North Sea Oil means nothing. Or it means war. America doesn't want Scottish independence, and England's not losing it's oil, and it will be ready to fight with (favourable) 10:1 odds.

It's not just taxes that are making Scotland poorer. Living in Scotland means you don't have to pay English taxes. Scotland is more rural, and more rural means more poorer (that's why socialist parties are more popular there). Every country "pulls in money" from various sources, but the thing is, how important is that money compared to the stock industries? And what debts is England paying for, but Scotland apparently isn't responsible for?

Electrical goods, you can get from Germany or Estonia. Financing you can get in Luxemburg or Liechtenstein (post box offices). Mining, yes, you can get some goodies from Scottish mountains, but not much more than other mountains. Transportation? No proper roads in its own country, and transportation? No, not at all. Machinery? Germany. Scottish Cuisine? Don't know anything about it (and I've been all the way to Netherlands, still don't know anything about it). Scottish Whiskey? Yes, fun fact, but that's like saying Portugal greatly helped America gain independence (by way of Madeira wine).

If Scotland had tax control, it would be much better, but it wouldn't. Rebuilding everything is not an easy task. Maybe this "Tory Government" will be repeated in the future in Scotland, but this "Tory Government" is now everyone's problem, not just Scotland. Like I said, the SNP is so popular because folk are so poor.

North Sea Oil is a very useful resource for the time that it is there. It gives Scotland a great industry, and it brings lots of wealth into the country. England will not fight for it, a war of such would be disapproved on in this day and age.

A huge amount of England's debt is social services, health, and transport, all of which are devolved matters that Scotland have authority over, where Scotland must help pay back these debts because they are part of the UK. Scotland is very strong in agriculture, with huge amounts of their country dedicated to it, which is actually causing more benefit than harm, as opposed to what you think.

All of these industries that I have mentioned get significant amounts of money that Scotland puts towards its GDP. Scotland has incredible transport, despite what you seem to think, as Lothian has the highest rated bus service in the entire UK, the trams have been a smash success, and the trains are not overcrowded, but can get you from point A-B in no time. Scottish cuisine is popular in England, France, Germany, and many other western countries, and this unique food and drink provides a national identity for Scotland.

Scotland would not be "rebuilding everything" like you say. It wouldn't be starting from the bottom. Several of the matters are already devolved, and it is no problem transitioning from the British authority, to Scottish authority. Yes, the Tory Government is everyone's problem, and that is why Scotland are the smart ones who are trying to break free from the Tories! And no, there is a Conservative Government in Scotland, but they are very unpopular. Labour has been popular in Scotland, until the rise of the SNP, and the Scottish Tories have never gained any significant bursts of energy. If the Scottish people were really so poor, then why aren't the SSP trying to rebuild?

England will not fight for it, a war of such would be disapproved on in this day and age.

Would it?

A huge amount of England's debt is social services, health, and transport, all of which are devolved matters that Scotland have authority over, where Scotland must help pay back these debts because they are part of the UK. Scotland is very strong in agriculture, with huge amounts of their country dedicated to it, which is actually causing more benefit than harm, as opposed to what you think.

You're making it sound like Scotland doesn't have social services, health, or transport. Scotland probably helps more to England than England helps to it because England actually has 10x the population. Of course agriculture causes benefit, but it also causes ruralness and education lack, and really, agriculture? What can you grow in actual nice weather?

All of these industries that I have mentioned get significant amounts of money that Scotland puts towards its GDP. Scotland has incredible transport, despite what you seem to think, as Lothian has the highest rated bus service in the entire UK, the trams have been a smash success, and the trains are not overcrowded, but can get you from point A-B in no time. Scottish cuisine is popular in England, France, Germany, and many other western countries, and this unique food and drink provides a national identity for Scotland.

Ha, then you're just proving my point - Scotland would be helpless. Probably the only reason the transportation is highly rated is because it's practically empty and it's good enough to get from Glasgow to Edinburgh and if you really want to be isolated, Iverness. Scotland has massive population holes, as to be expected from somewhat low population density.

