I have been thinking about this lately. Most people in school think Scotland should be independent and looking online, there are parties in England and Wales who believe their country should be independent too. I don't think it would be a good idea, I'm wondering what others think? Would you like your country to be independent?

No, we're not the Sugababes :kink:

 

 

In seriousness, I don't think it matters. Seeing as the countries have different laws anyway and are effectively separate in a way, I don't see how being officially separate would make too much of a difference - plus more problems would be created as the countries would need a PM like we would right?

No, we're not the Sugababes :kink:

 

In seriousness, I don't think it matters. Seeing as the countries have different laws anyway and are effectively separate in a way, I don't see how being officially separate would make too much of a difference - plus more problems would be created as the countries would need a PM like we would right?

 

:lol:

 

I agree completley, and there are a lot of advantages to being together anyway.

HELL NO. Count me as a stern unionist - whilst Scotland could be viable as an independent country, that doesn't mean that it should be, and the historical ties between our nations really do make us stronger together than we would be apart (not to mention the fantastic deal they get out of the union with devolution).

 

And from a purely self-interested view it would make it hellaciously difficult for Labour to get majorities - for example, Labour currently have 258 seats and presently need 68 seats to get a majority again. Take away our 41 Scottish seats and we're down to 217 and needing 109 - whereas the Lib Dems lose 11 and the Tories lose just the one. Of course, thankfully no Tory PM would want to be remembered as the PM that lost the Union, so we can count the Tories onside in this struggle.

HELL NO. Count me as a stern unionist - whilst Scotland could be viable as an independent country, that doesn't mean that it should be, and the historical ties between our nations really do make us stronger together than we would be apart (not to mention the fantastic deal they get out of the union with devolution).

 

And from a purely self-interested view it would make it hellaciously difficult for Labour to get majorities - for example, Labour currently have 258 seats and presently need 68 seats to get a majority again. Take away our 41 Scottish seats and we're down to 217 and needing 109 - whereas the Lib Dems lose 11 and the Tories lose just the one. Of course, thankfully no Tory PM would want to be remembered as the PM that lost the Union, so we can count the Tories onside in this struggle.

Without Scotland there would be only 591 constituencies (on current boundaries). So the number required for a majority would be 296 leaving Labour needing to gain 79 not 109.

HELL NO. Count me as a stern unionist - whilst Scotland could be viable as an independent country, that doesn't mean that it should be, and the historical ties between our nations really do make us stronger together than we would be apart (not to mention the fantastic deal they get out of the union with devolution).

 

And from a purely self-interested view it would make it hellaciously difficult for Labour to get majorities - for example, Labour currently have 258 seats and presently need 68 seats to get a majority again. Take away our 41 Scottish seats and we're down to 217 and needing 109 - whereas the Lib Dems lose 11 and the Tories lose just the one. Of course, thankfully no Tory PM would want to be remembered as the PM that lost the Union, so we can count the Tories onside in this struggle.

 

I want the UK to be together because of that strength, but the Tories only got one seat here. They don't have any right to have anything to do with Scotland IMO. Scotland didn't want them, after everything that happened with Margaret Thatcher.

Edited June 26, 201114 yr by starryeyed

Without Scotland there would be only 591 constituencies (on current boundaries). So the number required for a majority would be 296 leaving Labour needing to gain 79 not 109.

Oh gosh, what an absolute schoolboy error on my part! Even so, Labour would be disproportionately worse off compared to the others off the back of Scotland leaving the Union.

Of course, England would lose out on the (diminishing) natural resources that Scotland has if the UK split up.

 

No one has mentioned Wales so far either - is this because it is seen as being closer to England historically?

I can't see how Wales would function as a separate country, Scotland would struggle enough. Northern Ireland would be unable to cope unless it was part of a unified Ireland.

 

From a selfish point of view, as Tirren pointed out any split would make every general election a foregone conclusion in England - so I'm very much in favour of a unified UK.

I think the lack of mention of Wales is because there's no call for independence from them. They know it would be disastrous if they left the UK.

 

Scotland is slightly different, but I don't really see any need for a split. We're separate enough, and divided, each country has a lot less value and would be much worse off economically than they would if they stayed together.

I can't see how Wales would function as a separate country, Scotland would struggle enough. Northern Ireland would be unable to cope unless it was part of a unified Ireland.

 

From a selfish point of view, as Tirren pointed out any split would make every general election a foregone conclusion in England - so I'm very much in favour of a unified UK.

Well, not necessarily a foregone conclusion. But given England's a nation where Michael Howard won the largest share of the vote in 2005 I think that's reason enough to say no to the Union ever splitting up.

I think the general consensus is that the UK is greater than the sum of it's parts.

As much as Wales loves the idea of being on their own, it would be absurd! We rely way to much on England for funds etc we would collapse!

Without Scotland there would be only 591 constituencies (on current boundaries). So the number required for a majority would be 296 leaving Labour needing to gain 79 not 109.

But didn't Labour get 42 seats in Scotland, which means it's much harder for Labour to get a majority. I've always thought of it as weird for Labour to benefit from Scottish Independence - they have such a red core in Glasgow/West Scotland/Central Belt.

 

I believe in Scottish Independence and of course they can rely by themselves, and that's without massive oil revenues. NI could unify with Ireland (complicated, I know) and Wales become the natural UK after England splits off.

 

:lol:

But didn't Labour get 42 seats in Scotland, which means it's much harder for Labour to get a majority. I've always thought of it as weird for Labour to benefit from Scottish Independence - they have such a red core in Glasgow/West Scotland/Central Belt.

 

I believe in Scottish Independence and of course they can rely by themselves, and that's without massive oil revenues. NI could unify with Ireland (complicated, I know) and Wales become the natural UK after England splits off.

 

:lol:

It would be harder for Labour to get a majority without Scotland but not as hard as Tirren said in his initial post. Of course there was a time (in the 1950s) when the Tories won a majority of the seats in Scotland but those days are long gone.

No, we're not the Sugababes :kink:

 

If it were like the Sugababes, as soon as Scotland left the UK, France would be invited to join in it's place. 10 years later after several member changes, the United Kingdom would consist of France, Denmark, Poland and Kyrgyzstan. Then England, Scotland, Wales and NI would reform as the 'Original United Kingdom.' Then there'd be a lawsuit between the new UK and old UK as to who are the rights to be called the United Kingdom. Then a war. Then the apocalypse.

Every country in the UK would struggle on it's own IMO, and the EU wouldn't like it either. They would all be considered new countries, and would have to compete with other new EU countries for links and resources.

 

 

They would all be considered new countries, and would have to compete with other new EU countries for links and resources.

Elaborate on this sentence please?

This stuff always makes me laugh. The UK together as a coutry is a strong one, if we all broke off we'd be very weak. England could just about survive, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be disasterous. I can see why politicians (and voters) want it, but they are not looking at the bigger picture. Cluessless morons.

Elaborate on this sentence please?

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/D...ntry.3335953.jp

 

This is not the article I read, but close.

Edited June 27, 201114 yr by starryeyed