As this was the lead story in tonight's news, can anyone give me some good reasons why Scotland would want to break away from England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
And are there any reasons why Scotland should stay in the Union?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Scottish independence?
last reply
58 replies
2.2k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Sex God
puzzled to be honest
do they want independence / break away or not ?
seems, from what heard so far, want everything their own except Defence and Foreign Office, which 'UK' will provide
think more info needed
do they want independence / break away or not ?
seems, from what heard so far, want everything their own except Defence and Foreign Office, which 'UK' will provide
think more info needed
Warming the Bed
Quote by spideyuk
As this was the lead story in tonight's news, can anyone give me some good reasons why Scotland would want to break away from England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
And are there any reasons why Scotland should stay in the Union?
English taxpayers money.
Sex God
But to take it one step further.
Assuming the Scots get independance and have a very healthy economy. (Before anyone jumps in thats an assumption to lead on to the rest)
Living in the North East we tend to do badly as as region ecomonically because to the Labour Party we are "safe seats" therefore better to channel investment to "marginal seats" to get re-elected. To the Conservatives, no chance of them getting many seats in the North East so better to channel investment to "marginal seats" to get re-elected.
So based on the above is it outlandish to foresee a situation where Northumberland, Durham, Tyne&Wear, Teeside and Cumbria think it would be a better option to be part of Scotland rather than England ?
Wonder what would be the response in London and Edinburgh if there was a "Northern Spring" where us Northerners wanted to change from being English to being Scots?
John
Assuming the Scots get independance and have a very healthy economy. (Before anyone jumps in thats an assumption to lead on to the rest)
Living in the North East we tend to do badly as as region ecomonically because to the Labour Party we are "safe seats" therefore better to channel investment to "marginal seats" to get re-elected. To the Conservatives, no chance of them getting many seats in the North East so better to channel investment to "marginal seats" to get re-elected.
So based on the above is it outlandish to foresee a situation where Northumberland, Durham, Tyne&Wear, Teeside and Cumbria think it would be a better option to be part of Scotland rather than England ?
Wonder what would be the response in London and Edinburgh if there was a "Northern Spring" where us Northerners wanted to change from being English to being Scots?
John
Sex God
Quote by GnV
AFAIK, it's Alex Salmond's little pet subject and by all accounts, DC is going to do to him what he did to Nick Clegg over PR.
:thumbup:
Quote by bayboy1664
English taxpayers money.
that is the one and only reeson they would want to remain part of england.
as we down here have to pay full whack for our kids university grants, full whack for prescriptions, to name a few. but that would probably not be possible without the money from england up north of the border..
how can they do this yet in england we cannot?
might have something to do with the fact that half of paliament is scottish
An Englishman is told he has to call himself British, a Scot is allowed to be classed as that, despite holding a UK passport. The Scot's have a greater sense of national pride than we do.
And it is encouraging to see that Cameron is happy to let the Scottish have a referendum, yet we are not allowed to have one on Europe.
And it is encouraging to see that Cameron is happy to let the Scottish have a referendum, yet we are not allowed to have one on Europe.
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
But to take it one step further.
Assuming the Scots get independance and have a very healthy economy. (Before anyone jumps in thats an assumption to lead on to the rest)
Living in the North East we tend to do badly as as region ecomonically because to the Labour Party we are "safe seats" therefore better to channel investment to "marginal seats" to get re-elected. To the Conservatives, no chance of them getting many seats in the North East so better to channel investment to "marginal seats" to get re-elected.
So based on the above is it outlandish to foresee a situation where Northumberland, Durham, Tyne&Wear, Teeside and Cumbria think it would be a better option to be part of Scotland rather than England ?
Wonder what would be the response in London and Edinburgh if there was a "Northern Spring" where us Northerners wanted to change from being English to being Scots?
John
It's certainly outlandish for me and I can't imagine the 50,000 + season ticket holders at the former St James Park turning up every other week to watch Scottish Premier League opposition.
