Scotland wants to talk independence.

-- and it seems most of them want more autonomy from Britain but not outright independence. Sounds familiar?

A poll has shown that most Scots are against independence. Not only that, the English are greater supporters of Scottish independence than the Scots themselves are!

Official: More English than Scots want independence for Scotland

There is more support in England for Scotland leaving the United Kingdom than there is north of the border, according to a poll for The Mail on Sunday.

Scots do not want the English to meddle in whether they end their 300-year union with England, but English voters are much keener to have a say in the matter.

And the main worry of Scots appears to be that cutting their ties with England, Wales and Northern Ireland will leave them with less cash.

It is the first comprehensive opinion poll in Scotland and England since Prime Minister David Cameron decided to throw down the gauntlet to Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

Two surveys, conducted separately in England and Scotland by polling firm Survation, show that Mr Salmond’s plan to offer an alternative of ‘devo max’ – grabbing more power from Westminster for Scotland, but staying in the UK – could backfire.

When asked David Cameron’s preferred straight ‘Yes or No’ question on whether Scotland should be independent, a total of 26 per cent of Scots favour breaking away, with 46 in favour of staying in the UK. However, when the same question is put alongside the ‘devo max’ option as an alternative, there is a different result.



In that case support for independence falls to 23 among Scots, with backing for staying put in the UK rising to 52. It suggests that the ‘devo max’ alternative threatens Mr Salmond’s dream of becoming the first leader of a new independent Scotland.

When independence for Scots is put to English voters in a straight ‘Yes or No’ question, 40 per cent say ‘No’ with 29 per cent saying ‘Yes’ – three points higher than the result in Scotland.

The gulf in opinion north and south of the border is most stark over the question of whether the referendum should be UK-wide. Nearly seven out of ten Scots say the English should mind their own business. But 38 per cent of people in England want a vote in the referendum, with the same number against.

The poll also suggests the English are less worried about Scotland abandoning links with England than are the Scots.

When voters in Scotland are asked what should happen if there is a small majority for ‘independence’ but even greater backing for ‘devo max,’ more than half say Scotland should not break away. When the same question is put to English voters, they are content to say goodbye to Scotland.

More than four in ten Scots fear independence will leave them worse off financially. Fewer than one in four say they will gain. The collapse of the euro has done little to swell enthusiasm for Mr Salmond’s nationalist cause. A massive 79 per cent of Scots do not want to join the euro; 49 per cent don’t even want to join the EU, with only 32 in favour, if they leave the UK.

An early poll in 2013 – rather that 2014, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, as planned by Salmond – is endorsed by a small margin in Scotland, and overwhelmingly in England and Wales.

Survation interviewed 1,001 people in Scotland and 1,019 in England and Wales between Thursday and Saturday.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1jXsCu5te




Drag this to your Windows taskbar to enable special IE9 Features.

--

Don't know why Scots would want to remain under British rule. The Brits have been using them for cannon fodder for centuries. Which also makes me wonder why Brits want them to leave. But then, the Brits are a whacky bunch of loonies. I know. I was raised by Brits.

Brits don't have an empire to maintain. Cannon fodder's not quite so necessary now.

They still like to go out and start a fight every once in a while when they get tired of drinking at the local pub.

As someone of Scot heritage I applaud the move, the Highlanders have said for centuries
there will come a time when Scotland shall be free and that time is coming. Oh I know the
classic battles and history itself has changed but in the minds of Scots I would hope that
liberty is still the option and the objective of liberty. Self determination remained for the
Scots and I believe the Whales will be next. On the Emerald Isle Northern Ireland will be
the last hold out.
My heritage goes back the MacDonald Clan on one side and the Southern Irish, on the
other. There are some old scores that remain in that troubled region. No I am not a person
who advocates for violence and upheaval, but a vote in a ballot box can solve what clashing
swords could not.
I may be Canadian but like any other group of Canadians family history and Heritage has its
place, and finally justice could prevail. Here is to Scotland a free and Democratic nation
once again in the near future.

This does sound familiar...



From the LINK in the O.P.:

Despite Salmond's popularity, it seems most Scots do not, yet, want outright
independence. Opinion polls since the 1990s have found support for it
hovering at between 30 and 35 percent.

