h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/26/nunion26.xml

Apparently it's the 300 year anniversary of the union of England and Scotland this year. Brown spoke out about its importance this week. But I can't think of any good reason why it needs to continue. And it seems like more and more people on both sides of the border want the two countries to split.

Of course the two countries would continue a close relationship and any talented Scots should be welcomed to work in England. But I really don't see the neccesity of being tied at the hip. Any economic handouts Scotland presently gets from England could easily be taken on by the EU.

So why does the Union need to continue?

"A house divided cannot stand."

Do you know who said that?

Some American or other...

Can't think of any particularly overwealing reason as to why it'd be prudent to scrap the union now... Seems like with many of the 'news items' of the year thus far that its just another bandwagon jumped on to for nepherious reasons, in this case political I guess Fragmentation of the union would seem a very odd idea when surely we'd be better off thinking about finally geting our arses in gear and becoming more towards a single European state/allience/union type affair

Yeah, but the Union comes from Britain's Imperial past. Scotland used to be a separate country, as did Northern Ireland. All this stuff makes people look more to the Queen, who's flag, the Royal standard has the home nations on it. And all this keeping the 'Pound' mentality rather than having the Euro. I think it would make it easier for people start accepting Europe more, if the Union was broken up.

Scotland would probably flourish by closer integration with Europe. Look how well Republic of Ireland has done. And it would make more sense for Northwern ireland to become part of the republic of Irelaand.

Well if they get independance I think East Anglia should also, and Cornwall and...

When the RoI joined the EU it was the poorest country there, hence the biggest winner subsidy-wise. Times have changed with the eastern european influx and an independant Scotland wouldn't recieve the same benefit.
As for Northern Ireland joining the RoI. I think a lot of it's inhabitants would not want this to happen. The issue would have to be forced on them and the repercussions...

Northern Ireland was never a separate country. It was part of another country. The only reason it was chosen was demographics. The chosen counties had a majority unionist population. Originally the idea was that the Irish province of Ulster would remain part of the UK, but since 3 of those counties had a large Catholic majority, they were excluded. It's a bit of a hotch-potch really.

Also, ROI is doing quite well now, but for 60 years it had major problems with thousands of people leaving every year. Look at all the Irish in America and Australia!

I used to be all for Scottish Independence and have voted SNP all my life, (whenever an SNP candidate was available). However, this is an issue which funnily enough, Hootoo has brought changed my mind about.

Independence would be a complete and utter disaster for Scotland.

Scotland is overwhelmingly socialist. There are brands of socialism up here that I don't think are seen to the same degree in England. But it's a socialism dominated by Labour, who toe the centre-left UK Party line. IMO, in an independent Scotland a Scottish Labour Party would lurch further to the left. A socialist Scotland would go the way of every socialist country - bankruptcy, corruption and ruin. Another reason for thinking this is the lamentable quality of politician north of the border. Forget about Brown & Reid heading North - they will get safe seats in English constituencies. Scotland will end up being governed in the main by those currently ensconced in the Scottish Parliament. And what a bunch of sad sacks they are. They can't even manage the budget for one building, never mind a country.

Which brings me to the next reason Scotland would fail. English jibes about Scotland being a nation of handout junkies is true. I may be wrong, but I believe over half of employment is provided by the State. Glasgow has the highest proportion of people on invalidity benefit. Reliance upon the councils for housing is far higher in Scotland than in England. The Scottish Parliament can vote through any spending policy it chooses, knowing full well that if it runs short England will top up the difference. An independent Scotland run by such economic incompetents would be doomed. Rest assured, every financial failure would be blamed on the English in some way. Politicians would subvert nationalistic pride into racial hatred.

It genuinely hurts me to say this as a proud Scot, but independence for Scotland would be terrible.

>>The Scottish Parliament can vote through any spending policy it chooses, knowing full well that if it runs short England will top up the difference. <<

I don't understand your reasoning, SWL. Looking at things for a moment from your POV, ( how weird does that feel ), surely the best hope for Scottish society would be to lose that dependance on England. Keeping it will only perpetuate the status quo.

And we all know that if you perpetuate the Status Quo you'll soon end up in Dire Straits.

Long term, it might be a good thing. But twenty years or so of financial disaster and bankruptcy isn't too appealing. As somebody mentioned earlier, the politicians have their eye on the even bigger begging bowl that the EU represents. But with all the new entries, Scotland would have to backslide quite a bit before we fell behind them economically and therefore leapfrog them in the begging queue.

Yes, there's oil revenues, which the greedy little sods in Holyrood have burning a hole in their pockets. Expect these to be spent on more gin palaces and grandiose social experiments.

Sorry, missed a bit.

"surely the best hope for Scottish society would be to lose that dependance on England"

The best hope for Scottish Society is to end the benefit culture entirely.

And if you end up in "Dire Straights" you'll be Hungry Like the Wolf.

A-Ha!

Donald where's yer troosers?

Hmm. I don't really have a major axe to grind about independence. I think now it would make less appreciable difference than it ever has. If it did happen, there would probably be
- no border controls
- single currency (until Scotland joined the Euro)
- free trade
- yadda yadda

England would still be our biggest trading partner, and how the indepence is handled would determine if any backlash, either for or against, happened.

As SWL says, Labour dominates politics at the moment. Given that the SNP would have to be in power for independence to happen, it's difficult to say what the situation would be afterwards. I'd agree that the electorate would remain left-of-centre, though.

I'd disagree that this automatically makes the first 20 years a disaster.
<> , and some more.

Like Norway and Sweden?

Bad management will lead to bad results, true. There is an over-reliance on the public sector here, true again. They're problems which would have to be sorted out.

<< The Scottish Parliament can vote through any spending policy it chooses, knowing full well that if it runs short England will top up the difference. >>

No, it can't. Given that 90% of government is taxing and spending, we've only got... 45%. The tax-raising powers are pretty non-existent.

I'm not as pessimistic as SWL about the politicians, but I don't see a pressing case for indepedence. It's not big an issue up here anyway. It seemed to start up a coupla months ago when the SNP had a big lead in the polls for the Scottish Parliament (elections in May). This seems to be a protest against Labour more than a call for independence.

Yup, Sweden. A near doubling of unemployment led to : http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/sep2006/swed-s20.shtml

"In addition to its inability to address unemployment, the Persson government, in power since 1994, was distrusted and mired in corruption scandals. Through its extensive network of connections with the state apparatus, state monopolies and the trade union bureaucracy, the government had been exposed as filling a range of leading positions with Persson’s close friends and family. His wife, for example, was made head of the state alcohol monopoly. A survey of electoral candidates revealed that Social Democratic contenders were the wealthiest of all the parties."

And that's the way of every socialist country? Democratically elected government narrowly loses election after 12 years due to becoming too comfy in power, and the usual abuses that go with it?

Try harder.