It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Scotland be an independent country?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:21 PM
I have been reading a little bit about what happened when southern ireland became independent in the 1920's. The Irish created their own currency but retained parity between it and the British pound on a 1:1 basis until the late 1970's. That didnt mean much by way of fiscal independence at all, they simply shadowed sterling.

That, I think, is what Scotland would do certainly in the short term to maintain stability. Medium term i'd expect circumstances to dictate a proper exchange rate for the Scottish pound and eventual changeover to the €. Tbh, I truly can't see the EU rejecting Scotland at independence at all, I think they'd be welcomed.

That could leave England with an opportunity/escape route to leave the EU without a referendum, as the UK ceases to exist. Then England could return to it's traditional, historic and almost Elizabethan role ... Free from the EU and the Scots ... independent, completely beyond continental politics and intrigues, financially better off too. The risk though for the English is isolation, truly I don't mean that in a bad way. But slowly the English will become less important to the EU, even marginal and that's a shame because they do bring blunt commonsense to the top table.

If only they occasionally brought diplomacy and cooperation too ...

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by LeBombDiggity

The UK would still exist, it just would not include Scotland, so I think we'd still be stuck with the EU unfortunately

As for Scotland entering the EU, I assume they would have to go through the same process every other nation has had to that has joined late. That process isn't short and I think Turkey have been in that process for a number of years. Nothing is guaranteed with the EU and by the time Scotland gets its chance for participation, the EU might not even exist.

I think Scotlands economy would initially be very fragile, they are unlikely to get favourable borrowing rates like the UK currently enjoys and their tax take (if kept at same levels as now) would not cover their tax expenditure by a long way. There is 5.5 million people in Scotland, spread accross a large area of land. The infrastructure per capita is going to be very expensive. I think the Scottish people will soon be in for a shock if they wish to keep the same standard of infrastructure as I can see no way to pay for it aside from heafty tax rises or a massivly increased economy. With the recession being on and heavy competition from the Eastern states, then I think that massivly increasing the Scottish economy would be a bit of a pipe dream. All in all, my best guess for the Scottish would be that when independance comes, so will tax increases.
edit on 26-1-2013 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:10 PM
I cannot afford to pay the taxes allready in place. If Scotland leaves the UK its guaranteed to raise taxes! Its not like they are going to decrease. We will end up no better than a second rate country.
edit on 26-1-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
They can do as they please, I personally would rather we stayed as a union, but I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Sad that many from across the pond rely on a dodgy film made by a reactionary catholic, as some kind of historical evidence. Braveheart was a movie guys, with the usual historical revisionism Hollywood brings.

But it was an awesome movie!


btw, did you know our president Abraham Lincoln was actually a vampire hunter?

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:33 PM
Being a yank with no in depth understanding of the subtle nuances of Scotland and its relationship to Britian (even though I lived there (England) for 5 years), I will give the staplemark United strengthens each other stance...

But if there is unequal power, then that must be sorted to be appropriate. I do understand England (home of the crown so to speak) tends to look at their neighbors as fledglings overall...that I believe is a cultural instinct though passed down from generation to generation.

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:39 PM
Should we all just be one World? No countries. One country. Earth. One race of humans. We call our self Humans. No religion. Perhaps that would create chaos? Or peace? One day hopefully, we will all be one.

I realize this is slightly off topic.

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Mugen
Should we all just be one World? No countries. One country. Earth. One race of humans. We call our self Humans. No religion. Perhaps that would create chaos? Or peace? One day hopefully, we will all be one.

I realize this is slightly off topic.

And no doubt someone will call you a NWO puppet socialist

No religion? ya..lets decide to have 95% of the planet drop their beliefs...that should be easy.

And I think you are going more for John Lennon than Bob

Didn't happen then, wont happen now.
You can say that I'm a are...and dreams..meh, will dream of supernatural powers..that is more likely than what is proposed for now.
edit on 26-1-2013 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by andy06shake

Well, they gave all the money to the banks, didn't they, that plus they allow prices to rise, wages to stagnate in the hope that'll cut the debts. And most folk are like "meh, when's x factor back on tv".

Listen, they'll always give you a long list of reasons why Scotland can't go it alone, they've been doing that since Mrs Ewing was elected SNP MP in 1967. The Scots just need to get off their knees and take their chances like everyone else.Unfortunately for Scotland, some of their best and brightest got off their knees, took their chances and played a crucial role in the creation of other countries

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Mugen
Should we all just be one World? No countries. One country. Earth. One race of humans. We call our self Humans. No religion. Perhaps that would create chaos? Or peace? One day hopefully, we will all be one.

I realize this is slightly off topic.

No because then we'd all be assimilated into one culture and life would be really boring.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:24 AM
reply to post by LeBombDiggity

I not interested in lists of why Scotland can or cannot go it allone. Its plain for anyone with half a brain to see that Scotland requires the partnership of the other respective nations of the United Kingdom to remain solvent. Are you seriously attempting to imply that if devolution from the UK ensures taxes will not dramatically increase ?

What about all the refugees that England has dumped into our communities, do you think they will be willing to relocate them back to merry England? Not a chance im afraid we will have to pay for them which is simply not economically viable IMHO.

edit on 27-1-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by knowthepath

Hmmm, English Law? Scotland has Scots Law and always had! Not to mention you had the chance to be "big and strong" and fudged it up, hence why you came a begging in 1707 for the Union. We didn't ask for it, the Scots did while we had a Scots King on the throne of England!

