Cameron seeks independence referendum clarity for Scotland

[alpine_saint]

Would a Scottish person living permenently in England (or elsewhere for that matter) get a vote in a 'Scots only' referendum, do we know? (genuine question, as I've no idea, but you can probably see where I'm going depending on the answer)

 

I think it can only apply to all Permanent Residents / UK Citizens LIVING in Scotland, whatever their original nationality.

[pap]

Would a Scottish person living permenently in England (or elsewhere for that matter) get a vote in a 'Scots only' referendum, do we know? (genuine question, as I've no idea, but you can probably see where I'm going depending on the answer)

 

It's an interesting question, if only because it leads to more questions.

 

What makes a Scot? Birth? Residence? What about all the English who buggered off North of the border after selling their properties in England?

[Guided Missile]

In a UK vote, I think there is a possibility that England would vote for getting rid of the moaning, ungrateful, subsidised, skirt wearers and Scotland would vote to remain in benefit heaven.

 

What would they do then?

[pap]

I think it can only apply to all Permanent Residents / UK Citizens LIVING in Scotland, whatever their original nationality.

 

And I would agree, except I think on other matters, such as free Uni education, pretty sure you have to be BORN in Scotland to qualify.

[alpine_saint]

I respectifully disagree. I don't think it's ridiculous to ask the opinion of anyone who is potentially affected by something.

 

Feels to me like a rubber-stamping exercise. I mean, there are a lot of real Unionists still out there, those in England in most cases who dont care about Scottish independence won turn up, and a lot of people oscillating between "F**k the Scottish" and "They arent going nowhere just to spite 'em" will vote for the latter just to get up their noses and get revenge for years of whining.

 

I still remember the night of the Heysel Stadium disaster with Jimmy Hill fuming because the BBC switchboard was jammed with Sweaties compaining because Motty or Barry Davies had said "British football hooligans" as opposed to "English football hooligans" once. People were dying live on TV, and its not as if the Old Firm games pass with displays of flowers and white doves, is it ?

[alpine_saint]

And I would agree, except I think on other matters, such as free Uni education, pretty sure you have to be BORN in Scotland to qualify.

 

666 said on here yesterday that English students living in Scotland, planning to go to Scottish Unis, dont have to pay fees.

[moonraker]

FFS SaintAndy666. Considering you're not even an adult you think you know it all.

 

You really are a pize p***k, saintandy has debated with more maturity and knowledge than anything I have ever seen from you. Until this effort your absence from this deabte had kept it in on topic and well argued by both Alpine and Saintandy.

[Sour Mash]

It would be a massive shame if Scotland was to be granted independence. We have a far greater shared history, than any achievements that would be considered separately. As has been pointed out before, it was the British Armed Forces that fought the world wars for example.

 

It is something that has been pushed and promoted by left-wing politicians playing upon the comparative (lack of) wealth of many parts of Scotland to the South East of England, forgetting that such comparisons could easily be made by Cornwall, North East England, North West England etc. As has already been stated, it has suited these politicians to have their cake and eat it and I'd hate to think how much things like the Scottish parliament has cost the tax payer.

 

However, I think Cameron might be being quite bright on this - anyone know how this would change the voting lay-out in the country? Surely it would mean Labour losing loads of safe seats from Westminister, while the Tories lost a sum total of none?

[trousers]

I think it can only apply to all Permanent Residents / UK Citizens LIVING in Scotland, whatever their original nationality.

 

Yep, just read that in the comments on the Guardian article posted above.

 

But that doesn't feel quite right to me. Surely something as emotive as 'nationalism' should be decided by those who have said nation 'in their blood and/or hearts' rather than something as aribitrary as where they happen to live at a given moment in time?

 

Isn't that what the SNP ethos is all about? i.e. it's all about the Scottish people and what they want as a nation?

 

Yes, I know that there will be non-Scots who have moved to Scotland and now count themselves as Scottish as a natural Scot does but, if I was Scottish I would question the logic of non-Scottish people having a say IF it was decided that the UK as a whole didn't get a say.