When I went to the Netherlands, I saw no Scottish food. Also, I go to Poland, still not seeing Scottish food. Maybe you're right, but until further notice...nothing compared to real wines (Porto).

Scotland would not be "rebuilding everything" like you say. It wouldn't be starting from the bottom. Several of the matters are already devolved, and it is no problem transitioning from the British authority, to Scottish authority. Yes, the Tory Government is everyone's problem, and that is why Scotland are the smart ones who are trying to break free from the Tories! And no, there is a Conservative Government in Scotland, but they are very unpopular. Labour has been popular in Scotland, until the rise of the SNP, and the Scottish Tories have never gained any significant bursts of energy. If the Scottish people were really so poor, then why aren't the SSP trying to rebuild?

You claim Scotland is trying to escape England's "tory government", but what I mean to say is, one day, Scotland will have a bad government, too, if it does gain independence, that is for sure. And then what? Both Hebrides want independence? Mind you, Scotland's independence is pushed by the Scots, the (now small) Hebride's independence is pushed by the Scottish Gaelic. It's inefficient and bad to try to get independence each time you don't like your country's government.

Think Britain and the EU. Nigel Farage has talked much about this (though I don't agree with most his points, he is right about this): Everyone thought the Euro was going to be great, yet now there are it's unsupporters, notably, Nigel Farage and Helle Thorning-Schmidt. The reason the SSP won't rebuild is because they can't rebuild. Noone likes the words "socialism" and even worse is "communism". The "benefactors" don't like them, either, since they seek to destroy them, so it's rare nowadays. (Though the Communist party has grown by 0.01% this election, so good for them :))

Edited 6/5/2015 23:51:41

First of all, the Iraq war was disapproved of by all political parties other than Labour, and that is Tony Blair being a complete idiot. Would you really expect nothing to come of a war England declares on Scotland after they proclaim their independence?

Scotland's social services, health and transport are provided by the Scottish government, as a devolved matter, and as they are smaller, they have much less debt to deal with, but the larger services in England, which have much more debt, Scotland must pay for. In the more rural parts of Scotland, there are still many free schools and universities, and are not lacking. Scotland is very concerned about their greenbelt, and make sure to keep a lot of land arable to keep their agriculture industry booming, with huge amounts of cereal, barley, wheat, rapeseed, oats, potatoes, apples, pears, strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, gooseberries, blueberries, blackcurrants, redcurrants, and rowan fruit.

The Scottish Transport is so highly rated, because they enforce their safety rules, their cleanliness rules, and yes, to a certain extent it is mild, but what did a low population ever stop a country from being independent? The low population density, for example, in the highlands, is largely due to a historical event called the highland clearances, which moved thousands of families out of the highlands, and ridiculously changed the population density in the region. Inverness is a strategically placed city at the Caledonian Canal, and allows quick access into the highlands, without only a desolate village to refuel. It is also a city that attracts a lot of tourism, because of Loch Ness, and the mythical Nessie. The lack of population in the highland however, can actually show how beautiful the scenery is, and also pulls in a lot of sightseers, compared to England's boring low-lands, with hardly any interesting terrain.

At the moment, yes, Scotland is trying to break free of the far-right policies of England, that seem to get pulled in all the time, and with the Lib-Lab pact weakening every day, it seems like they will no longer keep the Scots satisfied in a UK government, so with the own Scottish Parliament, with some devolved powers, the population of Scotland want a bigger push, and want to be ruled by a left-winged government, and hugely close the wealth gap, that the Tories continue to enforce. Perhaps there would be a bad government from time to time, but some of the most left-winged governments lie in Scotland, and that is the governments most Scots support. The Hebrides are not wanting independence, they massively support an independent SCOTLAND, not an independent Western Isles... That would be pointless, as they have some of the lowest population in the entire of Scotland, and have very little industry.