As for the North East doing badly as a region economically, that as you say, is down to the electorate. Maybe if they tried voting for another party now and again, the Labour party would not take them for granted and the Tories may take an interest in them. As long as the electorate are prepared to vote for monkeys wearing a red rosette, nothing will change.
Quote by Ben_Minx
You first, you did after all make the ridiculous statements.
no ben
Quote by YOU
Yu are aware of the revenue and taxation attributable to scottish industry per head of population compared with the UK?
you asked a question of me hence the ?, i presume you are aware of what a ? is?
i then asked you to enlighten me of which
Quote by YOU then
You first
you asked the question and i asked you to reply.
you do make things very difficult ben :notes:
still no worrys as max has answered me. cheers max :thumbup:
Sex God
Quote by Max777
Allow me
So, who's oil is it?
Sex God
oooooooooooo think this will run and run, as they say 
Apparently a referendum for Scottish independence or a bill of the Scottish Parliament seeking to change the constitutional status of Scotland would not, under the constitution of the United Kingdom, be legally binding on the UK government, because, in the UK, referendums are advisory only.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom claims absolute parliamentary sovereignty, but this is disputed by those who contend that the Scottish people, rather than the Scottish Parliament, are the legal sovereign authority in Scotland, a status explicitly proclaimed in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and reasserted by the cross-party Claim of Right 1989. This position was legally supported by the Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Cooper of Culross, in the case of MacCormick v The Lord Advocate(1953), in which Lord Cooper confirmed that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law."
The United Nations Charter also enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also guarantees their right to change nationality, and the UK is a signatory to both documents with the UK Parliament having no power to unilaterally revoke them.
Any changes to constitutional status are one of the reserved matters for Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. At any time Westminster could amend the Scotland Act, changing the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Westminster could thus block any bill for independence brought by the Scottish Government. However, such powers with regard to a referendum on Scottish independence would be conditional on both the UK Parliament's absolute sovereignty being accepted, and it being deemed to take precedence over the rights guaranteed by the UN Charter and Declaration of Human Rights, issues which might be subject to dispute in the event of a vote for independence.
The legality of any British component country attaining de facto independence (in the same manner as the origins of the Irish Republic) or declaring unilateral independence outside the framework of British constitutional convention is uncertain.
Some legal opinion following the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on what steps Quebec would need to take to secede (Reference re Secession of Quebec) is that Scotland would be unable to unilaterally declare independence under international law if the British government permitted a referendum on an unambiguous question on secession.
So who currently has the legal right to proceed with the Independence for Scotland, Holyrood led by the SNP or Westminster under the current Coaltition government ?
Apparently a referendum for Scottish independence or a bill of the Scottish Parliament seeking to change the constitutional status of Scotland would not, under the constitution of the United Kingdom, be legally binding on the UK government, because, in the UK, referendums are advisory only.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom claims absolute parliamentary sovereignty, but this is disputed by those who contend that the Scottish people, rather than the Scottish Parliament, are the legal sovereign authority in Scotland, a status explicitly proclaimed in the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and reasserted by the cross-party Claim of Right 1989. This position was legally supported by the Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Cooper of Culross, in the case of MacCormick v The Lord Advocate(1953), in which Lord Cooper confirmed that "the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law."
The United Nations Charter also enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also guarantees their right to change nationality, and the UK is a signatory to both documents with the UK Parliament having no power to unilaterally revoke them.
Any changes to constitutional status are one of the reserved matters for Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. At any time Westminster could amend the Scotland Act, changing the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Westminster could thus block any bill for independence brought by the Scottish Government. However, such powers with regard to a referendum on Scottish independence would be conditional on both the UK Parliament's absolute sovereignty being accepted, and it being deemed to take precedence over the rights guaranteed by the UN Charter and Declaration of Human Rights, issues which might be subject to dispute in the event of a vote for independence.
The legality of any British component country attaining de facto independence (in the same manner as the origins of the Irish Republic) or declaring unilateral independence outside the framework of British constitutional convention is uncertain.
