[Closed] Breaking up the Union. What would it mean for the constituent countries?

Anyone got figures for how much revenue could be gained by an independent Scotland if they got the oil? Presumably any receipts for a Scottish govt would come through taxation, but to maximise that an oil company would need to be based in Scotland.

How much money was spent bailing out Scottish banks?

When all is said and done TJ, you're not a Scot and never will be... England is better off without you, but Scots Nats types will never truly accept you. That's the reality of the situation no matter what sort of tartan gloss you try and put on it

As a long-term SNP voter who long for independence, can I just say that's perhaps the most insulting pile of **** I've read in a long time. Folks like TJ, who settle in Scotland, out down roots and make a helpful contribution to society are more than welcome, whether they're based in Edinburgh or out in the highlands.

can I just say that's perhaps the most insulting pile of **** I've read in a long time.

To be fair, that did come from bravohotel ............have you never read any of his stuff before ?

to be fair he has excelled himself with that racist rant whilst suggesting the scots are more racist and then managing to drag Islam in as well to his fuel his hate filled pish. He could use it on his CV for when he applies to do PR for UKIP/BNP or similiar

Independence for Scotland would do mostly... nothing at all. Europe and large multinational companies do most of the talking and make most of the decisions these days. Look how Ireland, Portugal and Greece are being pushed around. I agree with the comment above about the greedy and greasy making the most from any change. I would rather have PR for the whole of the UK and a bit more long term planning in the whole of the UK. Oil money corrupts in most cases and it means governments don't need "real" industry to get tax so neglect the rest of the economy. The UK probably suffers from too much tax from Oil and financial services.

The economies of England and Scotland are so intertwined that I am not sure what the real difference could be? Folk might vote for independence from their hearts but really EU governments are not nationalistic so what's the point other than Scotland does not like the Tories. Tell you what the North of England and Wales does not like the Tories either but due to the history of the nation we can't attach that to some nationalistic jingo. The two things are totally separate though. I was over in Scotland today and can state it was exactly the same as the other side of the Cheviots.

TandemJeremy - Member
England would have a tory government for ever

See, at the moment, you Scottish folk are tolerated by us lot as people from a small part of England, but if you were proper foreigners, do you think you'd really have it any easier?

What would you do for a military to protect your borders? You wouldn't have an army, an airforce or a navy. Then the Americans would invade you for your oil, and we'd help them. 🙂

Probbly best if you just shut up whinging and got on with things really, in't it?

You wouldn't have an army, an airforce or a navy

[img] [/img]

No but seriously Ernie; they haven't thought it through properly, have they?

If you take away everything 'British' from Scotland, what have you got left? Not a great deal really.

And what language would they speak? 😆

what language would they speak?

Whatever language it is they speak now ? ......they seem to be able to communicate with each other alright.

**** trying to learn it though.

Well the official Language of Scotland is English. So they'd have to stop that, woon't they? And how many Scottish people actually speak Gaelic or Scots? Not a lot, I'd wager. How much would it cost them to translate all the road signs, bus timetables and stuff into their own languages? Then re-educate all those who can't speak those languages (most people in Scotland then) to speak the 'native' languages. And which would you chose? Gaelic or Scots? Bet there'd probbly be fights over that one.

Then what about all the Loyalists? What would happen to them? Would they be forced to move to England? What if England said 'no bollocks to yer we're already overcrowded you can't come in'? Would they then be forced into exile somewhere? Forever to roam the Earth in search of Zion?

See? It's a bloody stupid idea, no more than a fantasy in the narrow minds of those who seem to have some romantic notion they'd be better off independent. Sheer idiocy. Tiny little country with **** all resources, a finite supply of oil which woon't last long anyway cos they'd have to sell it all to prop up everything which is subsidised by the rest of the UK and to pay for all the re-education programmes and that, then they'd be bang in trouble.

And they'd still be shit at most sports....

Tiny little country with **** all resources

Tiny maybe, but it used to have an empire :

[img] [/img]

[url= http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Scottish_Empire_%28Rise_of_Roses%29 ]Scottish Empire[/url]

And whilst lacking resources, they have certainly not been short of good ideas..........I can't recall noticing that you insist on only riding a bike with solid tyres.

Well the official Language of Scotland is English. So they'd have to stop that, woon't they?

And how many Scottish people actually speak Gaelic or Scots? Not a lot, I'd wager.

EDIT: Just seen this claims 85% speak scots! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language

How much would it cost them to translate all the road signs,

PS I do realise you were just being flippant (you were weren't you)?

