You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[i]Czechoslovakia managed to separate into two nations quite easily recently so the potential infrastructure issues which people keep raising can be resolved. [/i]
True, but it was only created in 1918 and then post-1945 they kicked out most of the non-Czechs/Slovaks - plus it split during good 'times' with plenty of EU/US cash around.
b r - MemberCzechoslovakia managed to separate into two nations quite easily recently so the potential infrastructure issues which people keep raising can be resolved.
True, but it was only created in 1918 and then post-1945 they kicked out most of the non-Czechs/Slovaks - plus it split during good 'times' with plenty of EU/US cash around.
Age of the state largely irrelevant IMHO as far as the infrastructure seperation issues raised so far as they are all relatively recent/modern. Can't see the relevance of the expulsion or otherwise of ethnic groups in a Soviet satellite state either.Scotland already has a modern democratic capitalist economy and up to date infrastructure(health,transport,education etc) and maybe some oil revenue too so won't need to rely on financial support.
Turns out King Salmond the 1st supported RBS's failed bid to buy ABN Amro in 2009. If Scotland does get independence i hope someone else is put in charge of the economy.
Here's an interesting piece by Faisal Islam, which asks a series of questions about the economic independence of Scotland:
What is particularly interesting is the currency question:
Will an independent Scotland stay in the “sterling zone”? So will Scotland be any better off from being tagged to a central bank that takes no notice of its economic conditions? Surely the singular lesson of the past year is that a monetary union requires fiscal coordination/ control. Could Scotland “print money” independently to lower its own long term interest rates? Would the UK Treasury have to send inspectors to Holyrood in 2016, like the ECB/EU has sent teams to Dublin/ Athens/ Lisbon?
The question of national debt is also interesting. Based on population an independent Scotland would take about £80bn in debt. That is about 80% of its economy.
Of course all these questions nobody can answer will depend on the type of independence being voted for. That is the big question.
As I'd already posted, it's worth bearing in mind that the Czechoslovakian split only came after they had disagreements on a more "federal" solution. I see this as one of the outcomes of any "Devo-Max" option in the UK. Even if a Federal UK could be set up, with all terms agreed, it would only last as long as the next illegal war or nuclear delivery platform upgrade.
Of course, Scotland could survive economically as an independent nation with an economy bigger than New Zealand. There has been much carping about Mr Salmond’s arc of prosperity speech (Iceland, Ireland etc). But it is absurd scaremongering to suggest that Scotland would suddenly go bankrupt. The question is will Scotland be better off? I think it’s fair to say that a successful euro made the purely economic case for Scottish independence much stronger. The euro’s problems and evolution has changed the game though. Scotland would have to seriously consider its role within one of two currency unions: the eurozone, or the sterling zone.
Scotland would have to seriously consider its role within one of two currency unions: the eurozone, or the sterling zone
What makes them think that being in the sterling zone will be an option?
"Recognise the hills in the background - probably not, unless you happen to live in Dunoon..."
I'm too drained after a day's battle about this on FB and with my Scouse work colleagues, however I can't ignore the quote above. Great to see Dunoon getting a rare mention on STW, thanks. *eyes go all misty with homesick nostalgia*
Quite a nice piece from James Naughtie on BBC:
It turns out that in the argument over Scotland's future in the United Kingdom, the politically paradoxical is more interesting than any legal furore that might flare up over the coming referendum.Consider two facts. Michael Moore, Liberal Democrat and Secretary of State for Scotland, says there should - must - be a straight yes-no question on independence on the referendum ballot paper, though he and his party are historically committed to the increase of powers for the Edinburgh parliament within the UK known as "devo max".
And Alex Salmond, Nationalist and First Minister, whose party regards that option as a false kind of non-independence, says it must be offered as an alternative because many Scots might want to choose it. Work that one out.
[so its not just me that noticed this confusion!!]
The answer is simpler than it may at first appear. Both sides in the argument have been forced by David Cameron's intervention to make the first moves in what is going to be an absorbing chess game lasting at least 18 months, and naturally they have chosen to attack - to try to find their opponent's tender spots.
[have I mentioned, caught napping?]
Leave aside for a moment the prime minister's decision to force the pace and remind Scotland of Westminster's legislative supremacy on constitutional matters - whether it turns out to be cackhanded or a skilful change of pace will be determined by the way ministers address the question in the coming months, and the tone they adopt.