Edited 9 January, 2012 by trousers

[alpine_saint]

Yep, just read that in the comments on the Guardian article posted above.

 

But that doesn't feel quite right to me. Surely something as emotive as 'nationalism' should be decided by those who have said nation 'in their blood and/or hearts' rather than something as aribitrary as where they happen to live at a given moment in time?

 

Isn't that what the SNP ethos is all about? i.e. it's all about the Scottish people and what they want as a nation?

 

Yes, I know that there will be non-Scots who have moved to Scotland and now count themselves as Scottish as a natural Scot does but, if I was Scottish I would question the logic of non-Scottish people having a say IF it was decided that the UK as a whole didn't get a say.

 

Some people on here think I have surrendered my right to an opinion as to how Saints play because I live abroad and dont go to games.

 

Surely by the same virtue, Scots that have emigrated should have no say how the country they have left behind is run ?

 

Anyway, how do you decide who is Scottish ? They have no national ID card or passport.

[moonraker]

FFS SaintAndy666. Considering you're not even an adult you think you know it all.

 

You really do take the biscuit, Saintandy has debated with more maturity and knowledge than I have ever seen from you. This thread was going well with reasoned and informed debate then you come along. An to cap it all that ever so infofrmaed globe trotter DD pipes up with more I am better than you beacuse I have travelled the world in a black pig c**p. In most ports in Scotland if you go on a run ashore its not being English they dislike they have the same attitude to matelots as our non Jock fishy freinds down the road.

[Guided Missile]

Yes, I know that there will be non-Scots who have moved to Scotland and now count themselves as Scottish as a natural Scot does but, if I was Scottish I would question the logic of non-Scottish people having a say IF it was decided that the UK as a whole didn't get a say.

So, a Scottish born voter living in the UK(over 800,000 of them) will get to vote in elections in both countries, whereas non-Scots living in Scotland, paying Scottish taxes, would not get a vote?

 

This proposition is an unworkable diversion designed to take the focus away from the failings of Scottish politicians, both in the past and currently, with regard to their management of the whole of the economy of the UK. FFS, has anyone forgotten that Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Alistair Darling are Scottish? Their screw ups have affected the provinces, including Scotland, Cornwall, Wales and the North of England, far more than the London suburbs where they prefer to live, now.

[alpine_saint]

So, a Scottish born voter living in the UK(over 800,000 of them) will get to vote in elections in both countries, whereas non-Scots living in Scotland, paying Scottish taxes, would not get a vote?

 

This proposition is an unworkable diversion designed to take the focus away from the failings of Scottish politicians, both in the past and currently, with regard to their management of the whole of the economy of the UK. FFS, has anyone forgotten that Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Alistair Darling are Scottish? Their screw ups have affected the provinces, including Scotland, Cornwall, Wales and the North of England, far more than the London suburbs where they prefer to live, now.

 

Good post from you, Johnny.

[dune]

However, I think Cameron might be being quite bright on this - anyone know how this would change the voting lay-out in the country? Surely it would mean Labour losing loads of safe seats from Westminister, while the Tories lost a sum total of none?

 

England is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing.

 

% Votes in England at the last election:

 

Con - 40%

 

Lab - 28%

 

LD - 24%

 

Other - 8%

Edited 9 January, 2012 by dune

[moonraker]

England is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing.

 

% Votes in England at the last election:

 

Con - 40%

 

Lab - 28%

 

LD - 24%

 

Other - 8%

 

Hardly overwhelming with 40% conservative plus say 4% from others makes 44% or 56% are not right wing.

[buctootim]

England is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing.

 

% Votes in England at the last election:

 

Con - 40%

 

Lab - 28%

 

LD - 24%

 

Other - 8%

 

England is overwhelmingly centrist now. If Scotland were to go it would remove a lot of old Labour MPs but Im not actually sure the party would be sad about that.

[Verbal]

England is overwhelmingly Conservative and right wing.

 

% Votes in England at the last election:

 

Con - 40%

 

Lab - 28%

 

LD - 24%

 

Other - 8%

 

Did you give up arithmetic at the age of 5?

