Why?

If Scotland is such a drain on the finances of the UK, as is claimed by certain posters on this and other boards, why is there so much resistance to the fact that Scotland is in the process of leaving the United Kingdom?

In the process? what is the process of leaving UK? What are the steps? And at which steps are you in now?

__________________

Oil...

What resistance? Most people in England- myself not included-want you gone.

Same game in Canada. Quebec is a major fiscal drain, but people prefer to keep the whole just on principle.

What I find very interesting is the way regions that receive heavy fiscal subsidies from elsewhere seem to inspire independence/successionist movements. Quite odd it seems.

I would imagine that those nations are in dire economic straights and low employment rates, hence the subsidies. And that tends to mean a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands to think of stuff like this.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

It has only been since 1707 that Great Britain was United. Scotland actually had a great economic boost within 20 years. Maybe the session movement is more of a Saber Rattle than a real effort. Though I think it might be as good for the Scots as Union was 300 years ago. Throw off the drag of the English Economy and be able to grow.

Just a thought.

__________________
Listener of the Wilkow Majority
Patriot, Conservative, Libertarian

Absolutely. It is a proven and effective method of actually increasing one's subsidies. That is always attractive to those addicted to subsidies.

Belgium and Spain also demonstrate this same phenomena in various degrees to Canada and Britain.

Yeah like Mexico to America....thanks to our great President

Economics
The debate over Scotland's economy in the 1960's focused on Scotland's inherent dependence on English subsidy. Although independence was possible economically, it was not worth the cost


because it would not solve the fundamental problem of the Scottish economy. Scotland was too weak, too poor and too vulnerable for it to opt for independence and maintain, let alone increase, its relative living standards. (Kennedy 49)


Economists such as Gavin McCrone had decided that although there was "no question of" Scotland "being unable to afford" independence, the important question was whether or not Scotland would economically gain or lose from separation from the UK., to which they answered that she would undoubtedly lose. (McCrone 52) Such assessments were made before the impact on the scene of North Sea oil, however, and have since been deemed severely flawed.

Despite a certain amount of depreciation in people's perceptions, the Scottish economy is in a state of upturn beyond a lot of the rest of the UK. Although many traditional Scottish industries "like shipbuilding, went into terminal decline in the 1970's," Scotland has recovered and restructured remarkably well. "Many of its new industries, electronics, tourism and financial services, have raised employment higher than in many other parts of Britain." (Darnton A7)

Also, one of the factors which made the Union originally attractive to Scotland was unfettered access to the English empire. With the empire gone, Scotland is free to trade with the whole world, not to mention the EU. Also, the loss of empire proves to be another reason for independence, since no one wants to be the crew on a sinking ship.

International financial markets would most likely give an independent Scotland a high credit rating due to its strong resource base. (Maxwell 11) As well, long-term investors would prove increasingly attracted to the development of these resources. (12)

Thus, Scottish oil is of prime importance in independence. It is only by "exercising sovereignty" over oil "that Scotland could hope to protect its national interests." (Carty xv) Luckily, under international law, the oil would "almost certainly... become the property of a... sovereign Scottish state." (Simpson 60)

PM Harold Wilson "claimed the oil off Scotland was worth 200 billion pounds at 1974 prices, and estimates of the taxation revenue from the oil varied up to 3 billion pounds a year" as of 1976. (Kennedy 50) It was estimated during the devolution debate that tax revenues from the oil would amount "in the early 1980's" to approximately half of Scotland's GDP, while "the same sum amounts to less than one third of the UK public sector borrowing requirements." (Simpson 61)

On the other hand, Christopher Smallwood claimed in 1976 that the wealth from the oil would necessitate continued Union. He said that the revenues


would strengthen an independent Scottish pound and drive it up against the English pound... by as much as 100 per cent. Such a movement in the exchange rates would deal a death blow to the Scottish manufacturing sector which was already declining and uncompetitive with England. (Kennedy 50)


If this were true, any Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) that Scotland might have inherited from the UK would be either severely compromised, or the mechanisms of the European EMU would negate such fluctuations. Unfortunately, no similar current studies are available, nor is there any current coherency to the vision of EMU.

Seeing that "England is by far Scotland's largest single export market," it would be stupid for it to "cause a serious deterioration... or collapse" of the English economy through the denial to England of the benefits of oil. (Maxwell 9) Most policy-formulators have concluded that the most probable and effective strategy would be to negotiate a way to share the operations, and the benefits, of Scotland's black gold.

Scotland's general room for maneuver economically would be limited by "its comparative powerlessness" but this does not have to imply that it could not act in areas where it perceived its real interests to lie. (Carty xv) All countries are limited by the international economy's movements, making Scotland no exception. Independence would make it perhaps better able to serve its own personal interests, however.

One of the main policies which would prove important to an independent Scotland would be a rollback of the Thatcher-era privatizations of public utilities. The furor over executive salary raises resulting from increasing rates has become epidemic across the UK, and particularly in Scotland. While West Yorkshire was suffering a drought at the hands of its incompetent water utility company, several parts of Scotland spent this winter with minimal supplies of water from the money-pits of their water companies, which were incapable of dealing with the frozen pipelines. Certainly, a separate Scotland would renationalize at least some utilities and industries that it thought too vital to the national good to be allowed to continue in profiteering private hands.