Who's oppressing who? Sounds like we got the bum deal. You got all your debts paid off, kept your King and your laws. Much later, in 1997, you even get your Parliament back while the English did not. The two Parliaments merged in 1707 and when you got devolution, you got a new Parliament while you kept your MP's in Westminster to vote for things like Tuition fees at Uni (which the Scots don't pay for).

There is so much "pro Scottish" BS that makes it sound like they've been oppressed, but far from it, they've got a bloody good deal out of it and continue to do so while England gets ignored (and by England I mean anywhere outside the M25).

And before you mention the Oil, no matter what period in history you wish to pick the Oil revenue has never exceeded the amount of money sent North from England, not to mention the 250 years of English support prior to the discovery of Oil!!

For what it is worth, I wish the UK to stay together, but if the anti-English bullcrap continues, I am all for Scotland getting independence then realising 5 years down the line Salmond was just after his footnote in history and he sold you all out...

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:29 AM
reply to post by stumason

very well said Stu - excellent post. I hope that Scotland does become fully independent[ not devo max]. I think the others in the union should be able to vote over this. I am sure most of us would vote for Scotland to be out of the union and independent. So they will get what they hope and wish for.
edit on 27-1-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:36 AM
reply to post by stumason

Unfortunately the real history is too complicated and too 'grey' for most people to be bothered with.

The EU will be in no hurry to admit the new Scotland since the EU is full of nations with their own long running separatism issues. The EU is trying to integrate and the SNP are all about dis-integration.

The scottish identity only really exists in opposition to the english one. When there is nobody else to blame we will revert to type.

If Scotland breaks free it'll descend into poverty. The poverty will give rise to nationalism/racism and all the old sectarian squabbles (which are still there under the surface) will migrate from the football terraces and back into politics.

edit on 27-1-2013 by justwokeup because: typo

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by HelenConway

Don't get me wrong, stronger together and all that, but sometimes I just want them to realise that the grass ain't greener and that it will only bugger them up royally. How do they envisage paying for everything sans English tax money? Almost 50% of the North Sea fields are in "English waters", so that isn't an answer.

Although, I must admit, much of the most vociferous anti-English bullcrap I see is from "North Americans" who claim Scottish ancestry by repeating, ad nauseum, some clan name without any clue of the culture of the country.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:38 AM
I was born and raised in Wales but have lived longer in England now (20+ years)
That said, it has always been a bone of contention to me that Scotland, Wales and NI have a greater proportion of taxpayers money spent on their populations compared to people living in England:

Total public spending per head in Scotland last year was £10,212, compared to £8,588 in England, figures in the Treasury's annual Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses show. The gap widened by 15.2 per cent in a year - from £1,409 to £1,624. In the South East of England, which is responsible for a large share of tax revenues, public spending was just £7,533 per head. Although poorer than Scotland, Wales received £9,829 per person.

I have paid tens of thousands of pounds in tax while living in England, so if the Scots vote to leave the union and this results in my contributions being distributed more fairly here I'll be more than happy to wave them goodbye.
It would be interesting to see how Scotland adapts to the loss of subsidy by the workers in England.
My guess is increased taxes or cuts in their services. Either way, if a breakaway means my taxes paid in England stay in England then yep, that would be beneficial and most welcome in my opinion.

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:44 AM
reply to post by stumason

Stu are you another who confuses the 1603 Union of the Crowns with the 1707 Act of Union? I ask because it was William of Orange who sat on the throne at the time the parliaments were united.

Uniting the kingdoms of Scotland and England had been proposed for a hundred years before it actually happened in 1707. From the day when James VI of Scotland and I of England had been crowned it was expected that the parliaments would eventually unite.

Suspicion and mistrust between the two countries had prevented the union throughout the 17th century. The Scots feared that they would simply become another region of England , being swallowed up as had happened to Wales some four hundred years earlier. For England the fear that the Scots may take sides with France and rekindle the 'Auld Alliance' was decisive. England relied heavily on Scottish soldiers and to have them turn and join ranks with the French would have been disastrous.

When the Darien Scheme collapsed and with Scotland in financial chaos, William III played his hand and bribed the Scottish MPs, Lords and Ladies with cash incentives. If they would vote to unite the parliaments, then the king would give them some of their lost money back. Many of the Scottish gentry jumped at this chance to recoup their losses.

In the words of Robert Burns, they (the Scottish MP's) were "bought and sold for English gold".

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory!
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name.
Sae famed in martial story!
Now Sark rins over Salway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
to mark where England 's province stands --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

What force or guile could not subdue
Thro' many warlike ages
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane --
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

O, would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour
I'll mak this declaration: -
'We're bought and sold for English gold'--
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

You can read the full history of why it actually happened here

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by michael1983l

One of the main stumbling blocks to Turkeys admittance is the Cyprus "problem" stemming from their 1974 invasion

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by christina-66

No, it wasn't William of Orange. I think you'll find it was Queen Anne who was Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland when she ascended the throne in 1702

EDIT: In essence, she was the Great-Granddaughter of James Vi of Scotland, the one who unified the crowns.
edit on 27/1/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:07 AM
United we stand divided we fall sums it up best!

We are a nation of nations, thats it in a nut shell IMHO!
edit on 27-1-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by stumason

My (blushing) apologies - we are both wrong. It was William III who obtained the signatures of the Scots parliamentarians - however not because the Scots had come begging - they were bribed to recoup losses they had made in gold investments.

ETA Her husband was Danish

edit on 27-1-2013 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in