Knowing this, Scottish authorities want to put on the ballot a third choice —
known as maximum devolution or "devo max" — which would stop short of
full independence but give Scotland autonomy in all areas except
foreign affairs and defense.

What's in it for Britian to support this "devo max" option?

Greenpeace is right. Freedom for Whales.

I wonder what Mel Gibson would say about the referendum.

But I would support a federal-type system like we have.

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now -- rins over -- sands,
An' -- 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, ere I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' -- and loyal --!
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!

I think you'll find that the Scots ARE Brits, in the same way that Californians are Americans. You can't separate the Scots from the Brits when the two are one and the same.

The Scots weren't cannon fodder in the British Empire. They RAN much of it. Many Scots, and Scotland itself, grew rich off the Empire.

Although, none of this is a surprise when you consider that the main reason Scotland joined in a Union with England was so that it could have an Empire. Just before it unified with England to form Great Britain in 1707 Scotland became bankrupt as a result of the failed Darien Scheme, which was a lame attempt to start a Scottish Empire in Central America. As a result Scotland then appealed to England for financial assistance, which resulted in the merger of the two countries to form Great Britain.


It's just a pity for you that the Scots don't want independence and that, ironically, the English are more in favour of Scottish independence than the Scots are.

Blackleaf,

I work as a mod for a Scottish owned website and have become forum friends with a number of Scots who are fiercely independent (at least in their minds). Whenever we communicate I need to be mindful of their usage which is so different from anything we see in CC. For example, they use words like donnae, fae, haein which cannot be understood by Canadians or by Yanks. Luckily, I am now used to their ways of communicating. I also am a huge fan of camanachd (what you Brits call shinty) which is my favorite form of hockey and is a sport totally unknown in North America. Often, those who play it do not speak English but do so in old Highland Gaelic - I believe they do this as a way of flipping the bird to Brits. Also, they do not use the name Scotland in their jerseys (what you call ''kits'') but use the name Alba which is Scotland's ancient name.

I do not know what percentage of the Scottish population is represented by these people. But it is clear to me that they are a sizable percentage. Further, they are genuinely disgusted with Britain and have no wish to remain a part of the UK. Don't know how all this is going to turn out. But if it is true that there are oil reserves hidden away up north, you can bet the move to secede will gain impetus as many Scots will want a large slice of the pie it will afford.

What's it got to do with Gibson? He's Australian.

I also worked with some Scottish tech gurus (based out of Dingwall & Inverness) a few years back, and even made a couple trips over
there to perform some feasibility work and factory acceptance tests at their facilities.I thought the country was beautiful and I liked the people I met. I often thought, if I had the money, I would love to own a place up there.

All that aside, I found there a couple things of note: the Scots I dealt with consider themselves Brits, and deemed it a snub when someone tried to insinuate that the Brits = the English. There was an awareness of English interference in Scottish politics, and back beyond the days of Edward Longshanks, Robert the Bruce and William Wallace (damned near back to the Romans vs British Celts/Gaels vs the Picts in some cases)... and also a more subdued admission that the political games of the nobility went both ways (although the higher profile attrocities and betrayals were predominantly English or engineered by them). There was very little antagonism that I found between Englishman and Scot, pretty much what I consider on a par as what I have seen with Maritimers and Westerners in Canada (we both seem to dislike Ontario and Quebec more than the Scots generally dislike the English).

Its hard to draw far reaching conclusions from personal annecdotal evidence though, because we simply don't know if the people we are dealing with are the exception or the rule...

The Scottish are British, just as Albertans are Canadians. You cannot separate the two. They are the same. When America gained its independence from Britain in 1776 it gained its independence from Scotland, England and Wales, all of which form Great Britain.

Polls consistently show that the Scots are against independence. It's rare for polls to show Scottish support for independence above the 40-odd% mark.

I cannot see most Scots as being disgusted with Britain, a nation they helped to form back in 1707 when they voluntarily unified with England & Wales (the Union Jack was the idea of a Scotsman). If most Scots were disgusted with Britain most of them would want independence, but that is not the case.

