Scotland's control of England

I'm getting a bit tired of the implication that the SNP are using slanted figures. All figures published by the SNP come from official UK Government sources!

I am also tired of the English Nationalists being given equal weight to the SNP. Who are the ENP? Have they ever participated in the democratic process? Have they ever stood in any form of election, and with what results? What is their membership and aims?

The SNP is a mainstream political party which forms the official opposition in the Scottish parliament.

And finally, it is not up to England to give Scotland anything! When Scotland reclaims her sovereignty, she will take what is hers. No more nor less. She will be a full member of the EU and other European and World bodies. She will not be anti-English. Scotland and England have a lot of common history. Many people, like me, have family on both sides of the border. None of that will change after independence, so please stop the SNP bashing. There nothing for England to fear from the SNP.

------------------
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

[europeanbriton]

Again, I've never seen a source. Have you seen any proof? As there were two conflicting figures, I chose the one which sounded more plausible. I know that England is richer per capita than Scotland, so it makes logical sense, although you do have a point about UKCS.

As for English nationalists - I just mentioned them, I never said that they were as significant as the SNP. The very idea of the Campaign for English Independence (as I understand it) is that they are apolitical; they don't want to work as a party, rather as a lobbying/awareness group.

My point was only that any tariffs between England and Scotland would damage Scotland more than England. Equally, damage to England's economy due to oil problems will mean trouble for Scotland. As for not being anti-English; well, put it like this - I can just see "National Freedom Day" in an independent Scotland. Not because the SNP are anti-English, but the "triumph" of independence will whip up Scottish national feeling, which may well go against England.

BTW, I'm half-Scottish as well, you know! That's my real reason for not liking Scottish independence - as I can trace roots back to England, Wales and Scotland, my primary loyalty is to Britain.

[dougie_l]

The following is from an article written 3 or 4 years ago. I don't suppose the figures have changed much in that time.

"The Government has been forced to admit that almost £27bn more has been raised in revenues in Scotland than has been spent since the Conservatives came to power.
The figures are calculated under its own most severe interpretation of high public expenditure north of the Border.

A jubilant SNP claimed the admission from Treasury Chief Secretary William Waldegrave in a written parliamentary answer exploded once and for all the myth that Scotland was subsidised."

For the full text go to www.alba.org.uk and click on the "Scotching the myth" link.

There are also other articles with more up to date figures which expand on some of the information Neil has already posted.



[This message has been edited by dougie.l (edited 08 June 2000).]

If the figures were incorrect by one penny the unionist parties would be all over them like a rash and they would not hold back in "exposing the lying Nats." The fact that HMG and all the UK politic parties do not dispute figures published by the SNP is proof enough for me.

Furthermore, I dispute your bland assertion that England is the richest (per capita) member of the UK. Where do you get that information from? It seems to me to be a matter of interpretation, depending which figures you look at. However, if you allocate the UKCS figures to the various member countries in proportion to how many offshore resources each country has, there is no doubt which country is richest per capita. (I'll give you a clue... it starts with an S.)

And finally (for now) what's all this guff about tariffs? Has it escaped your notice that the European Union is a free trade area? The only way tariffs would be imposed would be if the rump UK left the EU and tariffs were imposed on trade between the rUK and the EU. But even then, given our long common history, there would probably be special trading arrangements between Scotland and the rUK.

I can guarantee that the population of an independent Scotland would feel less resentment towards England than many Scots do at present. After all, there'd be no reason to blame the English for any unpopular laws, taxes or whatever may emerge in an independent Scotland, as is sometimes (rightly or wrongly) the case at present.

------------------
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

Something else to think about... England holds about 85% of the UK population, therefore what England wants the UK gets.

You may consider that democracy, but democracy is often little more than suppression of the minority by the ruling majority, even if it is unintentional.

------------------
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

[europeanbriton]

Yes, I do consider the rule of the majority democracy. I think, personally, that a democratically elected House of Lords might be 1/5 English, 1/5 Scottish, 1/5 Welsh, 1/5 Northern Irish and 1/5 Cornish (many in Cornwall consider their homeland to be a nation like England, Scotland etc.) as a sort of counterbalance, and then the five nations could be accurately represented instead of the halfway house we have at the moment. And as for oppression, who can say that Scotland's oppressed when a bill for moving our time in line with Western Europe failed because Scottish MPs complained that it would be too dark in the Highlands? (Please note, experiments showed that the time change saved lives in car accidents.) I mean, why should the interests of the overwhelming majority of the UK be sacrificed to - let's see - about 1-1.5% of the population? 10% if we say the whole of Scotland?

I got my figures from HMSO. Since UKCS wasn't mentioned, I presume that they must have portioned it out appropriately . . . unless you want to accuse the UK Government of deliberately falsifying figures?

The "guff" about tariffs is due to my belief that a rump UK just might leave the EEA/EU. Unfortunately, England is more sceptical of the EU than Scotland (perhaps better able to afford such scepticism?) - and she might not see any reason to give special status to Scotland, particularly in the event of an acrimonious separation. Also, if the loss of oil harms England's economy (I can't see the SNP agreeing to give England a share), won't it damage Scotland too? England won't be able to import as much as before . . .

1) If a democratic majority of Scots vote for independence and the UK government stick to their oft-stated pledge of self-determination for Scotland, there's no reason for a split to be acrimonious or for there not to be a "special relationship" between Scotland and rUK.

2) If the rUK chooses to leave the EU while Scotland stays in, I think it is rUK which will be harmed more than Scotland. Of course it would be a blow to Scottish trade if rUK were to erect barriers to trade, but it would be just about as harmful to rUK, and if rUK erects trade barriers with the EU, then they are only harming themselves.

It is this negative "puir wee Scotland can't make it on its own" psychology so often employed by the unionists which really pees me off! Try looking on it as a positive opportunity! Oh, and if the rest of the UK was costing England so much money, do you honestly think they'd be so keen to keep it all going for so long?

------------------
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.