Thoughts on English independence

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I think the talk is of further devolution. I can see an argument made for a federal state, rather than one where several of the regions have more autonomy than the center.

Devolution won't happen, it has been thoroughly rejected as a notion by the regions of England that have been asked or voted on it. With regards to and English Parliament, it could happen but it would be more likely that the English tell Scotland to do its own thing completely than to say yes to a half-way notion.


Regards the Ireland issue, it would be great. The Unionists would be clinging to a notion that no longer existed.

I think there are some who see Scotland as being able to become the new Ireland. If it became independent it could get more help and support from the EU, set beneficial tax regimes and generally become more enticing to business. (Edit - And now I read the article )

[Impaler[WrG]]

Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR SUBSODISES!


You guys are loosing your edge, a whole page on on-topic post

[Dauphin]

Remember Magna Carta, did she die in vain?!?.

[Sandman]

I think there are some who see Scotland as being able to become the new Ireland. If it became independent it could get more help and support from the EU, set beneficial tax regimes and generally become more enticing to business. (Edit - And now I read the article )

Becoming the new Ireland presumably means spending sixty years as a poor backwater first.

[Dauphin]

And Tick.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR SUBSODISES!

Harsh, yet somewhat fair!

[Sandman]

Given the costs of supporting the old declining industrial economies in Scotland

Not declining. Declined. What is there left to support?

I doubt very much that S.N.P. blether adds up financially.

Alex Salmond proudly stated that in an independent Scotland, Edinburgh would gain an economic boost from all the embassies created. That may be true - but it'd be more than matched by the cost of creating new Scottish embassies.

[Colonâ„¢]

Re: Thoughts on English independence

Originally posted by Victor Galis
So I was reading the Economist the other day, as I often do:

I don't think that article is from The Economist.

[Victor Galis]

Ah, it's in the online version, under Bagehot's commentary on stuff, from last Thursday.

[Drogue]

Re: Thoughts on English independence

Originally posted by Victor Galis
How accurate is this? Is there a general feeling in England that the Scottish are taking your money?

A little. It's not so much the money as the voting - since the Scottish Parliament decide for Scotland on many issues, Westminster policy on these issues doesn't affect Scotland. Yet Scottish MPs still get to vote for them, often in conflicting directions. For example Scotland doesn't have the same university tuition fee structure, yet Scottish MPs voted to raise tuition fees in England and Wales. This struck some people as unfair, voting to not have them in their home constituency but to have them elsewhere, it's just NIMBY syndrome.

Most people aren't too bothered though. Scotland doesn't cost too much money and it's not that much of a major issue.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Canada's population is about the same proportion of the US's as Scotland's is England's - yet essentially unrestricted trade between the two has been a major boon to both economies.

You're missing the point here. Trade works because Canada has key resources that the US demands, such as oil and lumber. Canada relies on US demand, the US relies on Canadian resources. The same isn't true in the UK. Scotland doesn't have many key resources in the same way. Moreover, the EU rules would still apply, so free trade would still exist. The only difference would be legislative.

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Thoughts on English independence

Originally posted by Drogue

A little. It's not so much the money as the voting - since the Scottish Parliament decide for Scotland on many issues, Westminster policy on these issues doesn't affect Scotland. Yet Scottish MPs still get to vote for them, often in conflicting directions. For example Scotland doesn't have the same university tuition fee structure, yet Scottish MPs voted to raise tuition fees in England and Wales. This struck some people as unfair, voting to not have them in their home constituency but to have them elsewhere, it's just NIMBY syndrome.

Most people aren't too bothered though. Scotland doesn't cost too much money and it's not that much of a major issue.

Works both ways though. The English have tyranny by majority over Scotland whereas the votes of Scottish MPs will not have that big an impact to be honest. The tuition fee law would have passed without the Scots I'm sure (Edit - Ok so I am wrong there....)

[Drogue]

No no, that's a seperate thing that works the opposite way. If we have one parliament elected by everyone, that rules for everyone, then that is fair. Every single area has a tyranny by majority over it, since no single area has a majority - London has a tyranny since there are more non-London MPs than London ones. The same is true of every city, town, county, etc. So to say it's unfair that Scotland has a tyranny over it is simply because it has fewer people and is as correct as it is to say there is a tyranny over me because there are more voters who aren't me than who are.

My point is that an MPs job is to represent their constituents. If an issue legally doesn't affect their constituents, then I don't see why it's the MPs role to vote on it. If Scottish laws are decided by the Scottish parliment, why should Scottish citizens be represented twice, once for what will happen in Scotland and again for the same in England? It's like being able to vote in two local elections, one that passes laws affection you and one in a neighbouring county that doesn't.

[Dauphin]

It's a different issue, but I am saying you gain on the swings but lose on the roundabouts.

I am coming from the POV that Scotland is sufficiently different to England in political outlook that they will get what they want far less than there representation would suggest. This is not so much true for the regions of England. It's why the Scots used to be over-represented in Parliament, so as to counteract that problem.

[TCO]

Will the Waloons be cut loose next? Perhaps the Rhettoromanisch next. Than the SudTirol will be recovered?