You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about when you say "The reason the SSP won't rebuild is because they can't rebuild. Noone likes the words "socialism" and even worse is "communism"." The reason the SSP can't rebuild, is because the public have no faith in them. After the fall of Tommy Sheridan, and the proof that half of the SSP had intentions to lie in court, the public have lost all faith in the party.

This conversation has been largely derailed, and surely you understand now that Scotland does not "rely on England", and it would not be "helpless".

Edited 6/6/2015 18:24:49

Juq currently:

First of all, the Iraq war was disapproved of by all political parties other than Labour, and that is Tony Blair being a complete idiot. Would you really expect nothing to come of a war England declares on Scotland after they proclaim their independence?

It wasn't disapproved by the folk who matter, and that's all that matters. And at this time, David Cameron doesn't even matter, Obama matters. I do expect it since it will be American (and by extension, NATO) supported. The worst that could happen is that Russia could supply some guns to Scotland. War will be a last ersort though, probably an ultimatum is more likely. Also, England is in the big gambling, Scotland is in the small gambling. England has 10x the population and is undeniably Britain's powerhouse, so of course it has much bigger gambling, with much more debt, to think that it ever won't would be folly.

The Scottish Transport is so highly rated, because they enforce their safety rules, their cleanliness rules, and yes, to a certain extent it is mild, but what did a low population ever stop a country from being independent? The low population density, for example, in the highlands, is largely due to a historical event called the highland clearances, which moved thousands of families out of the highlands, and ridiculously changed the population density in the region. Inverness is a strategically placed city at the Caledonian Canal, and allows quick access into the highlands, without only a desolate village to refuel. It is also a city that attracts a lot of tourism, because of Loch Ness, and the mythical Nessie. The lack of population in the highland however, can actually show how beautiful the scenery is, and also pulls in a lot of sightseers, compared to England's boring low-lands, with hardly any interesting terrain.

It's so highly rated, because it has such a high staff:rider ratio. Also, low population doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to gain independence. To gain independence, you must have dumb, savage, proud folk. To keep dependence, you must have smart, meek and neutral folk. Notice how all three adjectives on the keeping dependence side are much better. It's rare that getting independence is good. Moving on, Scotland doesn't has big a tourism industry as England and Walaes. Stop.

At the moment, yes, Scotland is trying to break free of the far-right policies of England, that seem to get pulled in all the time, and with the Lib-Lab pact weakening every day, it seems like they will no longer keep the Scots satisfied in a UK government, so with the own Scottish Parliament, with some devolved powers, the population of Scotland want a bigger push, and want to be ruled by a left-winged government, and hugely close the wealth gap, that the Tories continue to enforce. Perhaps there would be a bad government from time to time, but some of the most left-winged governments lie in Scotland, and that is the governments most Scots support. The Hebrides are not wanting independence, they massively support an independent SCOTLAND, not an independent Western Isles... That would be pointless, as they have some of the lowest population in the entire of Scotland, and have very little industry.

So basically you give me no answer other than Umm, they support it now. Now, I was wrong - the Outer Hebrides want autonomy, not independence. How about this then: Should Wales break free since they mostly voted Labour, too? Should the world break free because of opinion difference? Should Babbington Head break away from England because they have consistently voted Labour, too? And you say it would be pointless for the Hebrides to gain independence, as they have the lowest population and little industry - so wait, we've found Scotland's Scotland, haven't we?

Was the SSP ever popular? I doubt it. It's not even the public, the benefactors never supported them in the first place.

This conversation has not been derailed, you're proving to me yourself that Scotlannd would be poor and bad without England. Though I may have been exaggerating when I said it would be helpless, it does need England.

Do not argue with Juq, he is always right! He lived in Scotland for 70 years, and had a major degree in Scottish geopolitics!

What I have been trying to say, is that the international community would heavily dicourage England declaring war on Scotland. Is that not self-evident? Are we in the middle ages? Russia will give guns to Scotland? What are you on about? And you seem to completely understand, and concede my point that Scotland are giving a lot more money to pay off England's debts, than vice versa. I don't know what you mean by England is bigger in gambling than Scotland is... What are we doing, comparing Las Vegas to New York?