Why, would that be, Ernie? The pneumatic tyre is a [i]British[/i] invention, and I have no problem with the Union.

I do however have a problem with parochial small-minded jingoists who seem to believe they would be better off as a separate nation. Why not instead just get along together and co-operate instead? Better, no?

I'm actually for the opposite; take away the nations, and just have Britain as one nation. Take away the quibbling over English Scottish Welsh etc, just be British. We do it for t'Lympics, so why not do it all the time?

Scottish players might get to play in a World Cup then, too. And Welsh ones. See, my plan's best.

We're better off if we work as a team, rather than squabbling over petty differences:

[img] [/img]

eh, no.

Well no I'm sorry, but if the Scots want to be properly Scottish, then I'm afraid they have to give up speaking English completely. You don't want to be part of Britain? Get yer own flipping language then. Go on! Oh er actually a lot of it's Norwegian.... 🙄

PS I do realise you were just being flippant (you were weren't you)?

Whaddyou reckon? It's just that every time this argument pops up, it's some arguey [b]English[/b] bloke leading the way, and it's a load of bloody pathetic nonsense anyway. We've done this loads of times on here, and every time, the same old shite.

Elfin,

Do you really want to have that debate or are you just trolling?

I used to think Scottish Nationalism was largely parochial nonsense too - but I'm increasingly leaning towards it; and there can be no doubt that politically and culturally Scotland is quite distinct from the "UK". If you don't understand that it probably reflects a SE England Parochialism; one which offends much of the rest of the UK, and indeed probably has far more to do with the 4 nations' distinct identities than anything Mr Salmond has done. Wiping out the border and treating it all as a single homogenous country is not possible even ignoring the will of the Scottish (and other British) people as for example the Education and Legal systems are quite different (and it seems unlikely that England is ready to catch up yet!).

However the main reasons I am leaning towards Independence are:

(1) It will force politicians to be realistic. This might not be great for all our expensive policies, but it would be honest.

(2) I'm increasingly thinking that it couldn't be that bad. What's the worst that would happen?

(3) I'd like to see someone bringing more economically centred politics in Scotland - I don't see how that can happen without control of taxation and finance.

I think rather than being the "winners" if Independence were to happen the SNP would be the loser. The one thing that unites the party would no longer be their raison d'etre. Likewise all the "London led" parties would no longer need to tow a party line (and no longer have damaging associations with thatcher, blair, clegg etc.).

As to where the income will come from, I'd personally go in the face of political opinion by building multiple nuclear power stations to sell power (and possibly hydrogen) to our neighbours south of the border - wave and tidal power give us significant "energy assets" to develop in the future too. I might even continue to let you keep your nuclear subs on the clyde, for a fee! But, I think I might have a struggle on my hands convincing everyone else.

it's some arguey English bloke leading the way,

Scotland would lose its influence in the World.

lol! Now you're really grasping at straws!

Do you really want to have that debate

No cos it's boring.

Separation separation separation....

Divide Britain into constituent countries, then certain regions will want independence (Cornwall and Yorkshire for example have 'distinct' identities and there are marked differences between North and South Wales). Where do you stop? Hmm? Where?

Borders serve only to divide people. What is great about Britain is that we can see ourselves as one united nation, well, we could if some people weren't so flipping narrow-minded. What TF is wrong with being 'British'?? What? This Island's greatest successes have come because of that union. That's what we should be proud of, and that's what we should work together on, to make it successful again. Scotland gaining full independence from Britain would serve no one and harm everyone, in the long run.

If you don't understand that it probably reflects a SE England Parochialism

Oh of course cos we're all sooo ignorant of anything that happens outside of the M25, of course, yeah, right. 🙄

the vast majority of the Scottish population wouldn't judge him to be English based on the country of birth or ancestry of his parents

Right. Ok. Yeah. Course.

😆

Enough of this nonsense. To bed!

Wunundred!

Independent or not; it would still rain all the time up there... 😉

[i]The pneumatic tyre is a British invention[/i]

So according to your genius mind the Scots speak British then ?

Hey Elf - the good news is that if independence ever does come up as an option in Scotland, no one will ask your opinion, or care what you think, leaving you free to fiddle with your ferrets in peace.

Elfin; Alex the fish has just phonned and asked for you to come and speak on preserving the union! 😀

Effinsafety, next time you're up my way (Stirlingshire), give me a shout and I'll buy you a pint whilst we discuss why we're right and everyone else is wrong. 🙂

Beagy, proudly British.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/scottish-premier-league-to-award-three-points-for-murder-201104203738/ ]The remiaining parts of the Union would be far better off without certain elements of Scottish "culture"....[/url]

Dunlop was born in Scotland but living and working in Belfast when he developed the tyre.

when he developed the tyre

.....after it had already been patented by another Scotsman.