Let them go their own way if they want. Yes, yes, we are going to work harder down South without their "oil" but not a big problem really.
Yes, yes, there has been a union for a long time but I guess it's only a matter of time before someone stir up some shite and if they want the fish to lead them so be it. Good or bad after that they can only blame the fish and not someone south of their border or blame their previous governments ... for the past 300 years.
By the way Scottish smoked salmon is over rated and over priced. What's all this shite about best salmon fish come from Scotland eh? What a load of turds.
The drugs appear to have worn off.
" What a load of turds."
You're thinking of Mersey Trouts not salmon dunder-heid.
By the way Scottish smoked salmon is over rated and over priced. What's all this shite about best salmon fish come from Scotland eh? What a load of turds.
Very good point. I sometimes buy Norwegian smoked salmon, and it's half the price and just as nice. I find it bewildering that the 'home grown' product is so expensive. It's not like labour/production costs are lower in Norway, they're higher ffs!
And whiskey isn't really Scottish, is it? Doesn't most of the flavour comes from the secondhand barrels they import? 😉
Looking at it from a residency point of view, the scottish government consider people to be scottish after 3 years of residency, it seems, if you go by the student fees arrangements. I presume if they can make that figure stick for that reason, you'd be elligible for citizenship if you've lived here for 3 years or more.
(Englishman in Glasgow for 4 years now) Hoping my biking skills aren't assessed.
Whiskey isn't Scottish at all 🙂CaptJon - Member
And whiskey isn't really Scottish, is it? Doesn't most of the flavour comes from the secondhand barrels they import?
Whisk[s]e[/s]y isn't Scottish at all
[img] 
[/img]
😉
Zokes - I ain't tried that, but there's a couple of lovely whiskys coming out of Penderyn in Wales.
CaptJon - MemberAnd whiskey isn't really Scottish, is it? Doesn't most of the flavour comes from the secondhand barrels they import?
Propaganda by so called wiskey "experts"?
[i]Looking at it from a residency point of view, the scottish government consider people to be scottish after 3 years of residency, it seems, if you go by the student fees arrangements. I presume if they can make that figure stick for that reason, you'd be elligible for citizenship if you've lived here for 3 years or more.[/i]
But that is using something that is controlled (date of entry to UK), rather than something uncontrolled. "Yes, I've lived here for 4 years".
Its always the details...
Here's an [s]interesting[/s] [b]selective[/b] piece by Faisal Islam, which asks a series of [b]loaded[/b] questions about the economic independence of Scotland:[b]just as he was selective about which "facts" he used when trying to put a case for Shetland being still in Norway.[/b]
FTFY
Zokes - I ain't tried that, but there's a couple of lovely whiskys coming out of Penderyn in Wales.
It's still a bit rough around the edges being so young (my bottle is only 3 years), but it certainly seems to have promise. Personally I've never got on with the Penderyn - nothing wrong with it, but I reckon it it were a Scottish whisky it would just get lost amongst the competition.
Seriously good in its own right, however, is this from Tasmania (a place that seems to be getting into whisky in a big way):
[url= http://www.spirosbottleshops.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/267x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/H/e/HellyersRoadpeated.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.spirosbottleshops.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/267x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/H/e/HellyersRoadpeated.jp g"/> [/img] [/url]
I even saw a bottle of Kiwi whisky in the shop recently....
duckman - he's a journalist, of course the questions are loaded! It doesn't stop the question he asks, and issues he raises being interesting and important.
After watching Wee Alex on Newsnight last night, all I can say is I wished I lived in his world.
The one where I get everything my own way. Where my interests come before the rest of the UK. Where the world is full of tweety birds and fwuffy bunnies. Where all my requests are met, without question. Where I have to supply no pesky detail of my loopy unworkable cloud-cuckoo land ideas. Where a large group of people support my mad ideas due to pure tribalism, without needing anything more than a banner to rally behind. Where my previous suicidally daft economic policies are never thrown back in my face
Ah.... if only
duckman - he's a journalist, of course the questions are loaded! It doesn't stop the question he asks, and issues he raises being interesting and important.