[pap]

I have to say, I do find it a little self-serving that we "didn't have time" to debate the UK's involvement in the EU, but Cameron and pals are making a big thing of this.

[badgerx16]

Did you give up arithmetic at the age of 5?

 

In Dune's democracy one Conservative vote counts for 10 of anybody else's.

[Guided Missile]

In Dune's democracy one Conservative vote counts for 10 of anybody else's.

In dune's democracy, 40 Conservative votes count for 64 right wing Conservative votes, to be fair...

[um pahars]

GM, are you for or against Scottish independence???

 

I totally agree with Cameron's stance and as a supporter of the Union have to say I think his forcing of the issue (inc an in or out vote and no "devolution max") will mean that the SNP will not succeed.

 

Seems as though you're happy for them to go it alone, but think Cameron's approach makes that less likely.

[alpine_saint]

GM, are you for or against Scottish independence???

 

I totally agree with Cameron's stance and as a supporter of the Union have to say I think his forcing of the issue (inc an in or out vote and no "devolution max") will mean that the SNP will not succeed.

 

Seems as though you're happy for them to go it alone, but think Cameron's approach makes that less likely.

 

Agree with this, but couldnt care if we are proven wrong and the SNP win.

 

Plenty of time still for Pie-Face to whip up racist fervour and lies.

[Bearsy]

How much more north sea oil is there?

 

We should cut the sweaties off the exact moment the oilfields run dry.

[Guided Missile]

GM, are you for or against Scottish independence???

 

I totally agree with Cameron's stance and as a supporter of the Union have to say I think his forcing of the issue (inc an in or out vote and no "devolution max") will mean that the SNP will not succeed.

 

Seems as though you're happy for them to go it alone, but think Cameron's approach makes that less likely.

I think the Union was good for England, Scotland and Wales, but that since devolution, which the Scottish dominated Labour party pushed through at the second time of asking and for which I can't remember voting, it has been a sh !t deal for England. As we are now spunking even more tax payers money to finance the waste that is the Scottish Parliament, it is time to cut them adrift. In fact, I would like us to do the same to Brussels. Scottish nationals have done more financial damage to this country than Hitler did and we need to redirect the subsidies supporting the Scots to the needy in England, who will be a lot more grateful for the support.

 

Anyway, they won't vote for independence and Cameron can't lose either way, only the SNP can....

[Verbal]

How much more north sea oil is there?

 

We should cut the sweaties off the exact moment the oilfields run dry.

 

But they'll never run out of wind.

[SuperMikey]

I view myself as a Scottish person, and know quite a few Scottish people as well having lots of family in the country. I think the general consensus is that independence is a great thing in theory, but more difficult in practice. I've raised this question with my grandmother before (who is actually Swedish, but has lived in Scotland for nigh on 60 years and is now a British citizen), and she said that independence would be a great thing if the North Sea oil reserves had been left intact, because then Scotland would have a major industry to stimulate the economy. As it is, the NHS and the Armed Forces are the 2 largest employers in Scotland, so unless Scotland managed to stay involved with the NHS and the Armed Forces, many jobs would have to be created which the Scottish parliament doesn't have enough cash to do.

 

The reason that Alex Salmond wants to postpone any vote on independence until 2014 is that there are some serious flaws in his argument for independence which need to be researched and rectified. I don't think he quite knows how to approach the issue successfully from a Scottish and a British perspective, very difficult to keep both sides happy in this situation. I think a straw poll of the Scottish public would be a good idea before anything goes much further on this.

[Guided Missile]

What people need to do, to educate themselves about what living in Scotland is all about, is to forget everything they saw in "Braveheart" and go and watch "Trainspotting" instead.

 

Any Scot, with enough talent or skill to make money, leaves the country for the US or England as soon as they can and that will continue. Which means there are insufficient human resources to generate the finance to fund the benefits that such a large proportion of the population up North relies on....same as Ireland, to be fair....

Edited 9 January, 2012 by Guided Missile
Toned it down a bit

[Saintandy666]

What people need to do, to educate themselves about what living in Scotland is all about, is to forget everything they saw in "Braveheart" and go and watch "Trainspotting" instead.

