Well, if people will vote for Labour…!
Interesting that England “should” have had a referendum, but no-one else should have the same right.
So have a referendum in England then. Oh, remember to have one in which dead people count first, and then wait many years for the next one. 
I hope scotland doesn’t leave the union, we are so much stonger when where together!
Certianly this is case from Scotland’s point of view.
In arguments with my Scottish housemate we have concluded that were Scotland to be granted complete independence as of tomorrow it would not enjoy any kind of long-term success for the following reasons:
-
as a nation, Scotland is too small to successfully compete in a modern Europe. They have the same population (more or less) as Yorkshire (ie. approx 8.5% of Britain) so would rely on English trade and EU subsidies. Obviously, as a proudly independent folk, the Scots would not want any hand-outs (especially not English ones) but it’s hard to imagine they would cope without them…
-
they do not have enough population to maintain a military defence. They could perhaps nick our nuclear subs, but that’s not really practical (and we’d move 'em first). So England could simply invade again, and there’s not a lot Scotland could do about it (watching Braveheart dvds ain’t enough ;-)). I know this isn’t really likely, but the Scots are a war-like race and it’s fun to push their buttons
-
England (or the UK in general) relies heavily on Scottish oil reserves. My sneaking feeling is that as soon as these run dry, the English attitude to the Scots will change, but I dunno when this might happen. Until then, we will continue to bleed them dry. Hoorah.
To be honest, the fact that we are stuck on the same island and have been for centuries means that there has been so much cultural and economic inter-mixing that it’s impossible to separate the UK in the way many Scottish nationalists want. IMO.
Quirm,
The reasons you put forward in support of your contention that an independent Scotland would not be a successful nation (whatever that means) could apply equally to Ireland. Funnily enough, we’re doing fine. Lack of military capability and size of population are hardly major obstacles to economic success. In an EU context, small open economies can compete very successfully, as Ireland has shown.
hmm! - I take it by ‘doing fine’ you mean surviving on staggeringly huge EU cash-handouts to prop up your economy…?
Is it any wonder that when Irish voters rejected plans for EU expansion the Irish government put a truck-load of money into persuading people to change their minds… 
Most of my post was tongue-in-cheek, but I stand by the point that were Scotland to become a genuinely ‘independent’ nations (ie. in economic terms, such that they received no cash whatsoever from Westminster) they would find it very hard to maintain a stable and workable economy without becoming pretty much completely dependent on EU subsidies (as Ireland has).
But I take your point that were they to become part of the EU they wouldn’t necessarily have to come crawling back to Westminster - but it’s arguable as to whether that much reliance on the EU counts as true independence…?
Besides even though there has been oil, we did treat them equally before we found it (as for treating the scots equally, I mean in the 20th century)
Just like that struggling small European nation Denmark? Or Ireland?
Cite please. This is a hotly contested issue and depends very much on what monies you wish to count and which you wish to exclude. But many calculations indicate that the revenue from North Sea oil has placed Scotland at a point of net surplus in regards to the rest of the UK. Your analysis here is based on very shaky ground.
First you’re going to have to explain what makes the nuclear subs England’s property, especially as you have nowhere to put them. But quite apart from that, I don’t see anyone invading other European countries with small military defences. So your argument here is just stupid.
Hang on, I thought according to you it was Scotland that depended on England’s hand outs? Why do we get the impression you know nothing of which you speak and are making this up as you go along to suit your argument and prejudices?
Well that’s probably the only sensible thing you have to say on the matter. But honestly, when you read the total ignorance and propogation of fallacies that passes for English analysis of the subject, is it any wonder that many want shot of you?
Gosh, Quirm, you’re in a mood to take on everybody today.
It’s not true that Ireland surives on staggeringly huge EU cash handouts to prop up its economy, or that it has become completely dependent on EU subsidies. There was a measure of truth in this fifteen or twenty years ago, but certainly not now. It’s one of the “facts” that tends to get trotted out by UK Europhobes, who repeat it to one another so often that they have long since forgotten to check from time to time how much, if any, truth there still is in it.
Yes, EU membership has been hugely beneficial to Ireland, but transfer payments have always been a small part of this benefit, and have been a declining part for many years. Unfettered access to EU markets has been the great advantage, because it has enabled us to position ourselves as an English-speaking gateway for inward direct investment by non-EU businesses wishing to establish in the EU (i.e. US multinationals.) The amounts of inward direct investment we have attracted since joining the EU vastly, vastly, vastly outweigh any cash transfers we have received. It is considerations such as that, rather than the desire to secure continued cash transfers, that mean there is a broad political consensus in Ireland that it is in our interests to remain at the centre of the European project.
Scotland, of course, is well positioned to compete with Ireland for inward direct investment, and to some extent already does so. However its inability to adopt, say, a tax strategy designed to favour inward investment handicaps it in this regard. An independent Scotland would not suffer this constraint.
In a broader sense, there is no correlation between the size of a country and the workability or viability of its economy (except when we get to very small countries indeed). Compare the former Soviety Union and, say, Belgium. Which had the greater population, the greater natural resources? Which was the more successful? It is economic policy, not size, which dictates success.
