Break-up of the UK?

I appreciate that Thursday’s Scottish election may not be a hot topic on WBs, but as the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) victory was so overwhelming, I wondered if it could signal the beginning of the end of the UK in its current form. And of course, should the SNP secure a yes vote for independence in a referendum pledged in this term, this would have far reaching implications for England.

I find it ironic that the late Donald Dewar, in his wisdom facilitated a referendum in 1997 on a devolved parliament in Scotland to appease the nationalists, in the hope that the SNP would never be able to form a majority government. Last Thursday’s historic result is the first time that the Scottish electorate have returned a party to Holyrood with a majority since the inception of the parliament in 1999. The SNP’s number of seats rose by 23 to 69 with a 12.5% increase in votes.

I am not surprised that the SNP are so popular in Scotland. Despite the current economic climate, as a minority government during the previous term they introduced free prescriptions, maintained free personal care for the elderly and a freeze on student tuition fees.

PS. I did enjoy watching Nick Clegg squirm – payback time me thinks.

I don't think Scotland will vote yes just yet, they do not have the funds to fight the press campaigns that will be launched by the big party's and paper/media barons.

Also all the prominent/promising Scottish politicians have headed for Westminster. To me it serves the political party's right for ignoring regional areas in the UK.

Maybe someone with Scottish blood can shine more info on this?

Full Scottish blood in my veins FJ. In typical Sun tradition, the second biggest selling paper always backs the party it senses will win in Scotland. Don’t think lack of cash for publicity for the yes campaign will be an issue, but I think you are right about the main UK parties - the Tories are a non-entity, but the big hitters of the other parties have concentrated their efforts at Westminster. Alex Salmond is a formidable politician who has enjoyed a free rein. I suspect that’s about to change in light of this amazing result.

Scotland could never survive on it's own. If we were given independence it would mean Scotland becoming a third world country within 10 years.

There is no industry anymore (Thanks Maggie) and all the oil rights belong to foreign companies. Tourism is a huge industry yes but that is mainly for 3-4 months of the year.

Farming is highly subsidised from the UK government so that would also suffer.

The idea for a Scotsman is a dream come true but the reality is something unachievable in the present climate.

I left Scotland 15 years ago as I was going nowhere apart from probably a prison cell or worse. Friends that are still there are going nowhere as there are very few opportunities.

The Scotland we were brought up to believe in no longer exists.

The really sad part is that it is so much cheaper to live in Scotland than this area (or is that just the Scotsman in me? LOL)

Alba De Brah!

What about the republic of England, Northen Ireland and Wales? Imagime Cameron on his quest to defeat the Scots - his flask would have gone cold long before he reached Derby. ;D

Very interesting times :)

Scotland may have free prescriptions/more spend per head on education/free hospital parking/free edumacation(for the scots only, Englishers moving north are charged!)free elderly care etc etc they do this by prioritising their budget, however i'd be interested to know where the shortfall is to allow this, or are they going into defecit? Full independance i'm sure will be on the SNP's list of to do's, hopefully with the break up of the union we can kiss goodbye to those German/Greek spongers in Lahndun too!

TBH I find it hard to covieve of the scots voting for independence.

Consider....

As it stands they have a higher spend per head than england, scot PM's can vote on english issues but not vice versa, politicians can blame westimnster for failings, but take the credit for the successes.

You will see a referendum, but only at the end of the term. If the SNP have any sense...

If you are correct in your economic analysis Mitch, why is it that the three main unionist parties (Lib-Dems, Tories and Labour) blocked a referendum in the previous Scottish parliament session? That will not happen in this term because the Nats have a working majority to push a referendum through. Alex Salmond is a very shrewd politician and I’m sure he will carefully gauge the mood of the nation before setting a date. When the time does arrive, watch the so called political heavyweights from the unionist parties venture north of the border in their droves, to fight with vigour on the side of the no campaign.

We must not forget that the political landscape in Scotland is very different from that in England. Most of the marginal constituencies are fought to win the left of centre votes.