 

Any Scot, with enough talent or skill to make money, leaves the country for the US or England as soon as they can and that will continue. Which means there is no human resources to generate the finance to fund the benefits that such a large proportion of the population up North relies on....same as Ireland, to be fair....

 

I think that's a bit harsh, Scotland isn't really poor compared to the rest of the UK...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GVA_per_capita

 

Who knows how they would attempt to compete if independent, they could carve out their own niche and survive just fine.

[buctootim]

But they'll never run out of wind.

Dunno if that was a reference to the SNP, or a genuine reference to their wind resources - off which they do have the strongest and most reliable. In the future it could well be as big a money earner as North sea oil was.

[Guided Missile]

ho knows how they would attempt to compete if independent, they could carve out their own niche and survive just fine.

I and the population of Scotland, obviously doubt that they could survive, or the SNP would welcome an early vote. I think you need to offset your figures with the obsene level of public spending by the Scots and the level that is being subsidised by the English taxpayer.

Public spending in England is £7,535 per person, while in Scotland it is £9,179. Since the Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, public spending has outstripped tax generated there by 45 per cent. While Scots get free care for the elderly and deferred tuition fees, the English have to pay. In addition, Scotland's two flagship banks, Halifax Bank Of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland, were among the most in need of taxpayer bailouts.

[Saintandy666]

I and the population of Scotland, obviously doubt that they could survive, or the SNP would welcome an early vote. I think you need to offset your figures with the obsene level of public spending by the Scots and the level that is being subsidised by the English taxpayer.

Public spending in England is £7,535 per person, while in Scotland it is £9,179. Since the Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, public spending has outstripped tax generated there by 45 per cent. While Scots get free care for the elderly and deferred tuition fees, the English have to pay. In addition, Scotland's two flagship banks, Halifax Bank Of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland, were among the most in need of taxpayer bailouts.

 

That's a fair point. I guess it all depends how good a deal an indepdent Scotland would get with the carving up of assets and how they would try to differentiate on fiscal policy.

[Saintandy666]

What would happen to the BBC I wonder...

[um pahars]

I think the Union was good for England, Scotland and Wales, but that since devolution, which the Scottish dominated Labour party pushed through at the second time of asking and for which I can't remember voting, it has been a sh !t deal for England. As we are now spunking even more tax payers money to finance the waste that is the Scottish Parliament, it is time to cut them adrift. In fact, I would like us to do the same to Brussels. Scottish nationals have done more financial damage to this country than Hitler did and we need to redirect the subsidies supporting the Scots to the needy in England, who will be a lot more grateful for the support.

 

Anyway, they won't vote for independence and Cameron can't lose either way, only the SNP can....

 

But surely if you want to cut them adrift then you must be at odds with Cameron and his approach as IMHO it will only marginalise the SNP and put independence back a few decades.

[Frank's cousin]

I and the population of Scotland, obviously doubt that they could survive, or the SNP would welcome an early vote. I think you need to offset your figures with the obsene level of public spending by the Scots and the level that is being subsidised by the English taxpayer.

Public spending in England is £7,535 per person, while in Scotland it is £9,179. Since the Scottish Parliament was created in 1999, public spending has outstripped tax generated there by 45 per cent. While Scots get free care for the elderly and deferred tuition fees, the English have to pay. In addition, Scotland's two flagship banks, Halifax Bank Of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland, were among the most in need of taxpayer bailouts.

 

So what have you got against the Scots, ever been here? ever lived here? No? Your atttude seems stuck in some historic time warp - maybe you conveniently forget the way Thatcher thrust various doomed experiements such as the Poll Tax on Scotland (the sort of thing that is the root of much of the anti-westminster (note not anti-English feeling) - I have lived in Scotland on and off for over 10 years. I have also lived in London and the South east for much longer. The Scots are politer, more friendly and social generally - the most rude obnoxious and arrogant tend to be those is London, where you are considered wierd if you say good morning to someone on the tube - here its considered rude if you dont!