Not only that, but Scotland is currently doing better in the Union than England, due to successive British governments showing favouritism to the Scots. Since 1999 Scotland has had its own parliament (so have Wales and NI) but, mysteriously, unfairly and undemocratically, the government denied giving England one. As a result England does not have its own parliament and is therefore less independent than Scotland, Wales and NI are.

This has led to the West Lothian Question. This refers to the unfairness of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs being allowed to vote on English-only matters in the UK parliament at Westminster (tEngland doesn't have its own parliament), but English MPs are not allowed to vote on Scottish-only matters, Welsh-only matters or Northern Irish-only matters due to those being matters for their parliaments.

Look at university tuition fees. We wouldn't have tuition fees in England had Scottish MPs (most of them belonging to the Labour Party) in the British parliament not voted FOR the introduction of them into England, despite the fact that most English MPs voted AGAINST the introduction of them into England (those Scottish votes were enough for them to be introduced); despite the fact that Scottish MSPs in the Scottish Parliament voted AGAINST the introduction of them in Scotland; and despite the fact that English MPs had no say in the matter over whether or not to introduce tuition fees in Scotland because that vote took place in the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh (although, as I've mentioned, Scottish MPs were allowed a say on whether or not to introduce tuition fees into England).

As you can see, this is all grotesquely unfair to the English and very undemocratic and highlights why England either needs to have its own Parliament with only English MPs sitting in it or Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs need to be banned from voting on English-only matters at the British parliament in Westminster.

I find it reprehensible that Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs were allowed to vote on the matter of whether or not to introduce tuition fees in England when English MPs were not able to vote on the matter of whether or not to introduce tuition fees into Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

And then there's the matter of the British Government spending more per head on the Scots than on the English, and the Scots receiving things such as free prescriptions and no university tuition fees, freebies which are denied to the English but paid for by the English taxpayer.

Also I do not believe that Scotland could hack it as an independent nation.

Scotland's biggest export in recent years has been toxic banking. The UK's banking crisis orginated largely in Scotland, not the City of London. When the two Scottish banks, RBS and HBOS, failed they were only able to be bailed out thanks to Scotland being in the Union. The two banks were bailed out by the British taxpayers - 90% of whom are English. But when you consider that RBS's liabilities are 2,500% of the entire Scottish GDP, an independent Scotland would not have been able to bail out those banks. They were only saved thanks to Scotland being in the Union and, therefore, were able to have English taxpayers bailing them out. Had Scotland been independent when those Scottish banks crashed it would have made the situation in Iceland look minor.

It is debatable how much of that North Sea oil would belong to an independent Scotland. At the moment, with Scotland not being a sovereign state, there are no Scottish waters. The waters are UK waters. The oil belongs to the whole of the UK, so there will be much debate as to who gets how much oil should Scotland secede. The pro-independence Scottish Nationalist Party (whose leader and Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond used to work for RBS) insist that 91% of the oil would belong to an independent Scotland. However, they also include North Sea gas in their figures and, as most North Sea gas field are in the southern North Sea off the English coast, an independent Scotland will not get most of that gas.

Also, an independent Scotland will be playing a very dangerous game indeed if it starts to rely on oil to be wealthy. UK oil production peaked in 1999 when the UK produced more oil than many Middle Eastern countries, but UK North Sea oil production is now in sharp decline.

Tuesday, 10th January 2012

Can Scotland make it on its own?

--
The Spectator

What would an independent Scotland's public finances look like? ‘Good, actually,’ says the SNP as they present their ongoing case for independence. They -- that, discounting the rest of the UK, Scotland was in surplus for ‘four out of the last five years’ — it's Westminster, not Holyrood, that can't manage the public's money.

Which would be a powerful argument were it actually true. You see, the SNP are talking about the ‘current budget balance’, which excludes the £6.4 billion a year that Scotland spends on capital. When you include that spending — according to the Scottish government's own figures — there has been a deficit for every one of the last five years.

