Hypothetical: Scotland Becomes Independent

[Kal'thzar]

Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham don't?

I don't know much about the UK, I admit, but aren't those some of the largest cities in England?

He's [Quakers] right, sort of, the gross value added per head of the population is greatest in these three areas.

heres a link to the study: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gva1207.pdf

As can be seen in Figure 1, these three regions on a per head basis make up the net contributors to the country.

Note that Scotlands doing quite well as the fourth in terms of gross size of contribution but its still not a net contributor.

If the regions are broken down even further the top three contributors are the Inner City of London, Berkshire, Edinburgh. This probably stems from all the rich companies headquartered here and the rich living in these areas.


As always checking the annex and the problems with the data is important. In this case the region analysis of the country suffers from some lack of holding variables constant. aka Scotland is the largest area in the region analysis, but a small population (lower pop density in the UK if I remember correctly). London has the smallest area but the second highest pop (South east has the largest pop). Northern Ireland has the smallest population but of that population it has a much higher percentage of 16 or under than the rest of the UK (depressing its GVA).

Not to mention that a company headquartered in London and drilling Scottish Oil, adds to Londons GVA...

 

[Harshad]

Not really. There is no reason to believe that if Scotland became independent, the business as usual wouldn't continue. The changes would mostly concern the politics, not the everyday lives of citizens.

... huh?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure whatever alt. History you're quoting from. It may be English but that doesn't make it true. The Scots lowland language never died. It evolved with the inclusion of many English words into the many dialects and pronunciations we see today.

Well, that's a contentious issue, which is why I initially avoided it. All that can be said is that Scots no longer exists as a significant formal language, which it was prior to the Union. Certainly, it is far from a "dead" language, but my intention was to discuss Gaelic, not Scots, and so I felt no need to argue that particular point.

It wasn't Scots but Gaelic that suffered the decline during the Clearances as more than 50% of its speakers
were deported to the colonies, chiefly Canada and Australia, if they hadn't already died of starvation.

That's what I said, yes.

The Clearances were not driven by the Highland lairds but they were easily bribed by English and Lowland entrepreneurs to evict their tenants to make way for sheep. The British govt. then paid for their deportation to the colonies.

Details aside, my point was that the Clearances were not the result of the Act of Union, nor was the consequent decline of Gaelic. The period resulted from fears of Jacobite uprising- a fear rather stronger among Lowland Scots than the English- and because of the economic incentives provided by wool production. The former, while stemming from the Union of Crowns, predated the Act of Union, while the latter had nothing to do with it whatsoever, being a simple expression of capitalist greed and exploitation, as was found through Britain at the time.

It's true that the emergence of National Romanticism helped give the Scots population an illusion of "national identiity" but it was entirely fostered by the British government and it's apologists like Sir Walter Scott who wished to cement the Scottish people even further into the myth of "Britishness".

True, but irrelvent. My point was that Scotland at the time of Union was a nation with deep cultural divides; exactly who patched up those divides a century down the line is neither here nor there.

What I intended to communicate in my post was that the decline of Gaelic is the result of primarily internal factors, and that the Act of Union had little, if any, effect on the fortunes of the language. I'm sorry if I failed to do so.

 

[useless]

Why wouldn't they? In reality not many things would change if Scotland became independent. At least it would finally be OK to call the UK just "England".

A complete lack of understanding of the U.K...

 

[Moggy]

Nationalists who believe they can get into the EU, NATO, etc. automatically are probably dreaming. They have too reapply. But the odds that they would accepted by these bodies. Probably after a period of having a Scottish pound they probably enter the eurozone, and have eurocoins with whiskey bottles, the kilt and football riot on the national side.

They already have Scottish money. There is nothing more fun than trying to spend a Scottish one pound note in English shops.

 

[Winner]

A complete lack of understanding of the U.K...

Unless you clarify your point, I will consider this post of yours completely irrelevant. So far, nobody has told me what would so fundamentally change if Scotland became independent.

As someone born in a country which no longer exists, I'd say the effects of a split are usually pretty overrated.

 

[nonconformist]

Our union has lasted over 500 years of lineage, and if broken will completely change the constitutionality of the Union.

 

[Winner]

Again, what would change for the ordinary people? How would their daily lives be affected?

 

[nonconformist]

For the Scots or for the Union?

 

[Winner]

For the Scots or for the Union?

For the ordinary Scots, English, Welsh and Irish. Screw politics and ideology, what would change in practice?

 

[RedRalph]

For the ordinary Scots, English, Welsh and Irish. Screw politics and ideology, what would change in practice?

Well I can tell you the Northern Loyalists would go into a frenzy or terror that they were about to be cast down to the Papists in Dublin. they're insecure enough as it is, if their ancestral homeland left the UK they would be terrified. you may well see a 1950s style revival of private armies of Prods getting ready to fight off the southerners.

If a Republic of Scotland was successful, inevitably some sort of comparable movement would gain ground in Wales. You would possibly see a Celtic revival movement, Celtic culture being celebrated more etc.

Obviously there would be economic ramifications, not to mention political ones (I have no idea what would happen the Scottish Tories and Labour parties if Scotlan was independent), but the entire political climate would be altered beyond recognition. I dont need to tell you that would make a difference ot people's lives, you live in a country where the entire political climate changed and you know yourself it does change people's lives.

 

[jessiecat]

Our union has lasted over 500 years of lineage, and if broken will completely change the constitutionality of the Union.

What the hell does this mean? Maybe 500 years of English/Welsh linkage after the Tudors stole the English throne. But not the Scots. The Act of Union was in 1707, forcibly enacted against the will of the populations
on both side of the border. So that's only 302 years isn't it?

 

[bathsheba666]

Great chance for true libertarian progress in social fields and advancement of cryptotrades

You should let them know immediately. This could win over the waverers.

 

[RedRalph]

You should let them know immediately. This could win over the waverers.

 

[nonconformist]

What the hell does this mean? Maybe 500 years of English/Welsh linkage after the Tudors stole the English throne. But not the Scots. The Act of Union was in 1707, forcibly enacted against the will of the populations
on both side of the border. So that's only 302 years isn't it?

We shared our crown witht he scots way before the Act of the Union.