He actually seems to have an axe to grind. I wonder if he was warning us all off RBS in 2007?
binners - Member
After watching Wee Alex on Newsnight last night, all I can say is I wished I lived in his world.The one where I get everything my own way. Where my interests come before the rest of the UK. Where the world is full of tweety birds and fwuffy bunnies. Where all my requests are met, without question. Where I have to supply no pesky detail of my loopy unworkable cloud-cuckoo land ideas. Where a large group of people support my mad ideas due to pure tribalism, without needing anything more than a banner to rally behind. Where my previous suicidally daft economic policies are never thrown back in my face
Ah.... if only
Posted 28 minutes ago # Report-Post
You will Binners....As long as you vote Tory in a devolved UK
Binners did we watch different versions of Newsnight?
He made some reasonable points IMHO..you are getting a bit frothy ...though you have not quite become a swivel eyed loon
Was watching this on the news last night and one thing did pop out to me. Know how they are going to devolve the power to scotland to hold a binding referendum, is that a one time only thing or a permanent devolution of power?
I doubt England would want Scotland to go to the euro regardless. Salmond stated last night that Scotland would continue to use Stirling until the people decided against it.wrecker - Member
Scotland would have to seriously consider its role within one of two currency unions: the eurozone, or the sterling zone
What makes them think that being in the sterling zone will be an option?
Junkyard. I just think Alex Salmond is getting a very easy ride from the press. I think he's effectively shifted the onus onto Call Me Dave and chums to come up with answers, while he sits back and flannels. Very effectively, I might add
Its ironic. As its the same kind of thing Call Me Dave did on the run up to the last general election. Dodged questions, gave vague, fluffy non-commital answers, certainly no commitments or certainties. "We'll announce that later.... etc etc. Except they never do, obviously
Its exactly what Alex Salmond is doing now. Which is ok at this point, but as a referendum gets closer, you'd hope he'd be pressed for solid commitments
Dave wasn't though, so I'm not holding my breath
YouGov poll showed that 33% of Scots who were questioned backed independence, while 53% were against, with 14% undecided.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll_shows_rise_in_support_for_scottish_independence_1_2050012
Hahahahah - Good luck with that referendum Alec - you've got a LONG way to go to get to 50% 😆
Fortunately, Dave's lendinga hand by supplying a few extra votes. Unless he wisens up and shuts up, but i can't see that happening soon.
Well in the interests of fairness, in the 70's vote, 2/3rds had to vote yes. So how about evening it up this time?
I doubt England would want Scotland to go to the euro regardless. Salmond stated last night that Scotland would continue to use Stirling until the people decided against it.
Valid comments, but are scotland happy to use currency with another nations queen on it?
The UK [i]could[/i] and perhaps should point them towards the Euro.
One of the reasons why Westminster is not trusted to set the referendum up - memories of what happened last time. it looked like a yes vote would go thru so the terms were changed to make a yes vote totally implausible
Wrecker - the Queen is the queen of Scotland and England - she would still be the Scottish queen.
The UK could and perhaps should point them towards the Euro.
You can almost guarantee that it will be used as a major point for voting no. There has already been a load of guff in the press about how any new nation in the EU has to adopt the Euro.
Alex Salmond is getting a very easy ride from the press. I think he's effectively shifted the onus onto Call Me Dave and chums to come up with answers, while he sits back and flannels. Very effectively, I might add
I think it is reasonable to answer some questions on this isuse with the idea they will need to be noegotiated after the vote - not that unreasonable as osme of the answers depend on the Unionists response
Its ironic. As its the same kind of thing Call Me Dave did on the run up to the last general election. Dodged questions, gave vague, fluffy non-commital answers, certainly no commitments or certainties. "We'll announce that later.... etc etc. Except they never do, obviously
Its unre;aistic to expecta politician to have an answer fo reverything but they cannot just be honest and say Hell I dont know as we would not like an honest answer...it is reasonable to say no one knows exactly what would happen in every are after a referendum vote for independence...imagine what opponents would be sayng if he said I dont know , which is the truth...he has no choice due to the natur eof politics...its not a good thing but it is what happens in politics.
Its exactly what Alex Salmond is doing now. Which is ok at this point, but as a referendum gets closer, you'd hope he'd be pressed for solid commitments
It just not all his /Scotlands decision so he can never answer even if he has a preferred option
Dave wasn't though, so I'm not holding my breath
Dont hink he will ever be poinned down tbh as he doe snot have the answers
Zulu - you must pray we dont have a full vote on hunting ....its way more popular than that 😉
I doubt anyone thinks it will be won so i am not quite sure why the Unionists are getting so worried or why Dave is playing right inot thier hands by being "bosSy" and telling scortland what to do with their 1 mp and total absence of elctoral manadte ...this is the main case the SNP will bang on about if he does this and one can hardly deny they have apoint...Dave has no electoral mandate to do anything in Scotland.