You also concede my point about the transport being undeniably stronger in Scotland, than England. Are you implying that people who want independence must be dumb and savage? That is highly offensive and ignorant. Nicola Sturgeon (the witch goddess) is arguably the most intelligent, and best debater of all the UK political party leaders, and she is not backed by a bunch of idiot drones who have no idea what they're talking about. Wouldn't you agree that Scotland has a higher tourism-to-population ratio than England does, because more population means more cities, more cities means more attractions, and more attractions means more tourism. Also, you're trying to say that Wales has more tourism than Scotland does? You make me laugh.

No, I'm not saying that every single constituency that does not vote for the majority should become independent, I'm saying that Scotland are being included in several laws and policies, that are reserved matters, that are greatly hindering the country from economical development and growth, and this is not the case for other constituencies. An overwhelming majority of Scottish citizens want to be ruled by left-winged policies, and they continue to have half of their laws made up by a far-right government in London, instead of a Centre-Left government in Edinburgh. You seem to not understand, after the countless examples of Scotland's flourishing, prosperous industry I have shown you, and you say it would be pointless for Scotland to be independent.

At the height of the SSP, they had 6 Scottish seats, which is good for a party of their size, especially for a socialist one. They were going to continue to get better, before their leader corrupted.

I'm trying to say that this thread has been derailed. Does the title say "Scottish Independence Debate"?

Well, I guess that Britain will stop Scottish independence because of oil, and seriously, tourism England, especially London much more touristy than Scotland.
If they establish a state I guess at first it will be difficult and perhaps with the help of oil they can get, do not know if they will become Norway but who knows...

Britian won't stop Scottish independence, they allowed a referendum to occur, and almost definitely will in the future. They are not Spain. Do you understand my tourism-to-population ratio? Because I am not talking about the gross amount of tourists that flock into the country.

How many tourists for any year?

Scotland averages in about £4,000,000,000 each year from tourism. The UK is predicted to hit an all-time high in 2015, with tourists spending £22,000,000,000. Therefore, a little under 1/5 of tourist finances enter Scotland, despite Scotland making up over 1/12 of the UK's population.

So relative to the population, Scotland earn twice as much than England,
But what happens with oil, and I'm guessing you also need to redevelop the Commerce

What I have been trying to say, is that the international community would heavily dicourage England declaring war on Scotland. Is that not self-evident? Are we in the middle ages? Russia will give guns to Scotland? What are you on about? And you seem to completely understand, and concede my point that Scotland are giving a lot more money to pay off England's debts, than vice versa. I don't know what you mean by England is bigger in gambling than Scotland is... What are we doing, comparing Las Vegas to New York?

No, it wouldn't. Scotland isn't America's ally, Great England is America's ally. If America allows it, the best thing going to Scotland is Russian weaponry, which still probably wouldn't help unless it's nukes or something (unlikely). Are we in the middle ages?



Are we? And yes, I agree that Scotland is giving more money to pay England's debts than in reverse, but here's why: Scotland is a little, unimportant country. Britain is a big country, in my opinion, it is the 9th strongest country in the world. Without Scotland, 10th. Scotland will be just about as powerful as Singapore. No, Singapore is actually growing at a fast rate, Singapore is too powerful, Scotland will be a bit more powerful than Bulgaria. Scotland will not follow Bulgaria's outsourcing path, though, since it is actually a decent country to live in with a relatively high GDP by head, even by mode, compared to the poorer EU regions. It has no future in the EU other than to give money , which is why England wants to leave and why Scotland (if it becomes independent) will, too.

Sorry if I got off-topic a bit, but I want to show you how weak Scotland will be as an independent country.