The population of Scotland is about five million, about the same as the population of Denmark or Finland, and somewhat larger than Norway or Ireland. Are all these countries unviable? Norway does just fine without any “huge EU cash handouts”. They have oil, of course, but so does Scotland.
Surely the question isn’t whether Scotland etc could survive on their own (IMHO Scotland would do fine, Wales would be banjaxed), but whether they SHOULD.
It couldn’t come quick enough for me. I feel that the money England makes should be spent in England and sod the rest of 'em. I don’t see why I should be paying for Scottish roads, welsh unemployment benefit etc.
The same goes for Europe too.
It seems to work for Norway.
Ah… there, I think, you have rather hit the nail on the head
IANA economist (can you tell?), and I am still less an English nationalist, but I genuinely find it hard to believe that Scotland could sustain a fully-fledged mature economy without serious outside support. I cannot imagine that Yorkshire could survive as an independent nation (I believe it has roughly the same population as Scotland?), but I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison?
As an honest question, if you ceased all payments from Westminster tomorrow, and discounted oil revenue, would Scotland be able to exist as an independent nation?
The same question re. Ireland: if all EU subsidies were halted in the near future would Ireland be able to survive? As has been seen throughout the 20th century, entities such as the EU are not guarenteed to last forever (although I recognise that parallels to e.g. the League of Nations are not 100% useful).
These are honest questions: as has been rightly pointed out, much of my impression of this topic has been informed by what I have heard and read in the press (and in arguments with Scots in the pub) so any enlightenment would be useful I take the point about direct investment as a way of providing national income, but would this be enough?
Why would you have to discount oil revenue? We’re talking specifics here, and Scotland has oil. Wales, now, and you might have a point.
Furthermore Ireland is just about to become a net contributor to the EU, so yes, it would survive, and in fact in the near future would have more liquidity without it (though maybe more trade barriers). Also remember that Ireland survived for about 50 years before the EU, and would have done even better if it weren’t for anti-British sentiment from deValera.
I’m not sure why you think small nations are not economically viable?
Ireland was independent from 1922 until 1973 without EU handouts. Yes, it was not a conspicuous economic success. We might point to a number of reasons for this, but small size is hardly one of them. And it certainly survived. Finland has been independent from 1918; it only joined the EU in 1986. Norway has been independent since 1905; it has yet to join the EU. So, can small states survive without cash handouts from the EU? Plainly, yes.
As for the future, cash transfers from the EU to Ireland are likely to cease within the forseeable future. Irish GNP per head is now well above the EU average and, while Ireland will be vigorous in presenting parts of the country as disadvantaged areas, and in advocating agricultural price supports (which tend to benefit Ireland, as a net exporter of agricultural produce) it must be likely that, over time, Ireland will move towards being a net contributor to the EU. Various people bemoan this, but nobody suggests that it will lead to the extinction of national independence.
I’m not sure what you think the problem is for small nations? Can you name a small nation which has lost its independence because its smallness made it economically unviable?
Your question about Scotland implies that you think that a large part of Scottish GDP is simply a direct cash transfer from the rest of the UK. I’m open to correction, but I don’t know how true this is. Yes, more UK tax is spent in Scotland than is collected there, so you have to assume that if this stopped then either Scottish taxes would go up or Scottish government expenditure would go down, or (probably) a bit of both. But I don’t know what the net tax transfer to Scotland is, or how significant it is to Scottish income as a whole, so I don’t know whether taxes would have to rise, or spending fall, to such an extent as would threaten national viablity. Do you?
Didn’t Ireland have open borders and trade with Britain until the 70’s? Certainly the Punt was tied to the pound, so there was some help there.
Obviously we didn’t give Ireland money but being tied to a bigger economy must have helped?
Wasn’t part of the anti EU vote recently that Ireland didn’t want to pay the money that would go to the Eastern countries having been a beneficiary of such funds itself?
Sorry if this is wrong but British media coverage of Irish politics is pretty much non-existent.
No tax or trade barriers from 1965. (Customs barriers were very much in place.) Before 1965 there were various degrees of tax and trade barriers, and the occasional “economic war”. These were generally more damaging to Ireland than to the UK.
How would that help? All that happened was that the Irish Central Bank had a policy of always exchanging Irish currency for sterling at a fixed rate. Any country can adopt such a policy with respect to the currency of another country, and many do, for longer or shorter periods. The UK has done so in the past. (Indeed, at one time it was the cornerstone of their monetary policy.)
The result is exchange rate stability, which facilitates trade with the country to whose currency you have linked (and with other countries having a similar link). This is beneficial to both countries, although obviously it is more beneficial to the country which does the larger proportion of its trade with the other country. There is no sense, however, in which it represents a transfer from one country to the other.
Yes, it was. Obviously it is of advantage to Ireland to receive transfers from the EU, and it will be to our disadvantage when those transfers cease. However it doesn’t follow that it would lead to our national extinction.
