Scotland should become independent
"Oh Flower of Scotland, when will we see your likes again?.." Anyway Scotland has a long history as a separate kingdom and then a separate nation under the British crown until 1707. The policy of the SNP, currently the biggest party in the Scottish parliament is to ultimately gain independence. It is argued that Scotland could survive perfectly well when an independent nation especially as it would most likely be a member of the EU. However the collapse of the Scottish financial sector during the banking crisis has shown that the economy would be very weak under independence.
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Strong precedent for small independent nations
For over three hundred years Scotland has been under the control of the UK Parliament in London and not been able to access the right such as other nations including small ones have done to acheive independence. For example countries like Norway have had great success after declaring independence in 1905 and has a high quality of life.[[http://www.snp.org/node/260]] This is something that could be achieved by Scotland as an independent state
There are also examples that go the other way of smaller nations being united, Arguably the nations that made up Italy had no more in common than Scotland and England, or for that matter, the South East of England and the North of England, yet they united for the first time in over a millenia in the 1860's.
Would gain control of natural resources
One of the Scottish Nationalist Party's core claims for independence is that due to scottish oil Scotland would be rich. Currently Scotland has large amounts of natural resources which it doesn't have full control of the revenues for. This means that Scotland has a viable chance of sustaining it's economic and energy security.
North sea oil lies mostly on Scotland's continental shelf. This has according to the SNP provided the UK with revenue of around £200 billion in the past and has potentially still more Scotland also has large amounts of gas. An independent Scotland would have an underlying deficit of £7.8billion. But when £12.2billion of oil and gas revenues are included, Scotland would have a surplus of more than £4billion. However this was in 2008.[[Jason Allardyce, Oil 'would make independent Scotland rich', The Sunday Times, 18/5/08, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece%5D%5D
At the same time Scotland could be a world leader in renewable resources. With its long coastline Scotland is set to be the location of much of the UK's wind, wave and tidal power generation.
Scotland would rely a lot on the high price of oil. A previous study UK government report in 2006 concluded that an independent Scotland would have a deficit of £6billion, even if oil and gas revenues were taken into account.[[Jason Allardyce, Oil 'would make independent Scotland rich', The Sunday Times, 18/5/08, http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece%5D%5D The oil price increased from around $70 per barrel in 2006 to above $120 per barrel in 2008 but it has now fallen back to the $75 so the figures for the 2006 study would be closer to what the situation would be today.[[http://plasticker.de/preise/oelpreis_en.php]]
Defending powers won as well as extending them
Gaining independence would the be the ultimate way of defending parliament the powers won by decades if not centuries of hard work. Currently there are no constitutional guarantees that the Scottish Assembly and this means that they can be dissolved by an act of Parliament pushed through by any party that is in charge.
This threat is exacerbated by the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party amongst other right wing parties most of whom want to dissolve the Scottish Parliament and reinforce more unified control by an English government in London. Declaring independence would be the ultimate way of defending and extending the hard battle for Scotland to gain its rights and its parliament.
All the parties that have even the remote chance of creating a government support the devolution settlement so there is little chance of its being revoked, particularly in light of the first past the post system. Any revokation of devolution in favour of centalisation would likely cause public oppinion currently against independence to swing to the other side and bring about the very opposite of the initial intention, thus rendering guarentees or the lack thereof somewhat superfluious.
Would give Scotland A stronger voice in Europe and the world
An independent Scotland would be able to have a stronger distinct voice than it does as part of the UK. This would be a great help when it comes to stopping supposedly illegal wars such as the War in Iraq or alternatively stopping nuclear weapons being placed on Scottish soil for example with the Nuclear Submarine base at Faslane.[[http://www.snp.org/node/240]]
On the contrary, The United Kingdom has, largely through its Nuclear weapons, an inflated presence on the world stage. Scotland's departure from the UK would diminish both and essentially consign Scotland to diplomatic obscurity.
This is a matter of confusing a few issues over which there are disagreements with a much larger picture, largely scottish attitudes to foreign policy are in accord with the rest of the UK.
[[http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/TEL070101008_3.pdf]] And in Neither of the Cited examples, being against the war in Iraq or Nuclear weapons is the Scottish opposition any different to public oppinion elsewhere theyu are both issues where the British government leads against the majority opinion. The majority of small nations were aginst Iraq, their opposition in no way altered the result, one more would mean nothing.
Allows Scotland to control English etc. immigration
Allows Scotland to control English etc. immigration.
"REMARKABLE new research on where people choose to live has identified the places south of the Border that attract most Scots, and those parts of Scotland that will be forever a little part of England.
New analysis of the 2001 census, the biggest survey carried out in Britain, confirmed that Edinburgh is the "least Scottish" town in Scotland. Its Scots-born residents have fallen 6.4% to make up 77.8% of its 448,624 population, but English people
living in the city are up by 2.7% to 12.1%"
From The ScotsMan Newspaper.