You also concede my point about the transport being undeniably stronger in Scotland, than England. Are you implying that people who want independence must be dumb and savage? That is highly offensive and ignorant. Nicola Sturgeon (the witch goddess) is arguably the most intelligent, and best debater of all the UK political party leaders, and she is not backed by a bunch of idiot drones who have no idea what they're talking about. Wouldn't you agree that Scotland has a higher tourism-to-population ratio than England does, because more population means more cities, more cities means more attractions, and more attractions means more tourism. Also, you're trying to say that Wales has more tourism than Scotland does? You make me laugh.

Well, I don't know much about English or Scottish transportation, to be quite honest, but I do know about transportation in general: It's only a small bit of the big clock. Scotland could have the Novosibirsk world record for good rails and roads, and it still won't solve every problem. I'm not implying it, I'm saying it: Folk who want independence are 90% of the time, dumb, proud and willing to fight (savage). The other 5% of the time are misled folk, probably you, misled by your dumb, proud and savage ancestor clans that got passed down from clan to clan to your family. The other 5% is when independence is needed (rare, and in that case, they're regular folk). Scotland does not need independence. England is not shooting down Scots like Iceland was shooting down Basques, there is no serious ethnic violence, it's just dumb and proud, really.

I've seen Sturgeon, in fact, I agree with most of her policies, but I'm afraid noone barrages the Farage when it comes to arguments. Stop.

Every major political party is backed by idiot drones. SNP is not excluded from this. Stop.

Yes, Scotland does have a wonderful population-tourism ratio. You know what else has an ever better population-tourism ratio? The Vatican Hill. More folk won't make more population, Scotland's relying on it's nature, the Vatican's relying on Catholicism and Mr Franciscus. Folk don't come to Scotland for the towns, really, they come for the beautiful landscapes, like you said yourself. Sure, towns make up a bit of it, but for Scotland, not much. If you want towns and boroughs, England is a better teacup.

No, I'm not saying Wales will have successful independence. I'm also saying Scotland won't have successful independence, either. Though England and Wales will be hurt a bit from Scotland's independence, it's a tenth of what Scotland will feel. Independence is a bad idea for Scotland, although it's an even worse idea for Wales.

No, I'm not saying that every single constituency that does not vote for the majority should become independent, I'm saying that Scotland are being included in several laws and policies, that are reserved matters, that are greatly hindering the country from economical development and growth, and this is not the case for other constituencies. An overwhelming majority of Scottish citizens want to be ruled by left-winged policies, and they continue to have half of their laws made up by a far-right government in London, instead of a Centre-Left government in Edinburgh. You seem to not understand, after the countless examples of Scotland's flourishing, prosperous industry I have shown you, and you say it would be pointless for Scotland to be independent.

So why is Scotland special? Let's let Cardiff and South Wales have independence, as they voted for Labour, surrounded by Middle Welsh Conservatives and West English Conservatives. Let's let the country be torn up into several : One for the conservatives, one for the Scottish conservatives, another for Labour, one for Scottish Labour, one for Scotland (SNP), one for the Liberal Democrats, another for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, another for Wales (Plaid Cymru) and several for the Smorgasborg we call Northern Ireland. Let's stop being ruled by the oppressive far-right London! Oh, wait, even London doesn't even like being ruled by oppressive far-right London. You haven't shown me industry, you've showed me lack of it. I've never seen or heard of any Scottish traditional food in my life other than Scotch.

At the height of the SSP, they had 6 Scottish seats, which is good for a party of their size, especially for a socialist one. They were going to continue to get better, before their leader corrupted.

Even you yourself say "especially for a socialist one". No, they weren't going to get better until they're going to get worse, maybe 10 seats would be their peak.

I'm trying to say that this thread has been derailed. Does the title say "Scottish Independence Debate"?

Yes, thread derailed, but half the folk here don't even really know or have researched the countries that they're talking about anyway, it looks like it has died anyway before we started arguing.

Scotland is a little, unimportant country. Britain is a big country, in my opinion, it is the 9th strongest country in the world. Without Scotland, 10th. Scotland will be just about as powerful as Singapore. No, Singapore is actually growing at a fast rate, Singapore is too powerful, Scotland will be a bit more powerful than Bulgaria.

