Apropos of nothing, I am now quite tickled at a Scooby Doo/Benny Hill-like image of Thatcher and a passel of men in kilts running in and out of a bunch of wardrobes…
Nonsense. Look at how often they end up voting over seccession in Quebec…
Without wanting to make this into a debate, I think it’s fair to say that the Scottish Independence movement is a minority movement. The responses in this thread are giving the idea of Scottish independence a lot more respect than what it is rightfully due. It’s a joke (at least how the SNP envision it):
British oil and gas production peaked during the 1990’s. It’s estimated that Britain will wind up North sea production within the next twenty years (cite: Royal Society of Edinburgh (pdf)), Norway, for instance, has already started winding up its production capabilities in the North Sea (cite: OLF.no (pdf)). Whilst it is true that more oil and gas is being found, the size of new fields is diminishing (cite: PeakOil.net (pdf) and a more reputable cite: UKOOA) and many new fields are simply not profitable enough to exploit.
The SNP also presumes that all of the North Sea oil and gas reserves will be gifted to Scotland. This isn’t necessarily the case. The vast majority of gas reserves in the North sea may lie in English waters, not Scottish! (cite: Scotsman Online):
The SNP’s vision for an independent Scotland is one financed by oil and gas income. It’s a fantasy to suggest you can sustain a nation on twenty years worth of oil production at an ever diminishing rate. The large subsdy that Scotland receives from England (£11.3bn pa. ~ £2200 per head) is fueling the idea that Scotland can make it alone.
And glee, here’s your cite. If all of Britain’s oil revenue were attributed to Scotland (~ £7bn), then Scotland would still have a massive black hole, to the tune of £11bn.
Thank you!
For what it’s worth from a Scot in Scotland, I think Dominic has basically got it right, although the level of subsidy is a very slippery number. Nonetheless, Scotland does well out of the Union, and the Nationalists are notably disingenuous when it comes to concrete policies.
A recent example is the furore over the rationalisation of the Scottish Regiments. Whether this was a good idea or not is moot, but the SNP (Scottish National Party) opposed it strongly, but declined to mention their own plans for the military ie we’d pull out of NATO, leaving the historic regiments staffed at company levels. Another point prominent Nats seem reluctant to discuss is the proportion of existing UK national debt an independant Scotland would be willing to take on, and how it would be funded. I’ve asked. Never got a coherent answer.
/ a bit GD, no?
I don’t see why Scotland would automatically be in the EU. The rump UK would be, as it would certainly be considered the legal successor state under international law, but Scotland would have to apply for admission.
And would countries like Spain, with secessionist regions of their own, be willing to make EU admission easy for Scotland? It’d set the precedent that a part of an EU state can break away while retaining the benefits of membership. That’s the very last thing they want to hear in Madrid.
Yes, Scotland would be admitted eventually. But they might have to spend quite a few years out in the cold. And that makes independence sound a lot less attractive.
It’s always about national pride, but really about oil.
Speaking as an AngloScot I suspect that Scottish independance would be along the lines of “Scotland will be a totally free,unaligned and self determining nation BUT…Scots will still be able to enter ,live ,work ,claim welfare and even vote in England/Wales at will.”
Though independant , and not making any serious effort,financially or physically to defend itself against external aggression any serious threats to Scotlands security will tacitly be expected to be dealt with by English/Welsh security forces manned by English /Welsh troops and paid for by the English /Welsh taxpayers.
As a relatively poor and small nation Scotland will receive E.C. grants or Foreign aid as it could be called which will in practice be paid for mostly if not totally by one of the E.C.s largest nett financial contributers ie . "independant "Scotland will end up being paid for by the long suffering English/Welsh taxpayer.
If this seems an unduly fanciful series of suppositions let me draw your attention to the fact that this very situation is not only in existance now but has been for many decades but obviously not with Scotland ,I’ll leave you to work it out.
Yup, that’s how it’s presented, although to be fair there are several hundreds of thousands of English people happily living in Scotland, so turnabout is fair play.
This is something SNP members tend to brush aside. If you really want to annoy them, ask what their plans are for regenerating all the communities that currently rely on the UK military and nuclear industries. Remember that an independant Scotland will be a nuclear free zone, and give up NATO membership, according to the nats.
As a relatively wealthy and small nation, Scotland will get little extra money from the EU. That cash is heading East, where it’s most needed. Ireland was a fairly economically backward place, and benefited greatly. Scotland won’t now that Bulgaria and Romania are in the EU. An independant Scotland isn’t even automatically going to be a member of the EU. Spain, for one, will veto it to hinder the seperatists in their own country.
Where? Irelend?
If Scotland separated from the UK, what would be the name of the remaining piece of the UK? The United Kingdom of… England, Wales, and Northern Ireland?