It is true that small countries have less economic power than large countries, and their policy choices are limited in a way that policy choices for large countries are not. (For instance, Ireland had to choose between maintaining a stable exchange rate with sterling or pursuing an independent interest rate policy. It could do either of these, but not both. The UK never faced such a choice.) On the other hand small countries have advantages which are not open to large countries. (Ireland spends much less per head on defence than the UK does, or could, for example.) So Scotland as a small independent nation would have to make choices which, as a part of the UK, it does not have to make (or, from a nationalist perspective, cannot make).
Suppose for example the consensus was that it would be in the best interests of Scottish trade and the Scottish economy to participate in the euro. (I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but suppose it were.) That is a choice which Scotland cannot make at present. An independent Scotland could make that choice. It might be a tough choice and there would be a price to be paid - surrender of control over monetary policy and interest rates. But as matters stand Scotland has no control over monetary policy or interest rates. These are decided at a UK level according to the perception in Westminster of what is in the best interests of the UK as a whole. This may or may not be in the best interests of Scotland.
I had heard that Westminster is unlikely to even consider ‘full’ independence until Scottish oil reserves are exhausted as they are too economically valuable to let go. Not idea if this is true, or even when Scottish oil is going to run out at present rates.
I think it’s more the fact that most of the Scottish people I have spoken to seem to want independence as soon as possible, and I would have thought it would take many years for a nation to build up the infrastructure and institutions necessary to function properly. The Scottish parliament has been less than successful, both in terms of its credibility (57% of Scottish business leaders consider the Scottish parliament to be a failure up to now) and its handling of e.g the new parliament building (although that’s nothing Westminster hasn’t managed to do as well) but even the first minister has said that things havn’t worked out too well and that people are annoyed with the current parliament.
This may be because they have only limited powers, but I think my point is that it is likely to take a fair while before the Scottish people work out how to govern themselves (or is that silly and patronising?).
No. And it is on this that all your, owlstretchingtime and Quirm’s arguments fail. All of your points are redundant as long as you cling to this fallacy that you simply can’t substantiate.
A quote a excellent article on this web site
*The Total UK Taxation Revenues for the year to the 5th April 1999 were £356,800.000 Million pounds (356.8 Billions) let us assume that figure is 100% of the total Taxation. Scotland with 8.6% of the population contributed £41,346,600 Million Pounds (41.346 Billions) or 11.6% of the total UK Tax revenues. In return, under the Barnet Formula, Scotland received £12.2 Billion Pounds or 3.4%!
Far from England subsidizing Scotland, the reverse is true. Scots are subsidizing the South East of England, and in particular London which received £89.7 Billion pounds of Government expenditure or 25% and this does not include health, Education or Defence.*
Now admittedly the web site uses these figures to argue for Scottish Independence, not something I agree with. But it does expose the much quoted ‘subsidies’ argument that the English are very fond of as being total nonsense. It also shows that there are no financial reasons why Scotland cannot exist as a separate country.
Ultimately, I believe, you can juggle finance figures as much as you like to show just about anything, and it is pointless to take the financial situation as it exists now as any real indication of how things may be in the future under some supposed other political arrangement. They are two very different scenarios.
To be honest, Futile Gesture, these figures are very interesting and very fairly presented, but I do think that they are, as you put it, “juggled” to support the Nationalist case.
For example, excise on oil and whisky is collected at the point of manufacture, and so excise on Scots whisky and Scottish-produced oil is accounted here as Scottish revenue. Fair enough, you may say. But, ultimately, these excises (like all excises) are paid by the consumers. If Scotland were independent (or had fiscal independence) excise on Scottish oil and whisky would be repaid when that oil or whisky was exported to England – no rational government taxes exports - and the English authorities would no doubt collect their own excise at the point of entry, which English consumers would pay. In short, I think it is misleady to present excise charged on products produced in Scotland but consumed in England as Scottish revenue. As matters stand, this tax is in fact paid by the English consumer and, in the event of fiscal separation, it would certainly accrue to the English revenue and not the Scottish.
A similar analysis might be done of the other revenue categories. Whether the result would be to show a net flow of Revenue from England to Scotland or from Scotland to England I do not know.
I must admit I had accepted the common statement that there is a net flow of revenue into Scotland. These figures show that that may be wrong, but they do not convince me that it is wrong.
But my point has always been that, even if there is a net flow of revenue from England to Scotland, it does not follow that an independent Scotland is not viable. Scottish public expenditure, or taxation, or borrowing, or all three, might have to be adjusted. So what? UK public expenditure, taxation and borrowing are constantly adjusted. Does this mean that the UK is not viable?
To be honest the idea of Scotish or Welsh devolution is never going to be considered seriously as long as there is a Labour government in Westminster. Labour would loose a large number of seats were they to loose Scotland and Wales as an electorial base. As for the English reaction, i dont think they care one way or an another.
What are you talking about? The Scottish Parliament has banned fox-hunting, and it has repealed the equivalent of section 28 (concerning the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools). I would say that these issues and decisions have been taken very seriously.