Scotland's control of England

[Keith_Ruffles]

England suffers at the hands of the Scots. It is hard to find such an undemocratic system of government in the world today - the main reason for this is the endless cocessions we make for the Scots. The Scots have long had massive over representation in Westminster - yet the Scots were not satisfied. They wanted more - and they got it. The new parliament in Edinburgh gives an even greater imbalance of power to our Northern neighbours - is this democratic? Why should Scotland, with 5 million inhabitants, be made more important than one with 47 million? It makes no sense!! Why doesn't England have its own parliament? Why have the Scots got their own plus Westminster? Is this fair? Surely not!

And what's this crap about English occupation, etc. Perhaps you should read a history book! Scotland pressed for the union of 1707 - because they were bankrupt!! The monarchy is Scottish - occupying England since 1603. Ever since then we have been subsidising your barren land and appeasing you - when you forced this union onto us!!

Is 'independence' on your best interests? Your economy will be worse without us, as will be your political power (it actually become such that it will truly represents your nations size!).

Or perhaps I've been indoctrinated by the dominating English educational system - or am I right in any way? Come on, reply to this and see if we can anything going - i do enjoy winning so it will be fun!!

With all my regards - to people like the SSG and others who know me by now,

Keith xxx

Keith, how precisely does England suffer at the hands of Scots? And what are these endless concessions?

It is true that Scotland has more MPs per head of population than England, but 72 out of 650-odd is hardly a commanding majority, now is it. The situation is being addressed anyway as the constituency boundaries are being redrawn. The coming General Election will be the last in which Scotland returns 72 MPs to Westminster. Thereafter the number of Scottish seats is being reduced to give the same number of MPs per head of population as England & Wales have.

Why does Scotland have a parliament and England doesn't? Good question. We, the Scots, spent almost 300 years trying to get some sort of Home Rule. In the past 100 years both Liberal and Labour governments have been elected with Home Rule promises in their manifestos, but they all reneged on those promises. During the Thatcher years, Scotland suffered so badly from her "God for Maggie, South East England and St. George" government that a stronger-than-ever movement for a parliament got under way. This Constitutional Convention was supported by the Labour party which, throughout the Thatcher years returned around 50 MPs (out of 72) to Westminster. John Smith of the labour party called the creation of a devolved parliament "the settled will of the Scottish people". Labour knew that if they were to ever stand a chance of keeping their Scottish seats they HAD to deliver on the promise this time around, and so they did. I think the devolution settlement is a botched job which leaves too many questions unanswered, but it is a vast improvement on the status quo ante. Why doesn't England have a parliament? Perhaps you should ask your countrymen that. No-one in Scotland is hostile to England having a parliament. I would welcome one.

Having a parliament in Edinburgh does not make Scotland more important than England, and I fail to follow your thinking here. Scotland has always retained separate legal and education systems from England & Wales. The situation before was that Scottish legislation was either tacked on to the end of England & Wales legislation, or was discussed on some obscure evening at the end of the month. It was not satisfactory and made bad law. Besides which, MPs from all over the UK could vote on legislation which was none of their business and which none of their constituents had to live under. Was that fair? And before you say that Scottish MPs can now vote on England & Wales legislation, you're right. That isn't fair either. You'd better ask the UK Labour party why they set it up that way... I told you devolution was a botched job. If you care to check through Hansard, you will find that Scottish National Party MPs in Westminster have never sat in debates on purely England & Wales legislation and have always abstained from voting on such legistaltion. That is the honourable thing to do. The reason Scotland still has representation in Westminster is that we are still, for now, members of the UK and Westminster still retains power over foreign policy, defense, finance, and a whole raft of other areas. It wouldn't be very democratic if we were denied a say on these matters, now would it?

When the Acts of Union were negotiated and signed by parliaments which were not in any way democratically elected in either Scotland or England, there was rioting in the streets of Edinburgh. The people of Scotland did not want it. Only the parliamentarians wanted it, and it is well documented that there was wide-scale bribery involved. The background to the Union was the failure of the Darian Scheme, A Scottish colonial experiment in Central America which was a fore-runner of the Panama Canal. England and Spain did not want the Scots setting up on the Darian Peninsula, so they used their naval power to blockade the colony and starved the colonists out. The fact is that England has had it's eye on Scotland ever since the two countries became recognisable unified nations towards the end of the last millennium. Scotland has existed under constant threat of invasion from its larger neighbour to the south. When military means did not work, England turned to a combination of economic measures. She choked off Scotland's trade through blockades and embargos, while offering bribes to Scotland's aristocracy. Scotland was brought to her knees by these measures, but the people STILL rioted against the Union. This hardly sounds like Scotland pressing England for a Union to me!

Calling the Monarchy Scottish has to be some kind of joke! Royal families are so intermarried that who can say where they're from. If anything, our current Royal Family is German, and has been since the death of Queen Anne, the last monarch who could be remotely described as Scottish. One hundred years of a Stewart dynasty on the thrones of the three kingdoms in the 17th century does not constitute a Scottish monarchy today!