The SNP's ‘surplus’ boast is also based on Scotland receiving a generous share of the North Sea oil and gas revenues. It's based on a ‘geographical share’, meaning that the Scottish government gets everything inside the dark blue patch on the map to the right, which happens to generate around 91 per cent of total revenues. But, in truth, even that wouldn't be enough for a surplus. The chart below sets out Scotland's net fiscal balance (that is, total spending minus total revenue) under three different assumptions about how much of that oil and gas revenue it gets: zero, a per capita share (8.4 per cent of the total, as Scotland has 8.4 per cent of the UK's population), and the SNP's dream ‘geographical share’. For comparison, it also shows the net fiscal balance for the UK as a whole:



So, an independent Scotland would in fact be a long way from surplus. In 2009-10 its deficit, even assuming that it kept 91 per cent of North Sea revenues, would have stood at 11 per cent of GDP — the same as the figure for the UK as a whole.

What's more, even if Scotland did get Salmond's desired slice of the North Sea — which would comprise around one-fifth of its GDP — it would then be slave to oil and gas production, as well as volatility in their prices. That's all very well in good years like 2008-09, when North Sea revenues totalled £12.9 billion. But what happens if revenues drop to 1991-92 levels of just £0.6 billion? As Fraser's --, ‘Scotland would swap rule from London for rule by OPEC’.

--

We'll find out for sure in less than 2 years, assuming that vote is taken.

No, we won't, because it's almost certain that the Scots will vote against independence.

And one thing that the SNP are not telling the Scottish people is that, if Scotland became independent, it would suddenly find itself outside the EU. If it wanted to re-join it will have to apply to do so, and it could take years, with a damaging effect to the Scottish economy. And then, once back inside the EU, it will have to join the stricken Euro. And 79% of the Scottish people so not want to join the Euro.

Funnily enough, though, this is not something that the pro-independence SNP tell the Scottish people. So the anti-independence campaigners have a powerful weapon in their armoury in the lead up to the referendum: They plan to let the Scottish people know that an independent Scotland which re-joins the EU will have to join the stricken Euro.

I have no expertise on the subject os there is little I can say on it. But there are others who can such as this:

The independence debate in Scotland

Interviewing Alex Salmond, the man who wants to break up Britain


--

....................

This is a bit long but it may clarify things for some here.

commentator says:

"The thing is, all the claims and counter-claims about whether Britain subsidises Scotland or vice versa are essentially questions of politics, not economics."
Except for the fact that there is statistical evidence that, actually, Scotland subsidises England, not the reverse. In reality, it's essentially a matter of economic fact, not of political opinion.






I guess it all depends on whose side you want to believe.

Who would want to join the EU??? I wouldn't.

I don't listen to a word that Alex Salmond or many of his fellow Scottish nationalists say.

Before the worldwide credit crunch he stated that it is his dream for an independent Scotland to join what he called the "Arc of Prosperity", which included the likes of Iceland and Ireland. Needless to say he mentions the so-called "Arc of Prosperity" a lot less nowadays.

Before the worldwide credit crunch he made a speech in which he praised the Scottish banks RBS (which he used to work for) and HBOS as great ambassadors for Scotland and how they can play a role in a future, wealthy, independent Scotland.

Then those banks crashed, and were only able to be bailed out thanks to Scotland being in the UK (they were bailed out mainly by the English taxpayer). An independent Scotland would not have been able to bail out those Scottish banks and it would have made the situation in Iceland look like a damp squib. This proved that Scotland is better off in the Union.

But, whereas before Salmond was hailing the Scottish banks HBOS and RBS and telling us of their central role in a future, independent, wealthy Scotland, now that those banks have crashed he is now trying to wash his hands of them. He is now saying that an independent Scotland should not be liable for the full £187bn that is propping up RBS and that it should be London's problem to deal with. So, in other words, Salmond was hailing RBS as a SCOTTISH bank during the good times and saying how important it would be to an independent Scotland, but now he is calling RBS a BRITISH bank now that the damn thing has crashed and saying that he doesn't want it to have anything to do with an independent Scotland! And he's pinning the blame of the bank's crash onto the City of London despite the fact that the bank is based in Scotland's capital Edinburgh and that its problems started when it acquired ABN Amro for a vastly overinflated cash price with Salmond's blessing!

--

I'm afraid this is what we are dealing with in the Scottish nationalists.

What Scotland does, Scotland does. i would never presume to tell another nation what to do about its government.

