Blackleaf,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Further, they are genuinely disgusted with Britain and have no wish to remain a part of the UK.
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.
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.
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?
Jonathan Jones
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 like to claim 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 said before, ‘Scotland would swap rule from London for rule by OPEC’.
Can Scotland make it on its own? | The Spectator