[i]Divide Britain into constituent countries, then certain regions will want independence (Cornwall and Yorkshire for example have 'distinct' identities and there are marked differences between North and South Wales). Where do you stop? Hmm? Where?[/i]

CF, that would be funny if it weren't so accurate and it's one of the reasons why I'm glad I don't live in that part of Scotland anymore.

I think there may be a party, probably with a bit bagpipes and lots of tartan and waving on the Saltire then things will get back to normal apart from there being a few more politicians and something else for them to discuss for years on end without actually doing much...

Oh and everyone in Scotland would have to apply for a new passport. And re-register their cars with the SDVLA - although you may be able to claim your tax disc back! 😀

Break up the union and the following would occur:

England = wealthier
Scotland = poorer but eligible for all kinds of eu grants
Wales = still drunk
Northern Ireland = still beating the bollocks out of each other

Yossarian - you have that the wrong way round - Scotland would be richer and England poorer.

all over Europe are groups of people who want self determination - from the Flemands and Walloons who want to split Belgium to the Bavarians to the Basques

Europe would happily split up into 3 times the number of independent states it is now with power devolving down to this level and up to EU level leaving the current national governments redundant

Yossarian - you have that the wrong way round - Scotland would be richer and England poorer.

TJ you have not in any way demonstrated that this is true, your links are ambiguous at best. I do not believe the remainder of the UK would agree to Scotland having all the revenue from the oil. There would have to be some sort of settlement... (Which if you read about how independence would occur seems to be the final hurdle).

So you don't think international law would stand in this case? Its a moot point as there clearly is not a majority in Scotland for independence but the oil belonging to Scotland is widely accepted and is in line with international law and UK law

TJ - do you have ANY idea how expensive it is to drill, refine and distribute oil?

I would welcome Scottish independence if the people of Scotland want it.

You will not be wealthy as a result, you may want to be and you may use oil as the crutch for your dream but that's all it is.

You will however be free of westminister and be able to fully govern yourselves, be free in essence.

Is that not what really matters?

It isn't to do with international law. It is naive to think that it ever get that far. Long before it got to that stage there are lots of discussions to be had and agreements made with the current UK Govt. and the oil revenue agreement would be lumped in with that.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against independence, nor against Scotland claiming its own assets, I just do not believe it is as simple or as clear cut as you or any of the commentators think.

Indeed it is yossarain. Not that I feel particularly strongly either way but I outline the case on here for information.

The amount of money raised in tax from the oil which would come to Scotland (despite what Toys says)is more than the block grant under the Barnett formula.

The amount of money raised in tax from the oil [s]which would come to Scotland (despite what Toys says)[/s]is more than the block grant under the Barnett formula.

The amount of money raised in tax from the oil which would come to Scotland (despite what Toys says)is more than the block grant under the Barnett formula.

For how long? Then what?

Really? What else? How about the other moneies that go the other way? The total spend in scotland is significantly less than the tax raised in scotland

Yossarian - Barnett reduces each year as % of GDP. The oil will last plenty of time for Scotland to develop its own industries and economy as Scotland would have money to invest that it does not have at the moment

1) The investment in oil infrastructure on and offshore will need to be paid for if scotalnd wants to take it over
2) Many services are funded at the national level for example coastguard and defence, VCA, DVLA, Dft,DSA, VOSA, Highways agency, Transport police, certain aspects of the railways and rail operators are all centrally funded, there are others but I cannot recall them just now.

As I said it is naive to think that Scotland only gets its settlement under the barnett formula, and its naive to think that Scotland could simply cut its financial ties with the UK and take all the remaining oil revenue.

Doesn't really matter what you think - whatever happens, nobody will be asking your opinion. 😆

Toys - I don't understand what grounds you can possibly consider that the oil does not come to Scotland. (apart from wishful thinking) Its been accepted by the UK government for many decades - see McCrone report for example. The oil fields are already divided into English and Scottish waters, there is clear international law on it.

Its naive to think that England ahas any claim on the oil at all.

Who paid for the oil exploration - not the UK government but the oil companies

Lots of money goes the other way as well. Electricity goes to England for free, UK wide companies who raise some of their profits in Scotland report the profits in London so are taxed there, Scotland has to pay a share of stuff such as the Olympics, trident, and so on.

(apart from wishful thinking)

It isn't wishful thinking, as I have stated I don't actually care other than I think you should have it. But you won't get it.

