Metropol

I think "subsidy" is the wrong term, "economies of scale" might be better.

I don't - for a matter of fact - think Scotland is "subsidiesed" by England. Certainly not in the "let's throw billions at Edinburgh so they can lavish themselves at our expense" manner peddled by the Daily Mail.

However if Scotland was to become independant what would occur is that a similar tax revenue would then have to pay for a bucket load of extra tripe that is not required at the moment as it is shared with the rest of the UK.

For example, embassies, a larger civil service to deal with all the new depts that were previously dealt with by Westminster and various other bits and bobs.

In addition to this there are other things to be considered such as Transport suddenly having a much larger brief. And although NHS Scotland is a seperate entity than the NHS in England the manner in which they work with each other on certain things would likely also change dramatically.


I noticed on Newswatch the nats had been writing in to complain about "bias in the panel AND audience" because when the labour woman said no there was loud and polite applause that was far louder than the pathetic attempt at applause and "whooping like children to make yourself seem bigger" when Stugeon opened her yap.

Pete wrote:I think "subsidy" is the wrong term, "economies of scale" might be better.

I don't - for a matter of fact - think Scotland is "subsidiesed" by England. Certainly not in the "let's throw billions at Edinburgh so they can lavish themselves at our expense" manner peddled by the Daily Mail.

However if Scotland was to become independant what would occur is that a similar tax revenue would then have to pay for a bucket load of extra tripe that is not required at the moment as it is shared with the rest of the UK.

For example, embassies, a larger civil service to deal with all the new depts that were previously dealt with by Westminster and various other bits and bobs.

In addition to this there are other things to be considered such as Transport suddenly having a much larger brief. And although NHS Scotland is a seperate entity than the NHS in England the manner in which they work with each other on certain things would likely also change dramatically.


I noticed on Newswatch the nats had been writing in to complain about "bias in the panel AND audience" because when the labour woman said no there was loud and polite applause that was far louder than the pathetic attempt at applause and "whooping like children to make yourself seem bigger" when Stugeon opened her yap.

I don't think I've ever heard "economies of scale" when referring to Whitehall before.

There is already massive duplication of administration - some of it is even necessary - when it comes to centralised services, and that has to be paid for one way or another - I'm absolutely not convinced that these are brand new overheads for us to shoulder. Besides, since heavy manufacturing was dismantled here decades ago, the public sector have been the largest employer by far - so you're not perhaps looking at a fundamental shift - maybe more of a stretching of existing remits.

And as humorous as the clips are, you can no more blame Sturgeon for the obnoxious hooting from audience cyber-nats than you can blame Leeds Football Club for the knob head who ran onto the ground and punched a goalkeeper. For every pebble brained nationalist there are two intelligent reasoned advocates of separation - indeed a similar proportion of dumb versus lucid to the "No" camp supporters - like the English boy I saw on Newsnight who plays bagpipes in a kilt in London who said, "After all that nice feeling in the 'Lympics it would just be, you know, better? To stick together?".

Awesome argument.

BUT - not to throw myself off my main thrust - taking the point we can stipulate to, re subsidy - I invite you all to spend the next week observing how many times the matter of "England carrying Scotland" is heavily implied over the course of the weekly news - and then we can reconvene and compare findings.

I guarantee this much - if you hear anything about the referendum, you're going to hear that suggestion.

I take the view that if Scotland wants to be independent, so be it - if they bugger it up, its their own fault.

Pete wrote: However if Scotland was to become independant what would occur is that a similar tax revenue would then have to pay for a bucket load of extra tripe that is not required at the moment as it is shared with the rest of the UK.

I'm not really in a position to judge the extent to which we're 'subsidised' by the UK in most respects. There are, I'm sure, lots of areas where this duplication would not be viable. One totally selfish reason for maintaining the status quo is I'm a little terrified about what would happen with respect to research funding. Scotland already punches above its weight in terms of EPSRC grant revenue. If we were to be independent today, there'd be a shortfall of some £185 million per year we'd need to make up (ie. the difference between the UK cost per head and ours), or experience some swathing cuts in engineering and physical sciences (never mind life sciences and humanities). In an already pretty grim funding climate, I can't see how this can easily be rectified in the kind of timescales we'd be facing, particularly in areas without mature funding arrangements with private charities and industry.

I wasn't ideologically attracted to independence anyway, but these practicalities (which will never serve as major political talking points) are fairly fundamental to people who don't want to have to flee the country to have any hope of getting a job

nodnirG kraM wrote:...what is the actual reason behind wanting to break away? That alone is the biggest thing I don't understand. Why?

nodnirG kraM wrote:The story has never interested me so I have never given it much thought.

You've partially answered your own question there, I should think. Why remain part of a union in which the largest country and its citizens are so unaware of/indifferent to what's going on in your bit that most of them aren't even bothered that you're thinking about leaving?