Use Its Own Renewable Energy For Its Own Purpose
Use Its Own Renewable Energy For Its Own Purpose
Released From The Grips Of English Control
When Scotland gain independence they will be released from the clutches of a falling westminster. It will once again control its own oil, taxes, laws etc. We will be able to use the oil for ourselves , the renewable energy for ourselves and benefit better health care and maybe higher wages for ourselves.
So vote SNP Scotland !
Scotland could at last rid its self of all things nuclear, including power stations and undesirable weapons. These pose a threat to the whole human race! Also there is the staggering financial cost involved in both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Both of which are totally unessential despite what politicians tell us. Lets have a nuclear free zone!
It's always been the economy stupid !
One of the key reasons that Scotland originally joined with England to form the UK was that its economy went down the tubes partly as a result of a massive attempt to develop a colony in South America. And one of the reasons for staying in with the UK is that Scotland is part of a much wider economy that has a purchasing power parity of over over 2 trillion dollars, a GDP of capita of over thirty five thousand dollars (making it 34th in the world according to the CIA and a . [[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/countrytemplate_uk.html]]
If Scotland did become independent it's economy would be significantly smaller and much more vulnerable. After all it wasn't just the city that took the hits with the Credit Crunch. Halifax/Royal Bank of Scotland is a Scottish bank and other Scottish banks were hit badly by the crisis. So Scotland could become independent only to face economic hardships. Hardly something good for public services or anything else for that matter.
Border Controls emerging between England and Scotland
One of the more ridiculous things to happen if Scotland declared independence from the UK would be that for the first time in three hundred years, the British Isles could have border controls between different nations on them. This would create major headaches in terms of economic controls and convenience amongst things for people both North and South of the border.
there are no border controls through large sections of mainland Europe, it is only the UKs insistyance on remaining outside the schengen agreement that would prove a problem, It is therefore no great stretch to think that border controls between England and Scotland would be only nominal. There are currently no passport checks at the border between Northern and the Republic of Ireland and this worked through the troubles.[[http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/moving-abroad/freedom-of-movement-within-the-eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_UK/]]
What about the shared common ground Scotland has with the UK
While there may have been problems for the Scots during their time in the union there has also been a number of achievements generated by the union and not just through empire. For example both Scottish and English philosophers such as Hume played major roles in the Enlightenment and although the empire. In an article in the Guardian Nicoll quotes Hagan who says 'The very idea of erecting a non-ethnic-based society is a very modern idea of a state, and the United Kingdom exhibits that in a way many so-called liberal states could only dream of doing.' [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jan/07/uk.scotland]] In this he is referring to the fact that unlike a number of unifications in history such as with Germany the Union between England and Scotland was not one done as a conquest of one side by another but one country choosing to peacefully affiliate with another.
Duplication of Effort
Scotland, if fully independant would undoubtedly want the trappings of nationhood, a diplomatic service and armed forces to do essentially the same job as currently existing British institutions. Scotland would probably run a very small armed force (with repercussions for its international standing and defence industries such as Clyde shipyards). However This dosent sit very well with the amount of fuss that is kicked up over the merging of Scottish regiments etc in the past, or the opposition to the prospects of shutting down one of the airbases in the north east, If they wanted to maintain these economic drivers then they would need more than a tiny nominal force. England/Britain may well respond by reducing its own armed forces but it could be assumed that the loss of Scotland would not automatically reduce its commitments which already overstrech its armed services: the result might be between the two nations greater defence spending rather than less.
As the UK has competitive tendering then it is likely that scotland's defence industry would be able to continue to compete for British defence contracts. This means that if the overall defence spending rose then it could be to Scotland's benefit. There is also no reason why overall higher defence spending would be bad. After all the americans would be pleased if Europe spends a little more. Both nations would be in NATO so could potentially keep their militaries very close so as to avoid much doubling up. There are already discussions about the need to have the EU's militaries speciallise and between them form a powerful military and Scotland and Britain would simply be one part of any ongoing movement towards this.
Subsidies from England
Scotland has gained from being part of the Union. Since the creation of the Scottish parliament it has gained a £76 billion "devolution dividend", as public spending has outstripped tax generated in the country by up to 45 per cent. A report commissioned by Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy's office says that Scotland has had a "structural deficit" since 1981 with spending last year £11bn more than taxes raised north of the Border. This would mean that expenditure in Scotland currently amounts to 145 per cent of all Scottish tax receipts.[[Christopher Mackie, Scotland's £76 billion 'devolution dividend', the Scotsman, 25/1/10, http://news.scotsman.com/devolution/Scotland39s-76-billion-39devolution-dividend39.6009619.jp%5D%5D
Let us not forget that England is in an immense dificit as is the whole of the UK at the moment. Borrowing will peak at £167 billion this year. UK public sector net debt now totals £848.5bn - or 59.9% of GDP and this is forcast to rise to 75% by 2014.[[Budget 2010: Public finances, BBC News, 24/3/10, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8573128.stm%5D%5D. We are forcast to have tax revinues of 493.4bln in 2010/11[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/taxandspending-economy]] so our spending is about 130% of taxes, not as much as Scotland but still pretty bad.
we should be looking at a wider comunity rarther that becoming independant and focusind on just scotland
What do you think?