Scotland would probably be just as limited as the UK in controlling the activity of multi-national corporations (MNCs). A newly independent country with a new set of elites could possibly be immune to much of the collaboration with them that is common in Westminster. As for the willingness of them to invest in a breakaway of the UK, MNCs have shown themselves to be "used to adapting their operations to political changes where these appear inevitable." (Maxwell 11)

Alasdair Gray expresses that he would not worry about Scotland being poor. Were it so, he would find that to be an asset rather than a liability, because "an independent country" whose government is as poor as its citizens "has more hope than one governed by a big rich neighbor." (Gray 63) On the contrary, a very poor Scotland would be a serious problem indeed. It was poverty and debt which led to the Union of 1707 with England in the first place, which made it easy for the government and elites to be bribed out of their country. Scotland would definitely need wealth to maintain its sovereignty, and this has been established.

Environment Scotland is a land of great natural wealth: glens, bens (mountains), laws (hills), resources, forests, lochs, rivers, etc. The Scottish Green party campaigns for independence for Scotland due to the need to protect this environment, and makes a serious case in fitsavor. The British government has tended to be anti-green in its policy, and has not paid too much attention to preserving the natural integrity of most places in the UK, let alone Scotland.

Gruinard Island is a famous example of UK environmental policy; more correctly, it represents a lack of a policy. The island, off the west coast of Scotland, was the site during WW2 of massive experimentation with biological weapons. The island has been quarantined ever since, and is littered with the remains of anthrax tests.

The story would have ended there, were it not for what was dubbed 'Operation Dark Harvest' by its instigators, the 'Scottish Civilian Army.' The SCA had taken soil samples and placed them at key biological research facilities around the UK in 1981. The soil was identified as containing the Anthrax, but the SCA revealed later that the soil was not in fact from Gruinard, but from the nearby mainland. They showed the public that the threat not only existed, but was spreading. Professor Steven Rose of the Bertrand Russell Committee Against Chemical Weapons said that it was indeed an "extraordinarily effective way of drawing attention to the hazards of chemical and biological weapons." (Scott, A 110) By 1986, the decontamination of Gruinard had finally begun (after a significant waiting period to make sure no one suspected the government of giving in to terrorism).

The government has also been involved in innumerable attempts to secretly bury toxic and nuclear waste throughout Scotland. Activist Willie McRae was involved in campaigning against such activities when he was killed in 1985. An independent Scotland would be in a position to curtail such activities, and to put stricter controls on both dumping and the general usage of nuclear power. They would also be capable of restricting the American military's activities of similar nature.

One of the problems to be faced by an independent Scotland would be controlling its population. In order to avoid a neo-Malthusian situation in Scotland, particularly to avoid encroaching on land and resources which Scots may wish to preserve, there are several steps which could be taken. Scotland could encourage more family planning and birth control facilities through state funding. It could also further regulate immigration, "by employing a system of work permits." (Purves 91) This second approach would prove difficult or impossible within the EU, where restrictions on labor movement are strictly limited.

Two specific Scottish institutions would need to be created: a Ministry of the Environment, and an Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Ministry "would have to possess widespread coordinating and advisory roles in addition to a specific area of responsibility." "In contrast to the Westminster model," it would need to work against industrial interests when they conflicted with the public interest. (Purves 91) As well, an EPA "with teeth" would be essential in "protecting the quality of life of the people." (92)

Independence: Scotland as a Viable Nation State

Cowboy Ted;
Now that would be a gift to international social progress.

I lived in Scotland for 4 years and come from Ireland.

Scotland would be grand as an independent country. It wouldn't help Ireland as the first thing they would do is lower the coporation tax to compete with Ireland. Both countries would have very similar economic models, very highly educated workforce(actually they would have one of the highest in the world, they got brilliant universities and it's free). They would alos recieve initially alot of grants from europe for there disadvantaged areas.

This is one of the hidden things in the money Scotland gets from Europe. They get money for Scotland which is balanced against money which they pay for England. England would be a donor to the system, even though they don't pay what they should due to a maggie deal in the 80's. Germany and France are the big payers but it has worked for them in the long run as they have now direct access to some great markets which 30 years ago where real bottom of the ladder first world (Ireland, Portugal ,Spain, Greece, ...).

By the way that is where the EU has been great for Europe. Poorer countries have been really able to get on thier feet. Ireland is the 2nd richest from being the 2nd poorest. Ireland economy is one of the most free in the world even ranked above the US. So the whole of the EU is pinko socialist, it is driven by some incredibly smart economics which uses that wealth to bring up the bottom of society thru education and helping hands. Scotland is a country which would even more than UK be into that model.

Scottish independence is built on the same assumptions that the argument for Quebec independence is built on.

I'm not saying that Scotland couldn't succeed, but it would involve a net drop in Scottish GDP per capita - a factor that all of their analysis is likely designed to hide (and conversely, a net increase in England's GDP per capita comes from the removal of the subsidy drain).

Indeed, why would English people continue to pay subsidies to an independent Scotland? Quebec separatists have trouble with the same question - and just tend to deny it and accuse one of being anti-French.

Does the Scottish plan for independence call for EU subsides to replace English ones? Wouldn't surprise me.

And given the nature of Scottish agriculture, I can't see them milking the EU farm subsidy cow very much more than they already are (which is very small potatos compared to France or Spain).

There are some people in the north of Sweden who would like their provinces to be independent as well, even though they are subsidised by the south. The thing is, many of them believe the subsidies goes the other way, because there are some good natural resoures in the north, but those who believe so do not see the whole picture. I believe this is a rule throughout the world.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Does any one count Chechnia, Basks, Quebeque, Folklands, California? Irish wariours, Whels, helpless to break free due to economic restrain Brits imposed since 1902. All of u are free! British are no one! Void. Until when Irish are going to affiliate themselves with brit, Bush kiss ass Brown anyway?