Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You talk about a 'Geographic share of oil revenues' yet - AFAIK - there has been no definitive answer to the question about the location of the international border (on the seabed.)
It's very unlikely that anybody would decide that the International border runs due East from the coast near Berwick. - Why should it?
I was told that the direction of the International border (extended out to sea) would probably be determined by drawing a line from the border at the coast inland along the mean direction of the land border for (about) 20 miles and extending that line out into the sea. If that was the case, the sea border between the Scottish and English seabeds would lie about 45 miles South East of Aberdeen.
That doesn't give Scotland a lot.
If the Scottish people want independence, why shouldn't they have it?
For that matter, if the English people decided they wanted to be independent, why shouldn't they have it, too?
Perhaps Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales AND England should each vote on whether they wanted independence from the others?
I'm not English (nor am I Scottish, Welsh or Irish.) I lived in - or was physically present in - the UK (mainly in Eastern England) for an aggregate of about 30 years, but I no longer live there and don't have an axe to grind (or a longbow to polish) concerning independence for anybody.
You quoted Alex Salmond as saying: " ...there are more giant panda's in Scotland than Tory MP's, and there are only two giant panda's. Yet we are governed by the Tories, and even if 100% of Scots voted Labour, we could not have altered that fact. That is my sole reason for desiring independence."
If Scotland gained independence (and as I said earlier, as far as I'm concerned if they want it they should have it) then Scotland would not be governed by the Tories.
That works two ways, of course. The Labour party would probably never come anywhere near getting a majority in England, so the Eglish people would never have to put up with Labour misrule.
And the (Scottish input to the) West Lothian question would disappear overnight.
No way people would be kicked out who didnt want out and people would stay who didnt want to stay. Absolutely not flying way.
As I'm sure the English would prefer the Cross of St. George.
We really wouldn't.
It's really only the cross that represents Scotland as opposed to the blue. St. Andrew's cross would have to be removed but the blue can stay, assuming the UK would continue to exist. England may not want to continue bankrolling Wales and Northern Ireland once Scotland leaves, considering Scotland is the only constituent country besides England that isn't an economic basket case*, so they could go their own way and live off EU Regional Aid, England and Scotland could enjoy mutual benefits of independence as successful economies, heck, perhaps they will create their own currency union with an open border (wishful thinking perhaps..).
*with all due respect to those in Wales and Northern Ireland.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 02-23-2013 at 06:50 AM..
I support retaining the UK, but if Scotland becomes independent, then I'd prefer it if the entire union was dissolved. I think I was a bit harsh with my assessment of Northern Ireland and Wales, it was mostly in jest though as I have nothing against either places.
Culturally I think Scotland will prosper but not Economically. Though I don't think its 'daft' if Scotland seperates. Alot of things need to change within the UK like spreading around the wealth of the Southeast to other regions of the country for example giving other UK cities investment they need to challenge London and become more prosperous. The UK has a country needs to be reformed completely.
I would love to see a federal system adopted, similar to Germany, but that is unlikely. If Scotland votes no, it may well send out the message that they are not interested in gaining any more independence from Westminster, but at the same time it might force Westminster to give Scotland and the constituent countries more devolution, perhaps adopting a proper federal system like Germany, France or Spain.
Scottish independence might allow the voices of the English regions to be heard more once the calls for independence are gone. It certainly does claim a lot of the limelight, but we're not doing much shouting ourselves.
Yes I'd say London should be in its own seperate region from England. Federal system would be great though England would have to be split into 4 or something though. Anyway I made a thread about this before remember.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