As an Irishman, I've been (unfairly) accused of being overly nationalistic on this forum before, so let me be clear: I am not trying to claim that Irish independence has been an enormous success. Years of extreme conservatism and subservience to the Catholic church, followed by some brief economic success in the 1990s, which was then squandered in the 2000s because of a corrupt, clientelist political system of which I am deeply ashamed. I often think about the many ways Ireland would be better off as part of the United Kingdom.

And then I visit England, and talk to English people about Ireland. The level of knowledge that most English people have about their neighbouring country is shocking. Some think that it's part of the UK, and others don't realise that Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. I've been asked, upon mentioning that I'm from Dublin, whether it's in the North or the South. When challenged about this lack of basic geographical knowledge, most will say something along the lines of "you're basically British anyway". In most cases this comes from a place of friendliness and inclusiveness rather than malice, but it nonetheless displays a fundamental (and very English) dismissiveness towards any sense of a separate cultural identity.

And there are differences in culture, despite the similarities. Irish social norms, ways of behaving and sense of humour can differ wildly from those in England, in good ways and bad (the aforementioned political clientelism being one of the bad). To be clear, I'm not dealing with idiots here. Most of the English people to whom I refer are university graduates and intelligent, interesting people. It's just that they're English, and I'm Irish, and I can't imagine how being part of the same country would make any sense to either side.

Of course, the experience I've described above probably doesn't hold true for Scotland. The ties between Scotland and England are far stronger than those between Ireland and England ever were, and for the majority of the Scottish people, that feeling of being different doesn't seem to be strong enough to warrant a desire for a sovereign independent nation.

But if I were a Scottish floating voter, further comments like this...

nodnirG kraM wrote:...other than to prove a point...

...might just tip me over the edge towards voting Yes.

Finally, to answer a couple of your questions Mark, under the SNP's proposals, Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state, and no, you wouldn't need your passport to get into Scotland, much as crossing this border is almost unnoticeable.

I think the trouble is that there isn't really an answer to most of nodnirG's questions.

Wildly off-topic (but clinging in on the pretext of how a border would work between the countries), I was quite intrigued by a trip I made to the Republic of Ireland a couple of years ago. I went there by plane and managed to lose my British passport somewhere between getting on the flight and getting to the RoI immigration area.

I was expecting a miserable time, involving being put in a holding area, interrogated and deported back whence I came. Instead, a friendly Irish immigration lady laughed at my story, said I was clearly English and waved me through (and I dealt with the passport issue at an embassy). This interested me because, although the RoI is (presumably) fiercely independent, they clearly show some sort of special consideration to their neighbours which definitely wouldn't be shown to Mr Random Nationality turning up with a flimsy excuse.

cdd wrote:I think the trouble is that there isn't really an answer to most of nodnirG's questions.

Of course there are answers to his questions. You're saying that you're unaware of what the answers are.

cdd wrote:Wildly off-topic (but clinging in on the pretext of how a border would work between the countries), I was quite intrigued by a trip I made to the Republic of Ireland a couple of years ago. I went there by plane and managed to lose my British passport somewhere between getting on the flight and getting to the RoI immigration area.

I was expecting a miserable time, involving being put in a holding area, interrogated and deported back whence I came. Instead, a friendly Irish immigration lady laughed at my story, said I was clearly English and waved me through (and I dealt with the passport issue at an embassy). This interested me because, although the RoI is (presumably) fiercely independent, they clearly show some sort of special consideration to their neighbours which definitely wouldn't be shown to Mr Random Nationality turning up with a flimsy excuse.

Under the Common Travel Area arrangments, British citizens do not need a passport to enter the Republic of Ireland, and vice-versa. Most forms of photo ID are acceptable, and I've heard stories like yours before of immigration officers having the discretion to decide whether they're being told the truth about nationality.

In Irish airports, domestic and international flights tend to be funnelled through the same arrivals area, meaning you have to show ID even if you're flying internally or from the UK. But in most UK airports that I've flown to, if you've arrived from Ireland there is a separate channel where you simply show the immigration officer your boarding pass to prove the origin of your flight. ID is usually not required.

In addition to this, Irish citizens resident in the UK can vote in UK general elections, and vice versa. This goes above and beyond EU citizens' rights. As a matter of interest, according to Wikipedia, the proportion of the Irish population with British citizenship is higher than that of the UK population with Irish citizenship. Although I expect that has changed with the recent mass exodus of young people from Ireland.

As with most things in this Scottish independence debate, it's unclear what will happen in the event of independence, but I'd imagine it's fairly safe to assume that similar arrangements would be put in place. In fact I'd say it's safe to assume that even closer ties would remain.

MORE than half of Scots would back independence if they believed the Tories would win the next Westminster election, a shock poll has revealed.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol ... s-out.html

Im Not surprised at that..

nodnirG kraM wrote:Oh so it's solely to prove a point then, yeah?

My point was that your dismissiveness (and similar sentiment expressed by others) could well be the cause, rather than the result, of the kind of pettiness you assume is the motivation for independence.

You really ought to put your IRA tendencies aside, eoin. We've had all this from you before and it was boring to the point of suicide last time as well.