Hypothetical: Scotland Becomes Independent

[Flying Pig]

What about the taffs?

 

[dosed150]

Nope. Only London, the South East and the "East" are net contributors to the overral economy.

independence for london and the home counties then, the rest of you are just holding us back

 

[Dachs]

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".

That wasn't bad. You could be the Yoram Bauman of international politics.

 

[RedRalph]

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".

Er... no, it wouldn't.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Nope. Only London, the South East and the "East" are net contributors to the overral economy.

Evidence?

The fact that many tax paying companies are registered in London does not
mean that the underlying contribution to the economy is actually made in London.

And the largely London based illegal gambling bankers seem to have cost
the UK government and taxpayers a good few tens of billions recently.

 

[Quackers]

Evidence?

The fact that many tax paying companies are registered in London does not
mean that the underlying contribution to the economy is actually made in London.

And the largely London based illegal gambling bankers seem to have cost
the UK government and taxpayers a good few tens of billions recently.

"There are only three regions of the UK that make a profit, in the sense of contributing more to the Treasury than they receive in spending, and they are London, the South East, and the East; and London is the powerhouse that drives the other two, with a net tax export estimated at £19 billion per year."

Boris Johnson's blog. He is the mayor of London he probably knows.

 

[EnglishEdward]

"There are only three regions of the UK that make a profit, in the sense of contributing more to the Treasury than they receive in spending, and they are London, the South East, and the East; and London is the powerhouse that drives the other two, with a net tax export estimated at £19 billion per year."

Boris Johnson's blog. He is the major of London he probably knows.

per "which year"

and LOL for your source

 

[ComradeDavo]

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".

Wow major fail on your part in understanding the UK there.

Scotland and the Scots are very much a part of it.

 

[Babbler]

First of, what would happen to the Union flag? Would the St. Andrews cross be removed? Would it be replaced with an element of the Welsh flag?

I guess, although if the English want to keep in saltire on there flag, they can, since the Scots aren't there anymore to tell them no. Although I guess the flag should be redesigned to included a Welsh elements, since it would add a GODDAMN DRAGON. England may have lost her Empire, her industries and the Union, but at least she have the most badassed banner in the whole world.

Would Scotland become a NATO member, or take the Irish route, attempting to be neutral?

Probably in NATO, although it would not be automatic.

What would happen to Scottish serving in the British military?

I'm guessing they could stay or join a new Scottish Army.

Would it join the EU, and if so, would it adopt its own currency, or join the Eurozone?

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.

And on and on.

Yeah. It's not going to happen.

 

[Winner]

Wow major fail on your part in understanding the UK there.

Scotland and the Scots are very much a part of it.

Where exactly do I fail?

IF Scotland seceded, the "UK" would become just England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since the latter two parts are next to irrelevant, the "UK" would in reality be just "England".

It's a hypothetical scenario, I said nothing about the role of the Scots in the UK.

 

[Babbler]

Oh, BTW, the google search of "st. andrew's cross" gives a first return (and first image) of the BDSM equipment.

Just wanted to let you know. Make of it as you will.

 

[Dachs]

It's a hypothetical scenario, I said nothing about the role of the Scots in the UK.

In reality not many things would change if Scotland became independent.

This is a huge comment on the role of the Scots in the UK.

 

[jessiecat]

This is a huge comment on the role of the Scots in the UK.

Considering the Scots were railoaded into union with England in 1707 against their will, by capitalists on both sides of the border whose promises were never realised, I don't think they've ever had much of a role, do you?

 

[Winner]

This is a huge comment on the role of the Scots in the UK.

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.

 

[jessiecat]

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.

Exactly. As it was with the Act of Union in 1707, as I already said.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Irish part of the union flag wasn't removed when we left - I doubt it would be changed.

That's because the UK retained a good chunk of Ireland in the form of the Six Counties, and so Patrick's Cross was retained to symbolise those parts of Ireland that stayed within the Union. It would be harder to justify the retention of the Scottish flag as part of the Union flag if Scotland, in it's entirety, was an independent nation.

Well, it killed your two languages.

Perhaps Scots, but not Gaelic. That died out as the dominant language before the Union of Crowns, let alone the Union, and suffered it's most significant decline during the Clearances, an entirely Scottish iniative, often driven by the "Gaelic" clan lairds. Remember, until the emergence of National Romanticism, the Scots rarely viewed themselves as a single cultural nation, and the Lowlanders certainly did not regard the Gaelic language or Highland culture as anything other than foreign.

"There are only three regions of the UK that make a profit, in the sense of contributing more to the Treasury than they receive in spending, and they are London, the South East, and the East; and London is the powerhouse that drives the other two, with a net tax export estimated at £19 billion per year."

Boris Johnson's blog. He is the mayor of London he probably knows.

As Edward said, the fact that taxes are paid in those regions does not mean that the equivalent wealth was generated in those regions. One may as well suggest that, because an individual his taxes from Glasgow, he couldn't possibly be involved in the generation of wealth in Edinburgh.

 

[jessiecat]

Perhaps Scots, but not Gaelic. That died out as the dominant language before the Union of Crowns, let alone the Union, and suffered it's most significant decline during the Clearances, an entirely Scottish iniative, often driven by the "Gaelic" clan lairds. Remember, until the emergence of National Romanticism, the Scots rarely viewed themselves as a single cultural nation, and the Lowlanders certainly did not regard the Gaelic language or Highland culture as anything other than foreign./

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.
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.

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.
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".

 

[warpus]

Nope. Only London, the South East and the "East" are net contributors to the overral economy.

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?

 

[Quackers]

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?

UK is full of welfare whores soo....

 

[GinandTonic]

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.
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.

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.
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".

The clearances were done by the local landlords, generally the Lairds or clan chiefs. It was the people who owned the land who cleared it - though if I understand it right a lot of the leaders of the clans didnt own the land as such. So they sold out their own people, dispossessed them and arguably stole their land to line their own pockets. It was the Scotts nobility who owned most of the land and therefore were in the position to do this. It may not fit with the narrative the Braveheart revisionists want to tell but there it is.

The fact that the lowlanders and English wanted to buy wool doesnt make it an English genocide.