Dave has no electoral mandate to do anything in Scotland.
When did having no electoral mandate ever discourage Call me Dave? Lest we forget - he's no electoral mandate anywhere. It hasn't stop him acting like he won with a landslide though, has it?
There has already been a load of guff in the press about how any new nation in the EU has to adopt the Euro.
And who says Scotland isn't in the EU just now?
of course, if Independant Scotland isn't in the EU, then why should Indenpendant England be?
Euros for all. Woo-hoo
One of the reasons why Westminster is not trusted to set the referendum up - memories of what happened last time. it looked like a yes vote would go thru so the terms were changed to make a yes vote totally implausible
What would count as a yes for the SNP, 50.01% of electorate?
Dave has no electoral mandate to do anything in Scotland.
And Alec has no legal or parliamentary mandate to do anything about independence - its an issue reserved for the parliament in Wesminster, nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish parliament.
And who says Scotland isn't in the EU just now?
of course, if Independant Scotland isn't in the EU, then why should Indenpendant England be?
Euros for all. Woo-hoo
Scotland isn't in the EU and neither is England.
The UK is, and would continue to be should Scotland divorce it.
And Alec has no legal or parliamentary mandate to do anything about independence - its an issue reserved for the parliament in Wesminster, nothing whatsoever to do with the Scottish parliament.
So what? If he went ahead and won a referendum, illegal or otherwise, Westminster would be in a very difficult position. Would international laws on self determination not come into force?
Scotland isn't in the EU and neither is England.
The UK is, and would continue to be should Scotland divorce it.
There's arguments over which of the 3 ways would end up happening. Most likely is that The rUK would remain in the EU and Scotland would reapply. Scotland not have to reapply, or both the rUK and Scotland would need to re-apply. AFAIK there's not definitive answer and would likely end up with lots of negotiating and possibly in the courts.
Scotland isn't in the EU and neither is England.
The UK is, and would continue to be should Scotland divorce it.
Right... this may be me being very cynical.... but is that another reason for Call me Dave and the Tories not to be too bothered about Scottish independence?
I mean, thinking about it... Not only would it leave them with a permanent Tory government in the rest of the UK, but if they then had to renegotiate the UK's EU membership ... well... I can't see them being too averse to that either?
This really is starting to look worse and worse for the rest of us, you selfish Scottish bastards!!!
the Queen is the queen of Scotland and England
She's the Queen of several other places which are no longer ruled by Westminster as well. I can't make up my mind if some folks on this thread have really poor general knowledge, or are indulging an unattractive desire for destructive nitpicking.
And Alec has no legal or parliamentary mandate to do anything about independence
He has a mandate from the Scottish electorate, who gave him a supposedly impossible outright majority government in the Scottish Parliament on the basis of a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on independence. The SP may or may not have the constitutional powers to hold a binding referendum, but Salmond has a considerably stronger mandate from the electorate for this conversation than Cameron.
The SP may or may not have the constitutional powers to hold a binding referendum, but Salmond has a considerably stronger mandate from the electorate for this conversation than Cameron.
So he's promised something he can't lawfully deliver?
Ditch Jockey
Surely the only people with a real mandate on the issue are the Scottish MP's (mainly Labour and Lib Dem) that the Scottish people elected to the Westminster parliament
(ie. the people elected to the parliament which has constitutional responsibility for the issue)
he's promised something he can't lawfully deliver?
Well I suppose your sense of certainty must be a comfort to you, but on Radio Scotland last night, the professor of constitutional law from Edinburgh uni said it was legal, while the professor of constitutional law at Glasgow uni said it might require permission from Westminster.
Perhaps you could invite them to tea and clarify it for them.
Whilst no doubt you could argue the point zulu – it is quite hard, even for you , to deny the SNP stood on a platform to hold an devolution vote and that they won that election in an all Scotland vote…if you wish to claim it is undemocratic to listen to the people and get all constitutional you may have a legal point but you have mo moral point to make …insert usual jokey punch line here :wink
Surely the only people with a real mandate on the issue are the Scottish MP's
its the scottish people unless of course you have given up on self determination
Perhaps you could invite them to tea and clarify it for them.
