Comments on: To satisfy its aspirations, Scotland needs independence

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:16:14 +0000

There is a groundswell on the streets folks moving towards independence in Scotland.
remember the 1st bank to go down was English (northern rock)!.most of the oil lies north of 55th parallel(scotland),So we english must ask ourselves WHY does london seem hell bent on holding onto Scotland!Is SCOTTISH OIL saving all our necks right now as it did thatchers!.

By: peter mitchell

peter mitchell — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:11:24 +0000

Things change all the time look at the map of the world
countries today were not their 50 years or 100 years ago.
Scotland might get independance and be a great success then again maybe not. All this argument of past woes and current situations is irrelivent this is all about the future. My point maybe one day we will have the republic of Canada and Scotland whatever peoples of different countries and regions want may happen its not a problem
dont worry about it as long as your healthy and happy thats what life is about is’nt it or am I wrong.

From a true Scot ( sorry about showing my colours but silly passions run deep)

By: Michael Grazebrook

Michael Grazebrook — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:19:09 +0000

Surely independence from England is irrelevant, is a red herring? Brussels makes the laws that matter.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:34:08 +0000

I used to be in favour of the devolution of central government power even down to a regional level… until a very astute great-aunt of mine (who’s sadly since passed away) pointed out the problem:
IT WOULD RESULT IN MORE POLITICIANS!

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:23:44 +0000

Nathan Stewart, interesting comment about RBS:

“this is the largest bank in the world in terms of assets, worth more than the entire GDP of Britain, it returned billions to the UK exchequer every year”

I find this hard to reconcile with your earlier comment:

“Having studied Politics and economics for years I have a better understanding than most of Scotland’s situation and it’s absolutely absurd some of the claims.”

Are you sure you know what you’re writing about? best not to refer to the comments of other users as absurd before revealing your ignorance of an area you claim to understand. Certainly, you’re not an accountant/businessman/analyst/economist /politician/expert/conscientious student.

If Scotland wanted independence it would return more SNP members to parliament(s) and could get it. Some of the Scottish voices here presume to speak for the entire nation, while this is manifestly not the case.

In any event, Scotland will probably opt for independence at some point in the next twenty years – and will do very well to! English taxpayers will simply be made to redirect their Scottish subsidies via the EU. Don’t worry, you guys will get the cash – minus a couple of billion quid in extra paper shuffling – and can carry on as before.

One of the most important cultural connections between Scotland and England is a belief in our own common sense – unfortunately, this seems to be in terminal decline.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:46:39 +0000

“the only problem Scotland has [is] a large public sector” states Nathan Stewart! I laughed so hard I nearly fell off my chair. I’m still laughing now! Next you’ll be listing all the things the Scots claim to have invented!
It might be time for one of your whiskies? One more minor detail… the FSA was set up by Gordon Brown who IS Scottish!

By: Nathan Stewart

Nathan Stewart — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:36:13 +0000

I have never read so much nonsense in my life in reading all of your comments. Having studied Politics and economics for years I have a better understanding than most of Scotland’s situation and it’s absolutely absurd some of the claims.

Can I firstly point to the comment regarding Scotland driving its banks and building societies to the ground only to be bailed out by the English taxpayers, I’m glad someone raised that issue, considering the banks and building societies are regulated by the FSA and the Bank of England, I would consider it a major failure of the UK not Scotland, an independent Scotland would have regulated its own banks and building societies, if the UK hadn’t squandered our oil money on Nuclear weapons and illegal wars we’d probably be in a great position to bail out our own banks. And in regards to RBS, this is the largest bank in the world in terms of assets, worth more than the entire GDP of Britain, it returned billions to the UK exchequer every year, none of which Scotland ever seen or benefitted from.

The country also has the best renewable energy capability in Europe, has well established financial services even with the recession, whisky industry amongst other things contributes to a strong economy, the only problem Scotland has its a large public sector which would prove costly and needs to be trimmed down.

I am sick to death of hearing the uneducated slander regarding Scotland, people should really study the actual facts, and yes Scotland was never conquered by England and can therefore opt out of the union as it so pleases, which hopefully will be sooner than later. I read some of the comments from accross the water and I don’t think people actually understand the unique situation of being a nation without having a state. I hope to god the Scottish people see sense and stop this ridiculous rule from London, it will be better for England and Scotland.

By: Heather

Heather — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:32:05 +0000

Since my ancestors came from all parts of the United Kingdom and managed to intermarry in the United States, I’m not really sure how all of the various UK tribes have managed to keep themselves apart over the same time period. Your country is very small, you know. Too small to devolve into various squabbling tribes who are related to each other anyway.

I can understand there’s some regional charm, and history is interesting, but to put any more weight– or to call it nationalism — is absurd.

By: Siddiq

Siddiq — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:52:32 +0000

The no more Oil left in the north sea, give me some idea’s of how would scots fund public services? Britain pays over Nine Billion a year, where would that sort of money come from when independent?

By: Peter H

Peter H — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:08:29 +0000

It was King James VI of Scotland who became James I of the Union of British Crowns in 1607!
Of course the civil war (which started in Ireland) and parliament changed all that, but a simplistic view of Scotland being the victim of history just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Surely there are better things to worry about in an increasingly interconnected Europe and world than Scottish national naval gazing and re-inventing history?
I’m always amazed at how much effort goes into diverting attention away from the historical fact that most of Britain’s population is of German heritage anyway.