 

Get over yourself FFS. There is a fair amount of BS on this thread, the Uni thing for instance. ALL who are resident in Scotland and that includes a fair few English qualify for the free places - the only reason students from England and Wales have to pay is thatt for Scotish Unis they and non EU students are the ONLY ones they can charge under EU law and all Universitys need money - my wife works in one so knows what she is talking about.

 

I dont want a break up of the union, and I certainly dont have a lot of time for Salmond and the SNP, but you cant have it both ways. Scotland would not need the types of subsidy you refer to if it had had the North sea oil revenues it would have been entitled to since the 70s given where the international sea boundaries would have been had it been independent... and you well know that both those banks, like all banks in recent times are international businesses that are all guilty of the stupidy - look at the city of London and the way they behaved if you want to make some sort of valid comment on that particular issue...

[pap]

Just going over some of the implications of Scotland actually voting yes.

 

Some questions:-

 

1) Would we still be able to call ourselves Britain? We'll still live on the British landmass, but we can't, for example, use GBR as our country initials in sporting events.

 

2) Can we even call ourselves "United Kingdom"? IIRC, the only union involved is between England and Scotland. Wales and Ireland were the result of conquests, etc. (simplistic, I know - but for the sake of brevity)

 

3) Speaking of Northern Ireland, what happens to them? Their link with Britain is mostly by way of the Ulster Scots who migrated there. Do they bundle in with us?

[Guided Missile]

But surely if you want to cut them adrift then you must be at odds with Cameron and his approach as IMHO it will only marginalise the SNP and put independence back a few decades.

We are in a position of heads we win, tails they lose, because if the SNP lose the referendum, then the SNP are finished as a political force. If they win the referendum, the English economy is the main beneficiary, with respect to greatly reduced public subsidies north of the border.

If I was Cameron, I would try and convince Salmond to take the North of England with him as well. Anything north of Watford and we would still have a feasible business model for the England left over. Think of it. Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle in the SPL. It might be worth watching and Saints would have a chance to win the Premiership!

[buctootim]

If I was Cameron, I would try and convince Salmond to take the North of England with him as well. Anything north of Watford and we would still have a feasible business model for the England left over. Think of it. Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle in the SPL. It might be worth watching and Saints would have a chance to win the Premiership!

 

If you take a line between the Wash and the Severn, south of that GDP per capita is equivalent to Switzerland, north of that equivalent to Greece. Im not advocating breaking up both the UK and England but if it ever happened I think I might be able to get over it.

[Guided Missile]

So what have you got against the Scots' date=' ever been here? ever lived here? No? [/quote']I've been to Scotland, Frank. Spent a bit of time in the Highlands, around Glenelg and the Isle of Skye. Been to Aberdeen many times on business with BP and also to Glasgow. My uncle was from Dundee, but lived in Southampton, until he drunk his self to death. Never had any trouble with the locals and they are a very friendly bunch. I must admit, it's always fun reading a post from an ex pat who's gone native, as they get very sensitive over posts about their adopted country. Especially a post that was simply factual regarding the level of taxpayer subsidy. Still, as you weren't born in Scotland, but simply just live there, you won't have to worry about independence as you won't have a vote.

Edited 9 January, 2012 by Guided Missile

[buctootim]

Scotland would not need the types of subsidy you refer to if it had had the North sea oil revenues it would have been entitled to since the 70s given where the international sea boundaries would have been had it been independent... and you well know that both those banks' date=' like all banks in recent times are international businesses that are all guilty of the stupidy - look at the city of London and the way they behaved if you want to make some sort of valid comment on that particular issue...[/quote']

 

Simply not true about the oil Frank. The last time independence seriously was debated the Shetland Islanders (where most of the oil comes ashore at Sullom Voe) expressed a wish to stay with the UK, not go with Scotland. There is a LOT of economic subsidy from the south to the north in general. That may be a price worth paying, but its disingenuous to pretend it doesnt exist.