I'll get the Darjeeling in. I hope they're OK with dogs.
Can I hold a referendum on making myself an independent nation state?
Junky - Manifesto pledges do not constitute lawfully enforcable promises
[i]Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council
House of Lords [1983] 1 AC 768
R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment ex parte Begbie
Court of Appeal [2000] ELR 445[/i]
(funnily enough, both regard broken Labour manifesto Pledges)
Morals? We're talking about politicians here 😆
Can I hold a referendum on making myself an independent nation state?
Of course you can - do you want some of us to act as independent observers?
Cheers DJ. That'd be nice. Best get writing my constitution to present on Newsnight later
Manifesto pledges do not constitute lawfully enforcable promises
You're conflating [i]mandate[/i] and [i]constitutional[/i] though - Salmond has a mandate because he asked the people of Scotland to vote for him on the basis that he would offer them the chance to give their views on independence. What he's proposing may or may not be constitutional, but that's a separate issue.
The referendum could be held, and Westminster could choose to ignore the result - (theoretically, I guess we could vote 'no' and Westminster could pass legislation granting Scotland independence whether we wanted it or not) - the question would then be [i]"what happens next"[/i]? I suppose if the situation got totally out of control, you could theoretically be facing civil unrest, but that's [s]an extremely remote possibility[/s] alternate reality stuff as the situation stands.
Best get writing my constitution to present on Newsnight later
I have some really nice good quality parchment left over from wedding invitations lying around somewhere - if you used that it would make a constitution look really proper and official!
True Zulu but we have a Scottish party elected to the parliament of scotland by the people on the promise of an independence referendum. This party then delivers on this pledge , holds a vote and the people vote yes. I am not sure exactly how the UK or Daves mandate will trump or that he can just ignore it.
Who has the legal right to hold the vote it is of far less relevance than how the people vote.
Civil war is quite unlikely
EDIT; BinnersI can do caligraphy -and lets be honest what constitution would be complete without some spelling mistakes
EDIT; [b]BinnersI[/b] can do [b]caligraphy[/b] -and lets be honest what constitution would be complete without some spelling mistakes
Oh, teh ironing! Unless it was intentional, of course!
I could knock a constitution up in no time.
I am both typographically aware and semi-literate! Its a win/win
Ok, I am willing to vote no. Here are the conditions.
1) No Iain Wright EVER on tv again.
2) Can we have Berwick back please?
3) The A9 dualled before 2025.
4) A reduction on the tax on tunnocks prducts.
5) No VAT on plaid.
6) John Inverdale (see 1)
7) Whisky given "world heritage" status, thus removing tax.
8 The same rights as the Spanish have off the Scottish coast.
9) Maggie T gets her arse out in Harrods window.
Shallow ain't I?
that one was most are not 😉
I am not sure exactly how the UK or Daves mandate will trump or that he can just ignore it.
As I understand it, mandates don't matter. The law does matter and as such, Dave could lawfully ignore any result should he choose to.
so you think he could just ignore it..I dont think it is a simpleas this...I dont know the rules on self determination or the UN charter but i would suspect that dave doing that violates a number of those.
It really wont be as simple as dave going no you dont have the power to vot ein your own country about what you want I AM TH LAW and you are staying.
I dont see how the UK could ignore a vote for independence tbh ..legalluy it is questionable IMHO [ experst argue it both ways so someoen would need to judge] but morally it would be indefensible...granted this might not put dave off 😉
More Scots voted against the SNP than voted for them, and a vote for the SNP in no way implies a vote for independence.
I think it's right that the Scottish are given the chance to vote on this, but the notion of Salmond having a popular mandate is guff.
Anyway, I don't see the problem: CallmeDave is helping Salmond to deliver his manifesto pledge.
Cameron's involvement is an irrelevance - lets put that aside for a moment, and forget the tories, they are merely the government, this is an issue of Parliamentary supremacy.