What makes you think our economy will suffer under independence? Are you trying to peddle the subsidy junkie myth? Do you think that if Scotland cost England ONE PENNY the Union would have lasted as long as it has? Government figures from the 80s which indicated a net subsidy to Scotland were repudiated then and will not stand to be repeated now. The figures used by the government then, and repeated ever since, are highly selective. They only cover health and social security, not total government expenditure. If you look at areas like defense, transport, the civil service, government capital buildings, millennium domes and so on ad nausium, you will find there is a net Scottish subsidy of England of over one million pounds EVERY year. The real subsidy junkies, my friend, are the inhabitants of the English South East. And when you look at national institutions which are based in London, but draw their revenue from all over the UK (the BBC is a good example) the picture gets even worse. All these institutions bleed money from the whole country into the South East of England.

Political clout on the world stage? Don't make me laugh! When is the last time Britain did anything without the sanction of the USA? The empire is long gone and Britain's biggest downfall these past fifty years has been its failure to adjust to that fact. We are NOT a World Power and we should stop pretending we are and mind our own business a bit more.

I am a member of the Scottish National Party and I am also half English. I bear no ill-will towards England or her people. I wish both our countries well as they pursue their separate destinies, but Scotland's best interests will be served by Scots, and England's by English people.

I thank you for your concern for my country, but we'll manage fine on our own.



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

[Jelliebean]

I'm with you Neil, thanks for the education. If Scottish people have had such a seemingly great influence in the government of Britain, why did we have to pay poll tax a year earlier than everyone else in the country?

[Ayr]

Scotland trying to run England? Ha! Thats a new one. I was under the impression we were just trying to become independant again. If this isnt the case then a certain Party I belong to in Scotland is leading me astray. HA! I DONT THINK SO! Remember these words!
" As long as a hundred of us remain alive we will never be subject to tyrannical dominion, because it is not for glory or riches or honours that we fight, but for freedom alone which no worthy man loses execept with his life"
Taken from the "The Declaration of Abroath" the year 1320
SCOTLAND FOREVER!

[europeanbriton]

I don't believe that England united with Scotland for financial purposes - rather a) security and b) therefore to prevent the two nations from drifting apart; see the Security Act of 1705. The bribery of 1707 has been described, even by Scots (and I am half-Scottish and half-English), as modest by eighteenth-century standards. Scots have also agreed that bribery was common in "them thar days" and should be looked at as such at this period.

One reason Scotland agreed to Union, IMO, is to get access to England's empire in North America, India and co. She played a disproportionately large role in that Empire's running consistently after the Union. Glasgow originally made its fortune on trade in tobacco with the colonies - and Scotland was a poor, relatively backward country in 1707. The new-found prosperity, famous inventors etc. were post-Union. And the resurgence of Scottish nationalism is in part because the Empire is gone and doesn't line Scots' pockets anymore. And, indeed, that we aren't a world power now (and are looking down our noses at the EU pretending that we are!).

I think it's odd to suggest that "the real subsidy junkies . . . are the inhabitants of the English South East". 22 billion pounds sterling go from England to the rest of the UK per annum! People from all over the UK come here in search of a job. We receive most immigrants into the UK. Frankly, it seems to me that England is subsidising everyone else!

I wouldn't say that Scotland pressed for a Union, though. England had her own reasons for it, not least security. Nowadays, I feel that all parts of the UK will lose out through independence. England loses oil, Scotland loses her largest export market and money from the rich parts of the country, Wales - well, what would they gain from independence?

The complaints about English or Scottish domination seem to me to have little backing. The Scots form one-third of HMG, including the PM, and are overrepresented in Parliament. England still commands a majority in the Commons and presumably a majority of HMG. But then they constitute 85% of the population. Not too unfair, surely?

Two points: First of all, if you check the figures for total government revenues and expenditures (not just the highly selective figures for health and social security spending) you will find there is a net outflow of money from Scotland to the UK exchequer, so independence will NOT lead to a loss of "sudsidy". Second, no-one is seriously proposing to erect a fence at the border and cut off all contact with the south. An independent Scotland would be a full member of the European Union and would continue to enjoy access to the markets of other EU members (including the rump UK, if they continue to be members of the EU) which it currently enjoys. Scottish Nationalists are, generally, more enthusiasticaly pro-European than either the UK Labour Party or the UK Conservative Party.

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

[europeanbriton]

Well, that's what the SNP say . . . they would, wouldn't they? I got my figures from the Campaign for English Independence's website - just as biased but they usually show a bit more restraint than the SNP.

Secondly, Scotland's largest market is England. England is more vital to Scotland than Scotland is to England (I imagine since the latter's population is much larger and the economy even larger in proportion to Scotland), on balance - you can't say that the vast majority of English exports go to Scotland! Now, England is admittedly more Eurosceptic than Scotland - if she leaves the EU, will she necessarily be inclined to give the Scots the best of all worlds, losing her stake in Scottish oil *and* being completely open to Scottish exports? I doubt it. And as the name suggests, I *am* all for European integration.