Most importantly Scottish independence would not come from a Scottish only referendum, that is constitutionally not possible. It would need to be approved by the UK who could under international law veto it. They obviously won't, as long as Scotland accepts that they won't get all the oil revenue..

PS the electricity and gas are also under the list of reserved matters, so Scotland will likely have to negotiate over them too.

you've never been to the mountain bike capital of the world then?

Ooh, ooh, I have, I have. And you're correct, some of the signs in Canada were in french and english.

The oil question is actually a bit of a sideshow in any case. If an independent Scotland were reliant on a relatively small amount of non-renewable natural resources income, it would not be viable.

TJ - do you have ANY idea how expensive it is to drill, refine and distribute oil?

Most importantly Scottish indepnedence would not come from a Scottish only referendum that is constitutionally not possible

The investment in oil infrastructure on and offshore will need to be paid for if scotalnd wants to take it over

Investment in infrastructure is paid for by oil companies, not the UK government although it is of course tax deductable from the revenue generated by such an investement. This one of the reasons that we don't have things like significant gas storage facilities in the UK as despite it being in the UK's interests it isn't profitable enough for the oil companies.

Says who?

Say the British constitution, I'll find you a ref in a minute.

Edit ahhh good old wikipedia, an article on scottish independence. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence#Legality ]see the legality section here[/url] which pretty much backs up what I said above verbatim.

Investment in infrastructure is paid for by oil companies, not the UK government although it is of course tax deductable from the revenue generated by such an investement.

Not so they have often been joint ventures. Whether through direct or indirect methods (like cheap or leased land, lower rates etc etc)

Say the British constitution

Do we actually have one of those?

Not so they have often been joint ventures

Well in my 15 years working in the offshore oil industry North Sea I've yet to see one of those. All the production facilities have been owned and operated by differnt oil companies with the licenses to produce the oil also being held by said companies. Technically the oil is still owned by "UK plc" and is merely produced under licence. I am not aware of any joint venture, nor any direct government investment, that has taken place in the offshore side of things unless of course you are referring to Britoil which was completely privatised in '85.

Can you point me in the direction of examples?

All the production facilities have been owned and operated by differnt oil companies with the licenses to produce the oil also being held by said companies. Technically the oil is still owned by "UK plc" and is merely produced under licence.

I don't doubt this is true in anyway, but it does not disprove what I said. I'm off to a m,eeting I'll get ya some examples later.

Of course it shows what you said is piffle. The UK government did not invest in oil exploration so a putative Scottish government would have nothing to pay back.

You are clutching at straws

How much should Scotland charge to England to lease Faslane?

There really should be a UK-wide tax on the use of the word 'piffle'. I think that's something we can all agree on.

And 'bullshine'.

Say the British constitution, I'll find you a ref in a minute.

Konabunny - indeed - see Kosovo and Slovenia

Clubber - how about balderdash then? Or Codswallop?

Yep, those too I'm afraid TJ.

But but but but but...........

It's for your own good TJ... Nanny knows best.

Claptrap? Twaddle? Bunkum? Tripe? Baloney? Tosh?

TandemJeremy - Member
Claptrap? Twaddle? Bunkum? Tripe? Baloney? Tosh?

Don't be so hard on yourself, TJ, sometimes you write some worthwhile stuff.

You walked into that one TJ 😀

Faslane = Fort Sumpter 😀

TJ; Been in God's country since 1970,could you please use

[i]Baws,Keich,pish,haver,blawearie,[/i]

Duckman - will do

Look TJ the basic flaw in your many flawed argument is this:

The excess you may or may not achieve from oil extraction facilities that may or may not be yours will be spent funding the deficit on everything else.

It's a futile, pointless, meaningless and self defeating dream. Get over it.

Scotland will need a radical overhaul in the event of independence. Probably a good thing, but don't imagine for a second that you'll be well off.

Yossarain - actually the [b]surplus[/b] would be used to invest in infrastructure and jobs. The oil wealth would give the time and money to do this. Scotland would need a restructured economy - an independent Scotland would find this easier.

One of the huge economic mistakes over the last few decades is the wasting of the oil money on paying for the Thatcher "economic miracle" ie on benefits and tax cuts.

compare that to Norway who have a national fund from oil money surplus that ensures they will remain rich. Scotland could do the same.

Just out of interest what are all these jobs going to be?

You cannot compare the Norwegian model to Scotland. They are not the same. Just google it.

You're living in a dreamworld TJ, oil is not the saviour of Scotland and never will be.