Some legal opinion following the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on what steps Quebec would need to take to secede (Reference re Secession of Quebec) is that Scotland would be unable to unilaterally declare independence under international law if the British government permitted a referendum on an unambiguous question on secession.
So who currently has the legal right to proceed with the Independence for Scotland, Holyrood led by the SNP or Westminster under the current Coaltition government ?
Sex God
The border (one of the many borders over time) was, of course, Hadrian's Wall. Let's rebuild that and develop a proper friendly relationship with our Scottish neighbours.
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
Sex God
Quote by foxylady2209
The border (one of the many borders over time) was, of course, Hadrian's Wall. Let's rebuild that and develop a proper friendly relationship with our Scottish neighbours.
Which one ??
There have been several versions and locations for the 'wall'
Quote by foxylady2209
The border (one of the many borders over time) was, of course, Hadrian's Wall. Let's rebuild that and develop a proper friendly relationship with our Scottish neighbours.
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
Hadrian's Wall was never a border between England and Scotland. It was built by the Romans in what was then Britannia and was designed to defend the most northerly frontier of the Roman Empire.
Almost the entirety of Newcastle lies north of the wall and I doubt many Geordies, let alone Northumbrians and Cumbrians would wish to be forced to become Scots.
Quote by HnS
The border (one of the many borders over time) was, of course, Hadrian's Wall. Let's rebuild that and develop a proper friendly relationship with our Scottish neighbours.
Which one ??
There have been several versions and locations for the 'wall'
Nope, only one Hadrian's Wall, a lot of which can still be seen today.
Sex God
Quote by Max777
The border (one of the many borders over time) was, of course, Hadrian's Wall. Let's rebuild that and develop a proper friendly relationship with our Scottish neighbours.
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
Hadrian's Wall was never a border between England and Scotland. It was built by the Romans in what was then Britannia and was designed to defend the most northerly frontier of the Roman Empire.
Almost the entirety of Newcastle lies north of the wall and I doubt many Geordies, let alone Northumbrians and Cumbrians would wish to be forced to become Scots.
Not forced, but if thats where the jobs and money are, bring it on.
John
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
The border (one of the many borders over time) was, of course, Hadrian's Wall. Let's rebuild that and develop a proper friendly relationship with our Scottish neighbours.
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
Hadrian's Wall was never a border between England and Scotland. It was built by the Romans in what was then Britannia and was designed to defend the most northerly frontier of the Roman Empire.
Almost the entirety of Newcastle lies north of the wall and I doubt many Geordies, let alone Northumbrians and Cumbrians would wish to be forced to become Scots.
Not forced, but if thats where the jobs and money are, bring it on.
John
It may well be a big IF. And I still doubt many Geordies etc would wish to become Scots.
Sex God
Quote by Max777
The border (one of the many borders over time) was, of course, Hadrian's Wall. Let's rebuild that and develop a proper friendly relationship with our Scottish neighbours.
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
Hadrian's Wall was never a border between England and Scotland. It was built by the Romans in what was then Britannia and was designed to defend the most northerly frontier of the Roman Empire.
Almost the entirety of Newcastle lies north of the wall and I doubt many Geordies, let alone Northumbrians and Cumbrians would wish to be forced to become Scots.
I know - I was keeping it simple. :giggle:
Quote by foxylady2209
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
And yet the MP for Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath became the unelected leader of this country, how much of a say did he have in the decisions of this country?
Sex God
Quote by essex34m
Personally I don't think the occupants of this region (England) should have a say in the collective decision of that other region (Scotland) - including whether or not they even get to make the decision. You want independence - get enough people to vote for it (a goodly majority please) and you can have it. If it needs to be done in stages so be it. That's just logical.
And yet the MP for Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath became the unelected leader of this country, how much of a say did he have in the decisions of this country?
And what of those who live in England and work in Scotland, this could effect them, should they not have a say?
Quote by essex34m
And what of those who live in England and work in Scotland, this could effect them, should they not have a say?
No they shouldn't. They should only have a say in the country of their residence.
That would be nice.
I live in France and don't have a say about who rules here (except local and European elections).