[um pahars]

So what have you got against the Scots' date=' ever been here? ever lived here? No? Your atttude seems stuck in some historic time warp...[/quote']

 

Youll have to forgive GM when he gets in a rant!!!!! I agree that wanting to break up the Union based on a bad experience with the recent Chancellors, plus RBS costing us an arm and a leg isn't the best of reasons, but I think that's more for show than anything else!!! LOL

[um pahars]

We are in a position of heads we win, tails they lose, because if the SNP lose the referendum, then the SNP are finished as a political force. If they win the referendum, the English economy is the main beneficiary, with respect to greatly reduced public subsidies north of the border.

If I was Cameron, I would try and convince Salmond to take the North of England with him as well. Anything north of Watford and we would still have a feasible business model for the England left over. Think of it. Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle in the SPL. It might be worth watching and Saints would have a chance to win the Premiership!

 

But surely if the SNP lose the referendum then we'll still be stuck with the "leech" that is Scotland.

 

And as for your tongue in cheek cleaving off of the North, then I'm surprised you don't want to dump the few urban areas in the South that are also areas of relative deprivation (e.g Plymouth, Portsmouth & Southampton). Problem is you'd have to follow Hamble, Follands or Sarisbury Sparks

[Guided Missile]

This is a good read:

Alex Salmond is just poking the English to try and force the English to give them independence. An opinion poll showed just 29 per cent of Scottish voters want full independence.The same poll which revealed just 29 per cent of Scots are in favour of independence found that a much higher proportion — 41 per cent — of English voters are in favour of the Scots going their own way.And tuition fees are not the only battleground on which Salmond is trying to alienate the Auld Enemy.

He has furnished the Scots with free personal care at home for the over-65s, free prescriptions, free hospital parking, and free school meals for five to seven-year-olds. Essentially, any public service which English taxpayers resent having to pay for, Alex Salmond will ensure becomes free for Scots.

 

The message for English voters is: Granny McTavish is living it up at your expense.

 

The great irony is that under EU law, Scottish universities are not allowed to discriminate against members of other EU states. Were Miss Watts a Belgian, a Pole or a Greek, she would be entitled to free education at a Scottish university. But English? Forget it.The Scottish government insists that this does not constitute discrimination because the EU rules apply only to members of other EU states; they do not demand that citizens of the same member state be treated equally.As for Scottish students studying in England — they do have to pay fees, but the state loans available to them are much more generous than those available to English students.Perhaps we should not be so surprised, then, to read that the large gap in public spending between Scotland and England has widened by 15 per cent in the past year alone.State spending north of the border averaged £10,212 per head last year, some £1,624 per person higher than in England — a fact that will put pressure on ministers to review the controversial funding formula which has been in place for more than 30 years.

 

Since 1978, public services have been funded according to the Barnett Formula, devised by Joel Barnett, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Jim Callaghan's government. It stated that for every £1 spent on public services in Britain, 85p is spent in England, 10p in Scotland and 5p in Wales.It was a crude formula — based on the relative size of the three countries' populations — which even Lord Barnett now admits should have been shelved years ago.It was devised — according to him, on the back of an envelope — as a temporary measure at a time when the Labour government was trying to head off a growing clamour for Scottish independence. If it was biased in favour of the Scots in 1978 — since their population was slightly less than 10 per cent, while England's was slightly more than 85 per cent — it is even more so now. The population of England has grown to more than 86 per cent of Britain's total, while the population of Scotland has fallen to only 8.6 per cent.That's why every person in Scotland receives more than £1,600 per head more in public services a year than do those in England. If the public funding were to be altered to match the populations today, Scotland would lose 14 per cent.

Yet even with the Barnett formula helping to prop up Scottish finances, the SNP's spending is reckless. Three years ago, Audit Scotland — the Scottish equivalent of the National Audit Office — published a report revealing that there was an annual shortfall of £63million in the funding of free care for the elderly, and that the policy would become less affordable as the population aged.Yet still the Scottish government persists with a policy that is guaranteed eventually to break the bank. The weakness of Salmond's strategy, of course, is that were he to achieve his ambition and Scotland were to become an independent nation, it would lose the subsidy it receives from English taxpayers.Maybe he is hoping that English money could be replaced by EU development funds. (What a delicious irony it would be if Scotland becoming independent meant that under EU rules students from England would no longer have to pay fees to study there.)