Yossarian - Of course it can be, If an independent Scotland took the same amount of taxes off the oil as the UK does it would be a significant sum more in the economy than Scotland has now. This creates a surplus to be used for investment around 5 - 10% of GDP extra in the economy.

Blimey Charlie O'Reilley; have you lot not seen the weather out there??? Oh, maybe it's raining in Scotland or something probbly...

compare that to Norway

..which is a massive country by comparison to Scotland, has far, far greater resources and an even smaller population. And very high taxation.

Its naive to think that England has any claim on the oil at all.

Was it only Scots who first explored and drilled for oil, was it? No, it was a British effort, alongside the Norwegians. So I'm imagining quite a chunk of tax revenue was spent on the exploration and that. And seing as how Scotland wasn't generating a lot of tax revenue at that point, I'd say thet the rest of the UK does indeed have a good claim to the oil revenue. What about Wales? They'd be absolutely stuffed without money from the UK coffers. So, we just cut Wales off cos it's 'uneconomic', and let them all starve?

And why d'you think Thatchler made so much fuss over the Falklands. Ooh look, vast untapped oil reserves in the South Atlantic. You don't want to benefit from any of that then? Fine.

It's a very selfish and insular attitude you have TJ. You bang on about Scotland being ruled from Westminster etc, and not liking the Tories, but the majority of Londoners don't vote Tory either and we have to put up with the buggers. And there's 7 million of us, so more voices.

And when the oil runs out, what would you do then? Eh? You haven't thought about that, have you?

So where's yer conclusive proof that Scotland will be better off as an independent nation then? Hmm?

So I'm imagining quite a chunk of tax revenue was spent on the exploration and that

Well your imagination is wrong

the comparision to Norway is actually quite close. Apart from Norway got rid of its colonial masters a while ago

So where's yer conclusive proof that Scotland will be better off as an independent nation then? Hmm?

http://www.wikipedia.com

I can't be bothered to read all of that ^^ so someone may alread have said this, but TJ seems to have forgotten about the oil and gas in the southern North sea (off the coast of England)! 😆

Elfinsafety
It's a very selfish and insular attitude you have TJ. You bang on about Scotland being ruled from Westminster etc, and not liking the Tories, but the majority of Londoners don't vote Tory either and we have to put up with the buggers. And there's 7 million of us, so more voices.

Leave it Elf, it's not worth it 😉

The entire population of Scvotland wouldn't even fill all the sports grounds & music venues in London 😆
Let the provincials do what they like , no-ones going to notice anyway 8)

im not sure breaking up the union would be a good idea

are we sure the scots wouldnt turn it into a sectarian bloodbath
what with all the niel lennon bombs
and it didnt work out too well for india and a truckload of other ex colonial countries

JEngledow

90% of the oil is in Scottish waters, 90% of the gas in English waters

TJ seems to have forgotten about the oil and gas in the southern North sea (off the coast of England)

dunno about the fossil fuels, but there's plenty of wind and hot air up there 😆

Well your imagination is wrong

Really? Enlighten me then...

So, Scotland found and financed all the exploration itself, did it?

the comparision to Norway is actually quite close

Nowhere near close mate. Norwegian oil and gas production is mainly state-owned. So, you'd have to buy yer oil fields and platforms off the companies that currently own them, if you wanted a nationalised industry. How you going to do that? Plus, taxation in Norway is massive. Everything is taxed, including food.

Seriously, stop wibbling on with this pipe dream, cos it ain't gonna happen. Just get on with being British, like the rest of us. Why is that so bad?

Just get on with being British, like the rest of us. Why is that so bad?

Little Scotlanders innit 😆

..which is a massive country by comparison to Scotland, has far, far greater resources and an even smaller population. And very high taxation.

Absolutely

TJ - I used to work for a Norwegian oil company, based mainly in Aberdeen. I've heard this conversation a thousand times over dinner with people who ACTUALLY know how it works. Norway and Scotland are utterly different and even the Norwegians are looking to diversify now, despite have far greater reserves of both oil and gas AND already having a well established renewable energy grid.

Elf - the oil companies paid for the exploration. No state funding.

I dislike the insular parochial and xenophobic view that comes from England. I want a more positive and outward looking engagement with the rest of the world and I believe that even apart from the oil and independent Scotland would be a significantly better place to live.

However I don't feel particularly strongly about it.

Yossarian - they are ahead of Scotland yes - but its something to aspire to - without the dead hand of Westminster Scotland would make better progress as can be seen from renewables

I'd like to know why you think the two countries are utterly different - they are actually very similar