I accept that the 1 million (approx) Scots who voted SNP last Thursday are not all supporters of independence, but many are fed up of being ruled by a Tory government in Westminster which has no mandate in Scotland. Margaret Thatcher even had the audacity to introduce the unpopular ‘Poll Tax’ one year earlier in Scotland.
Going back to the economic argument, I will not put you to sleep with statistics, but offer up one example. The SNP is committed to scrapping Trident and all nuclear weapons, which would save an independent Scotland £3 billion. At least now the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to decide their own destiny.

Analysis? Not really, i'd just like to know where they get more money per head from? Or are the Scots deeply in defecit? Or are the English having the wool pulled over our eyes?

Had a quick look http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../06/22160331/0 and even with allocating geographic revenue share of oil the Jocks would be in deficit by £3 billion their report concludes. It is possible for them to massively reduce defence spend to offset lost U.K. finance contribution.

A total of about £55 billion is the revenue in 2009 but there is a decline in recent years. Oil price increase does equate to quite a dramatic revenue rise and this offsets on land revenue reduction.

Expenditure/head looks to be about 11.5% higher than U.K. average and this would have to be reduced.

In conclusion without North Sea revenue the Jocks will be fooooookin skint ;D and would be another future bail out bandit for the EU.

Problem with Salmond is he cannot see this although he has achieved much in his role as Premier Big Gob....where's all the pies weee Alex :-*

Is the pub open ????? ;D

VOTE HUNAR!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Col

Had a quick look http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati.../06/22160331/0 and even with allocating geographic revenue share of oil the Jocks would be in deficit by £3 billion their report concludes. It is possible for them to massively reduce defence spend to offset lost U.K. finance contribution.

A total of about £55 billion is the revenue in 2009 but there is a decline in recent years. Oil price increase does equate to quite a dramatic revenue rise and this offsets on land revenue reduction.

Expenditure/head looks to be about 11.5% higher than U.K. average and this would have to be reduced.

In conclusion without North Sea revenue the Jocks will be fooooookin skint ;D and would be another future bail out bandit for the EU.

Problem with Salmond is he cannot see this although he has achieved much in his role as Premier Big Gob....where's all the pies weee Alex :-*

Is the pub open ????? ;D

---

Col, although the devolved government in Holyrood has the power to prioritise spending it is in effect administrators of the ‘Block grant’ allocated by the treasury at Westminster. The Scottish government has to manage the economy at present within the restraints of the devolved agreement. If Scotland broke free from the shackles of Westminster it is unlikely that the independent government would adopt right wing fiscal policies similar to that of the current UK government. The taxation system etc etc would probably change (for better or worse?) and therefore it is wrong to assume that growth, investment etc (increase or reduce?) would remain the same as it is now.

I know it’s completely different circumstances, but before apartheid was abolished in South Africa, the white rulers of the day peddled the same economic scaremongering. I personally believe that the battle for Scottish independence will be won or lost first and foremost on ideological grounds and not on the economic arguments.

As a matter of interest, of the 69 Scottish constituencies represented at Westminster, Labour occupy 41 seats and the Tories 1. No wonder Labour are ‘Quaking in their boots’ at this historic SNP result. In electoral terms they have a lot to lose, but in contrast, the Tories would be the big winners if independence came to fruition.

Hopefully see you Wednesday night as long as Alex Salmond aint ate all dem lovely burgers.
;D

Yeah absolutely Redken they would be free to do whatever they wanted fiscally and yes it would be an ideological wish first and foremost.

I'm not 100% certain about independence but doesn't it have to receive Royal approval and agreement from a majority of Commonwealth countries before it can be granted.

Couldn't get away from work in time Weds :(....maternity duties ;)

I say drag the military back over the boarder, let them have independence, then before they can build a Scottish defence force, invade, take over, and declare it England, then we just have to sort those pesky Welsh out.

Win!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noisy_lightning

I say drag the military back over the boarder, let them have independence, then before they can build a Scottish defence force, invade, take over, and declare it England, then we just have to sort those pesky Welsh out.