Salmond certainly cannot rely on oil revenues to keep the Scottish economy afloat.

 

Ever since the Seventies, the SNP has argued that an independent Scotland would gain more by retaining all its oil revenues than it would lose in subsidies from the English.Given that around 90 per cent of North Sea oil production lies in what might become after independence Scotland's sector of the North Sea, that may at one time have been true. But North Sea oil production is in steep decline, being only half what it was at its peak in 1999.

In 2009, a Scottish government report claimed that, were it allowed to keep all its oil revenues, an independent Scotland would have an annual surplus of £1.3 billion. But the report excluded spending on schools, hospitals and roads.

If oil revenues dwindled to nothing, Scotland would plunge into a deficit of £15.5 billion, an impossible burden for a country of only five million people.

[Gingeletiss]

 

Some questions:-

 

1) Would we still be able to call ourselves Britain? We'll still live on the British landmass, but we can't, for example, use GBR as our country initials in sporting events.

 

 

Word Origin & History

 

Britain

c.1300, Breteyne, from O.Fr. Bretaigne, from L. Britannia, earlier Brittania, from Brittani "the Britons" (see Briton). The O.E. was Brytenlond and meant "Wales." If there was a Celtic name for the island, it has not been recorded.

[pap]

That is an interesting perspective.

[pap]

Word Origin & History

 

Britain

c.1300, Breteyne, from O.Fr. Bretaigne, from L. Britannia, earlier Brittania, from Brittani "the Britons" (see Briton). The O.E. was Brytenlond and meant "Wales." If there was a Celtic name for the island, it has not been recorded.

 

I would say that has been slightly superceded by more modern interpretations. By the same token, we don't still put leeches down our undergarments to cure all ills.

 

Britain has come to mean us, Scotland and Wales, hasn't it? The official name of our country is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". That's what I'm getting at.

[Gingeletiss]

I would say that has been slightly superceded by more modern interpretations. By the same token, we don't still put leeches down our undergarments to cure all ills.

 

Britain has come to mean us, Scotland and Wales, hasn't it? The official name of our country is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". That's what I'm getting at.

 

I don't know about you, But my country is England, I was born English, my first passport said I was English, and I will die English.

[pap]

I don't know about you, But my country is England, I was born English, my first passport said I was English, and I will die English.

 

Current passports don't cite "England" as their country of origin. They say "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

 

Don't think we'll be able to use Great Britain in the official capacity.

 

Very much enjoyed reading your ardent proclamation of your nationality though. One can only hope that you were beating your chest whilst you were typing it. I feel duty bound to point out that if you are rocking a red barnet, there's a good chance you might be a bit Scottish or Irish as well. Ms pap traces her redheaded roots to Scotland, herself.

[Sour Mash]

If you take a line between the Wash and the Severn, south of that GDP per capita is equivalent to Switzerland, north of that equivalent to Greece. Im not advocating breaking up both the UK and England but if it ever happened I think I might be able to get over it.

And that's taking into consideration all the public money and "regeneration" funding that is pumped in the north. Cut that and it'd be even lower.

[alpine_saint]

This is a good read:

Alex Salmond is just poking the English to try and force the English to give them independence. An opinion poll showed just 29 per cent of Scottish voters want full independence.The same poll which revealed just 29 per cent of Scots are in favour of independence found that a much higher proportion — 41 per cent — of English voters are in favour of the Scots going their own way.And tuition fees are not the only battleground on which Salmond is trying to alienate the Auld Enemy.

He has furnished the Scots with free personal care at home for the over-65s, free prescriptions, free hospital parking, and free school meals for five to seven-year-olds. Essentially, any public service which English taxpayers resent having to pay for, Alex Salmond will ensure becomes free for Scots.

 

The message for English voters is: Granny McTavish is living it up at your expense.