Does a country need to be big for being successful? What about Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden? Strength is not a proof of success (see Russia), Juq you are here again and again giving your own judgement of the situation which is always biased, never objective.

and seriously, tourism England, especially London much more touristy than Scotland.

Elroi and Juq, Scotland is indeed a great touristic destination attracting 19 million tourists per year. UK as a whole attracts 32 million tourists... So in other words Scotland alone attracts more or less 60% of the tourists visiting the UK!


Before presenting any arguments or claiming anything guys, try to support them with good evidences/sources. That would make much more higher level discussions and make this debate more interesting.

Alright. Think. Are England REALLY going to declare war on Scotland if the succeed in proclaiming their independence? And please tell me that the Taliban reference was a joke.

Who cares if an independent Scotland would not be as important as Britain? Was anyone expecting it to be? Military strength is not important nowadays as it was before, and Scotland are relatively safe when it comes to international affairs, because they will have a strong economy, and their military doesn't really matter, because what you said about Scotland not being important is true. Nobody would want to BOMB Scotland, what would they gain? There is a strong EU movement in Scotland, and the SNP clearly recognise this, as Nicola Sturgeon on behalf of the SNP, will ask for another independence referendum if Britain is to leave the EU. Even if this is rejected, she has a backup plan. For Britain to leave the EU, there must be majority votes in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, for each of these places views to be represented correctly.

For a country like Scotland, economy is everything in this day-and-age. Military means nothing when you are so far away from danger.

Transportation is a small aspect here, but it still has some importance. About independence, the Scots want it because recently their voices have been mis-represented, and no, there is not any genocides occuring, there is no ethnic violence, but Scotland are one of the larget ethnic minorities, who, about 90% of the country's views are being misrepresented by a government that they do not want.

Excuse me? At this point it becomes subjective, but I'd say that Sturgeon is a better debater, and more intelligent than Farage.

When I say they are not backed by idiot drones, I mean that a lot of their important people in their party aren't. I'm not saying people who vote for them, and yes, I agree that every party has idiots and SNP are no different, but I think that they generally have more intelligent people in televised debates, and such.

For this, you can blame the Vikings. Scotland used to be the centre of Catholicism, with the missionary St. Columba living on the Isle of Iona, he attracted thousands of other missionaries, and converted thousands of people to Christianity. But then one day, the Vikings invaded, spread their Nordic beliefs, culture and religion. Perhaps in an alternate scenario where the Vikings didn't invade the isle of Iona, it would continue to be the centre of Catholicism, and Scotland would have a much higher tourism than it does not. Moreover, yes I agree to the fact that Scotland's scenery pulls in more tourism than the cities.

Independence is not a bad idea for Scotland, and if you review my previous posts I have given several reasons as to why Scotland's economy will be greatly benefited from the inequality that is spread around due to the far-right wealth distribution that lies in the UK. The UK are the worst Western Country for this, and with a left-winged government ruling the country, it can be toned down.

Scotland is special because they have a long history of being independent, and that they only joined England because they were screwed over by the Europeans nations when trying to colonise the Americas. They have unique languages, culture, cuisine, ethnicity, and the hope to become independent. Just because somebody has a different political view from someone else doesn't mean they should become independent. There are several other factors that amount up to this. I have shown you the various and plentiful types of industry Scotland has, that would keep it economically afloat as a nation.

I'll not try to argue that the SSP will rebuild. They won't. But they definitely could have got better before, if they put effort into it, and if their leader was actually decent.

True. But I'd like to classify this as something a little more sophisticated than arguing.

(If you are finding it hard to find my structure, I am responding to every one of Xypapy's arguments. I am following his structure).

Edited 6/6/2015 21:55:36

^ If England declares war on Scotland (which would be a serious joke), remember you can still count on the Auld Alliance!



Edited 6/6/2015 22:16:04

Don't forget that Norway was sometimes part of that pact too!

yes Norway, with them we would definitely win, a 3 sides invasion (or 4 if we count Ireland)!!!

Let's not forget