry bright politicians who, frankly, were not nearly as bright as they though. They were massive centralizers and, as near as I can tell, seemed to view the private economy as messy. Scotland was one of the most dynamics economies in Europe.
Do the math.
It was an era of big-dreaming, mostly English rationalizers who simplified everything, and this applied under Woodrow Wilson and both Roosevelts in the U.S. as with other governments in Europe. That was bad enough*, but at least Britain was spared the tender mercies of the blooming Totalitarians around the globe. What she was not spared was government rationing apparatus. Among other things, it effectively turned Scotland into an entire subsidy zone, as Scottish industries shark and mostly vanished, with raw materials being controlled from London, mostly for the benefit of Very Important Englishmen with the right connections. Not that no Scots were involved or got their slice - but by its nature, the centralizers, well, centralized.
Sure, the system was eventually broken itself, but the U.K. managed to wreck a lot of Scottish dynamism in the proicess. The best and brightest either left, or just sank down into a dull funk, and that’s a hard habit to break. Modern-day Britain is still disturbingly centralized to my eye. It’s become one of those single-city nations, where one urban area dominates the entire country. This kind of situation is, IMHO, rarely a good thing culturally, socially, or economically in the long run. But it often looks really attractive and fourishing in the early stages.
*I’m not getting into it, but in short I’m not a great admirer of the domestic policy of any of the three, and agree with the foreign policy of Franklin Roosevelt only. Wilson should have been hung for treason. Actually, he should have been hung for about fifty reasons.
Maybe Scotland and Quebec can team up to fight crime.
Britain is less of a “single city nation” today than it has been since about 1500. There were already 7 million people living in London in 1912.
I am opposed to an independent Scotland.
It would lead to more bagpipe-playing, which is an intolerable act.
Pardon my ignorance, but according to Google Maps those two cities are 400 miles apart which is a 7-hour drive. That is a very impractical commute. What am I missing?
Telephones and the internet? 
Maybe with an hour to hour-and-a-half shuttle flight once or twice a week (month?).
If they release Braveheart II next year there’s a good chance it’ll pass, otherwise no.
I read that. A pretend Pretender? That’s–excessively literal, I guess.
Though really, I don’t understand what the deal is with monarchists and proving descent from Charlemagne or whatever. Do they really believe that God blessed the big man’s sperm or something? Why not just pick someone from your own country to be king?
Aren’t new EU states are also required to be in the Schengen Area?