 

The great irony is that under EU law, Scottish universities are not allowed to discriminate against members of other EU states. Were Miss Watts a Belgian, a Pole or a Greek, she would be entitled to free education at a Scottish university. But English? Forget it.The Scottish government insists that this does not constitute discrimination because the EU rules apply only to members of other EU states; they do not demand that citizens of the same member state be treated equally.As for Scottish students studying in England — they do have to pay fees, but the state loans available to them are much more generous than those available to English students.Perhaps we should not be so surprised, then, to read that the large gap in public spending between Scotland and England has widened by 15 per cent in the past year alone.State spending north of the border averaged £10,212 per head last year, some £1,624 per person higher than in England — a fact that will put pressure on ministers to review the controversial funding formula which has been in place for more than 30 years.

 

Since 1978, public services have been funded according to the Barnett Formula, devised by Joel Barnett, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Jim Callaghan's government. It stated that for every £1 spent on public services in Britain, 85p is spent in England, 10p in Scotland and 5p in Wales.It was a crude formula — based on the relative size of the three countries' populations — which even Lord Barnett now admits should have been shelved years ago.It was devised — according to him, on the back of an envelope — as a temporary measure at a time when the Labour government was trying to head off a growing clamour for Scottish independence. If it was biased in favour of the Scots in 1978 — since their population was slightly less than 10 per cent, while England's was slightly more than 85 per cent — it is even more so now. The population of England has grown to more than 86 per cent of Britain's total, while the population of Scotland has fallen to only 8.6 per cent.That's why every person in Scotland receives more than £1,600 per head more in public services a year than do those in England. If the public funding were to be altered to match the populations today, Scotland would lose 14 per cent.

Yet even with the Barnett formula helping to prop up Scottish finances, the SNP's spending is reckless. Three years ago, Audit Scotland — the Scottish equivalent of the National Audit Office — published a report revealing that there was an annual shortfall of £63million in the funding of free care for the elderly, and that the policy would become less affordable as the population aged.Yet still the Scottish government persists with a policy that is guaranteed eventually to break the bank. The weakness of Salmond's strategy, of course, is that were he to achieve his ambition and Scotland were to become an independent nation, it would lose the subsidy it receives from English taxpayers.Maybe he is hoping that English money could be replaced by EU development funds. (What a delicious irony it would be if Scotland becoming independent meant that under EU rules students from England would no longer have to pay fees to study there.)

Salmond certainly cannot rely on oil revenues to keep the Scottish economy afloat.

 

Ever since the Seventies, the SNP has argued that an independent Scotland would gain more by retaining all its oil revenues than it would lose in subsidies from the English.Given that around 90 per cent of North Sea oil production lies in what might become after independence Scotland's sector of the North Sea, that may at one time have been true. But North Sea oil production is in steep decline, being only half what it was at its peak in 1999.

In 2009, a Scottish government report claimed that, were it allowed to keep all its oil revenues, an independent Scotland would have an annual surplus of £1.3 billion. But the report excluded spending on schools, hospitals and roads.

If oil revenues dwindled to nothing, Scotland would plunge into a deficit of £15.5 billion, an impossible burden for a country of only five million people.

 

 

 

Thanks for that, a superb summary of the nonsense of Pie-Face's position.

[Gingeletiss]

Current passports don't cite "England" as their country of origin. They say "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

 

Don't think we'll be able to use Great Britain in the official capacity.

 

Very much enjoyed reading your ardent proclamation of your nationality though. One can only hope that you were beating your chest whilst you were typing it. I feel duty bound to point out that if you are rocking a red barnet, there's a good chance you might be a bit Scottish or Irish as well. Ms pap traces her redheaded roots to Scotland, herself.

 

You often ask posters to read what you wrote, and I'd appreciate the same. I did state my first passport, and as I'm now 58, then even a Scouser, should be able to work out, that this is not my current passport. Yes, I'm proud to say I'm English, is that a crime? we are being forced into accepting that we are British, yet the Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish, are exactly that, so why can't we be English. It's liberal thinking bleading hearts like you, who say different, and our weak minded MP's go along with it.

 

As for the Redhair, wrong, certainly for the last two hundred years anyway, and if there was celtic blood, then it would be Welsh, given where my ancesters originated from.