Win!

---

Dave, Ingerlan would need to resurrect “Dad’s Army” because all the troops are on foreign crusades in all the occupied lands. :P

Let's not forget, it's the British Army ::)

No offence intended Mitch - was just responding to Dave's post with a light hearted tongue in cheek comment. ;)

Lol, non taken here Ken. Reminds me of the time i was on DF ex in Wales. Driving through one estate, we got bricks thrown at the landrovers, and shouts of 'get out english' etc
Funny, the lad sat beside me was Welsh!!

Looks like Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron have drawn up the ‘Battle Lines’ for Scotland’s future.

It is the former and not the later that has a mandate in Scotland, therefore, I doubt that Salmond will be bullied into holding a referendum before his preferred proposed time of autumn 2014. Whenever it happens, it will be the Scottish people who will decide their own destiny and not Salmond or Cameron.

This would be the break up of the British Armed Forces. There are 1000's of scots serving this nation and not just in the Scottish regiments, they like everyone else are intergrated into every arm and sector of our Armed Forces, you could not strip them out without severe disruption. Would you force them to leave? They have signed up to serve a country already, would they remain in the British Army and serve as Commonwealth Servicemen and Women like so many of the African and Fijians do? If that is the case , where would our northern neighbours find their own armed forces from? Reservist? Tennants guzzling street fighters? The Lairds of old who formed their armies are long consigned to the history books.

And do British Passports change too ? I would hold dual nationality as my Dad is a porridge muncher from Glasgow. It would cause a hell of a lot of trouble, I guess we would have to look at how countries like Czechoslovakia did it when it split up . It sounds expensive tho

I was involved in Scottish politics for many years. Although I believe on the whole that Scotland would be better served with full independence, I suspect many of the ‘Floaters' will get cold feet when the time comes to scribble the cross on the referendum paper. Scotland is a completely different political animal to England as past general elections clearly show. The Tories are basically a non-entity north of the border and if Cameron keeps wading in with heavy-handed rhetoric he will undoubtedly help the independence cause in my opinion.

We must not forget that successive UK governments have assisted and offered their blessing to the citizens of many countries around the world (including Europe) where they followed a democratic path to full independence. If it is the will of the Scots to go it alone, then I’m sure issues such as the break up of the UK, armed forces, etc will be resolved in a democratic grown-up manner.

.. need to re-build Hadrians wall by Aug 2014 !! ... with a few passport controls along it ;) ;) ;)

Can't help but think when it comes to a vote the general scottish populace will bottle-it (like they did in the seventies) and want to stay in the union.

When do I get my vote to bomb the Celtic provinces out of the 'union'? ;)

So how come england and wales dosen't get a say?? Is our country as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pilninggas

Can't help but think when it comes to a vote the general scottish populace will bottle-it (like they did in the seventies) and want to stay in the union.

When do I get my vote to bomb the Celtic provinces out of the 'union'? ;)

---

To answer your question Merv – An English National Party committed to the break-up of the union, which enjoys the same level of support as the Scottish Nats (45.4 percent of the votes cast at 20011 Holyrood election) does not exist. In contrast to the Scottish electorate, the massive majority of the English electorate supports the 3 main unionist parties.

Under the terms of the UK constitution, legally, Westminster has the final word on the Scottish referendum agenda, but Cameron knows that to follow that path would be political suicide for the Tories in Scotland. On that point interestingly, according to the SNP, “In the first 24 hours after David Cameron’s intervention people were signing up to join the SNP at a rate of one every nine minutes.”

I agree with you that when the time comes the majority of Scots may well “Bottle-it” and that is why Salmond is hedging his bets with a contingency measure in the event of a no vote. I suspect that the majority of Scots may well vote in favour of his proposed second question seeking greater powers for the devolved parliament.

Finally, Perhaps Salmond is stalling on a referendum until late 2014 to allow the Westminster cuts to bite in Scotland and to give his Scottish government the time to implement its popular policies which fall within its remit (like lowering the voting age to 16 year olds).

Certainly not a done deal :-/