You would do if that government is having a detrimental effect on your country.

We went through that in Canada during the Trudeau years... Wasn't pretty

The difference between Canada and the UK, though, is that Canada is a federal nation and the UK isn't.

In Canada every province has its own government which has certain powers devolved to it. Each province, in turn, is ruled by the Canadian Parliament.

In the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each has their own parliament or assembly, with certain devolved powers. However, England doesn't. Scotland, Wales and NI are each also ruled by the UK Parliament at Westminster. England is ruled solely by the UK Parliament at Westminster. So we have the unfair situation of Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs being able to have a say on matters concerning only England, but English MPs are not allowed to have a say on matters concerning only Scotland, only Wales or only NI.

It's no wonder that the English are more pro-Scottish independence than the Scottish are.

Pity, all those minor peoples trapped on a few islands off the coast of France. It would be welcome if they learnt to share and play nicely.

About 6,000 islands, actually.

Off the coast of France? wow

Yes.

As Scots around the world celebrate Burns Night today, here's a snippet of a Robert Burns poem that Scottish nationalists may want to take note of:

Be Britain still to Britain true,
Amang ourselves united;
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrangs be righted!
No! never but by British hands
Shall British wrangs be righted!


Robert Burns, 1759-1796

For, hard as it will be for Scottish nationalists to swallow, Robert Burns, their great Scottish hero, was a Unionist. He consistent declared his support for Scotland being in the Union. He was also a royalist.

In one of the very last letters he copied into his book of manuscripts, he avowed his ‘independent British spirit’ and in his commonplace book he wrote: “Whatever might be my sentiments of republics, ancient or modern, as to Britain I ever abjured the idea. A constitution which, in its original principles, experience has proved has in every way to fitted for our happiness, it would be insanity to abandon for untried visionary theory.”

On that evidence it seems a safe bet that Burns would be among the two-thirds of Scots who spurn SNP-style separation in 2008.

The romantic in him would like to have been a Jacobite and served a Scottish King and Parliament, yet when his loyalty was questioned and he was wrongly suspected of joining in a revolutionary demonstration he protested in writing his allegiance to the UK constitution and the Hanoverian king in London: “To the British constitution next after God, I am most devoutly attached … I always revered, and ever will, the Monarch of Great Britain.”

At SNP Burns Suppers up and down the land and overseas, they will trot out ad nauseam his lines on the Treaty of Union: ‘a coward few … hireling traitors …sic a parcel of rogues in a nation’. The last is a favourite of First Minister Alex Salmond who rolls it out with lip-licking relish with the clear intent of applying it to present-day Unionists; but, again, the fact is that it has a narrower application to the Scottish Lords who lined their own pockets in the sell-out that was the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Burns thought enough of the benefits of Union to become a £70-a-year exciseman or ‘ganger’ raising taxes for the UK government and pursuing revenue-dodgers among the hills and vales of Nithsdale. As a result of his farming and financial failures, he actually wrote a letter to one of his patrons virtually begging for a job in London and we can wonder what the Nationalist attitude would now be if he had gone to London and converted to an ‘Anglo-Scot’?

Another oft-quoted snippet from the Burns notebook is ‘Nothing can reconcile me to the common terms ‘English ambassador, English court, etc. …’ but the reason for his resentment of the word ‘English’ was that it did not acknowledge Scotland’s place in the Union.

What might Burns have become had he lived longer, had fewer faults and flaws? Thomas Carlyle stated that Burns ought, as the first man of his time, to have been ‘at the helm of British affairs’: “A man like Burns might have divided his hours between poetry and virtuous industry.”

Even more intriguing is what he would be if he lived today. He would certainly have welcomed devolution – within, of course, the United Kingdom - and the revived Scottish Parliament. ‘Robert Burns MSP’ has a certain ring to it and ‘First Minister Robert Burns’ is preferable to anything we have had so far.

Source: --

A cry for Scottish independence...

SCOTS WHA HAE
Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots wham Bruce has aften led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victory !

Wha for Scotland's king and law
Freedom's sword will strongly draw,
Freeman stand, or freeman fa',
Let him follow me !
-Robert Burns, 1793