Lets say for one minute that the 59 Scottish MP's in Wesminster vote against a referendum - bearing in mind they are overwhelmingly Labour and Liberal
They were elected by the Scottish people to the parliament that has constitutional responsibility for the issue of devolution/independence/sovereignty
The SNP were elected to the Scottish parliament on only 45% of the national vote (ie. 55% of people voted against the SNP but they still took 69 seats out of 129)
How can Salmond claim any form of supremacy, moral or otherwise, over MP's that were elected by the Scottish people.
if you take the "moral" or "mandate" argument as you wish to view it, what do you suggest is the correct position between the two parliaments?
if they hold opposite views, should the overwhelming will of those elected to the National parliament, Westminister, with legal responsibility for the issue, hold sway, or should the will of those elected to the Scottish parliament by a majority of seats, but a minority of the electorate, hold sway.
So, the argument on who has a "mandate" falls apart, the only people with a mandate are those with constitutional responsibility for the issue, thats the only way it can work, otherwise you get two different parliaments, both elected by the people, both having an equal claim to a "mandate".
wrecker - Member"I am not sure exactly how the UK or Daves mandate will trump or that he can just ignore it."
As I understand it, mandates don't matter. The law does matter and as such, Dave could lawfully ignore any result should he choose to.
He could but given the UN charter allowing for self determination and the precedent of Kosovo amongst others he would be in a rather foolish situation to do so.
Dunno what would happen next but sure as anything it would not be the continue of the UK long term
More Scots voted against the SNP than voted for them, and a vote for the SNP in no way implies a vote for independence.
Of course it doesn't. The SNP manifesto contained many other policies apart from the pledge to hold an independence referendum.
That is why there is now going to be a referendum so the people of Scotland can decide their own future.
So, the argument on who has a "mandate" falls apart, the only people with a mandate are those with constitutional responsibility for the issue, thats the only way it can work, otherwise you get two different parliaments, both elected by the people, both having an equal claim to a "mandate".
In Scotland the sovereignty is with the people not the parliament. So whether the Westminster MPs vote against a referendum does not matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath
self determination
What makes the Scottish people an identifiable "people" in their own right, surely they are just a segment of the British people (certianly, the vast majority speak the same language
Note, this was the weakness of TJ's position on the Shetlands - if the Scottish people are able to identify themselves as not being "British" then the Shetlanders have a strong claim to not being "Scottish" - Conversley, if the Shetlanders are by default part of the larger amorphous Scottish peoples, then there is an equivalent argument that the Scottish people are merely "British" and therefore would have no right to self determination as a "people" under the UN charter 😕
What makes the Scottish people an identifiable "people" in their own right
They're blue and translucent? 😆
That is why there is now going to be a referendum so the people of Scotland can decide their own future.
And the body with the authority to confer those powers has promised to make that happen. So what's the problem?
Declaration of Arbroath
I see your declaration of arbroath and raise you the 1707 act of union.
[i]
I That the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the Ist day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain
III That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of Great Britain.
along with
XXV That all laws and statutes in either kingdom, so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the terms of these articles, or any one of them, shall, from and after the Union cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said kingdoms.[/i]
Whish means that from that point onward, the sovereignty that you claim lay no longer applied, as it would be contrary to the act of union.
What are you wibbling on about Zulu?
[i]What makes the Scottish people an identifiable "people" in their own right, surely they are just a segment of the British people (certianly, the vast majority speak the same language[/i]
8th page, and finally back to my original question...
LOL
It's amazing, the Welsh, The Irish and the Scots all go on about how good their countries are and where are they living.........in England! Says it all really. Scotland and Wales just would not survive economically without the England handouts to prop up their economies. The Welsh don't produce anything now since coal mining on a grand scale was stopped and Scotland doesn't really have any oil/gas to shout about. So that leaves seaside rock, midges and alcoholics.........mind you I like a bit of rock now and again!
greenboy - MemberI Says it all really. Scotland and Wales just would not survive economically without the England handouts to prop up their economies
Wrong - no matter how you do the figures Scotland comes out better off or much better off. The money flows from Scotland to England not the other way round.
Read Druidhs posts on this
also for many folk its about self determination not moneym anyway. they would still want it even if impoverished
no matter how you do the figures Scotland comes out better off or much better off
*Cough*
£182 billion of Royal Bank of[b] Scotland[/b] toxic debt
*Cough*
will you be paying by cheque or card? 😉
Binners, dont worry, cos [s]Scotland[/s][i] The Shetlands[/i] have got all that Oil to offset the Scottish debt.
Oops.... 😀