Self Management Options

[Simon Kirby]

For Scotland? Yes.

I'd like to think the scots would want to be part of the UK and that together we're more than the sum of our parts, but I can't agree that it's right to enforce the union on an unwilling partner. I think the Scottish people need to decide, and need to be free to decide.

[stewiegriffin]

By and large the Scottish population is against independence. Salmond will lose the vote roughly 65/35. Sure there are plenty of sabre rattling nationalists in Scotland, but they're still in the minority.

Personally I'm glad we're the UK and hope all 4 countries keep it that way.

[user23]

Perhaps the English should be allowed a referendum on whether o leave the Union too?

[stewiegriffin]

Perhaps the English should be allowed a referendum on whether o leave the Union too?

Why? it's only the country wanting to leave that needs to vote. There is no nationalist movement in England.

[user23]

Why? it's only the country wanting to leave that needs to vote. There is no nationalist movement in England.

I think you'll find there's quite a few people who would like to see an independent England, probably not a majority though.

[JeffG]

Perhaps the English should be allowed a referendum on whether o leave the Union too?

But where would we go?

[stewiegriffin]

I think you'll find there's quite a few people who would like to see an independent England, probably not a majority though.

In 44 years I've never met one who's even come close to mentioning the subject. Apart from now of course!

There is no movement, political or otherwise, campaigning for an independant England.

[NWNREADER]

Perhaps the English should be allowed a referendum on whether o leave the Union too?

The European Union?????

[Squelchy]

There is no nationalist movement in England.

try "wiki english democrats party" in google

[blackdog]

The cynic in me wonders how much Cameron cares about the result - ideologically he may be pro-union but the departure of Scotland would probably hand him a nice majority at Westminster. 59 MPs would disappear, one of whom is a Conservative.

[stewiegriffin]

try "wiki english democrats party" in google

They don't support English Independence. And besides, they only have 3 members. And one of them is a cat.

[Weavers Walk]

They don't support English Independence. And besides, they only have 3 members. And one of them is a cat.

Actually they came from the English Nationalist Party formed in about 1974. The English Independent Party now falls under the auspices of 'British Democracy' who claim they have been bought by UKIP (try the British Democracy Forum)

Most people just regard these as looneys but your statement "There is no movement, political or otherwise, campaigning for an independant England" is a bit wrong.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

I think Britain as in England, Wales, Scotland and Newcastle, is better as "one" then as 4 seperate entities. At the moment everywhere has the same rules, currency, regulations, right of passage, etc - Separating will only mean more ministers will be required, and each region will need to have its own laws, etc.

Although Simon is correct I think, if they don't want to be part of a Union (or even ourselves for that mattter, needs a public vote) although it's not like leaving the EU, I can't see a clear cut advantage if England became a country in it's own right, not linked to SCHOTLAND and WAYALS and TOP OF TEH MORNIN TO YA.

Oh well.

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I think the problem is a complex one.
If you want to be part of a 'Union' then those tax paying members of the Union should be afforded the same rights, irrelevant of which Country out of the members of the Union in which they reside.
At present this is not the case as Tuition fees, Care for the Elderly, prescription charges etc are free for some but not for others.
As an Englishman I don't see why we should pay for the welfare of Scots when we can't pay for the welfare of our own.

[stewiegriffin]

As an Englishman I don't see why we should pay for the welfare of Scots when we can't pay for the welfare of our own.

That's really not a valid argument. England is given a budget by the govt and Scotland is given their budget by the same govt. Scotland chooses to spend its budget differently, giving free personal care to the elderly for instance.

And before anyone tries to say Scotland is given too much money, it is true to say the govt spend on the north of England is significantly higher per capita than Scotland. Given the current north sea revenues, Scotland is more than paying its way right now. It is a popular myth that the English are subsidising Scotland. If anything the opposite is true right now.

If you don't like the way the Westminster govt spends your money in England you can vote fore someone who will do it differently. Alternatively you could move to Scotland if you prefer the way they spend the tax money.

[dannyboy]

The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.

What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.

Incidentally, these numbers include not just the so-called "identifiable" public spending that took place in Scotland, on schools, roads and the like, but also more amorphous parts of the budget like defense and debt interest.

On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.

But Alex Salmond and his supporters have a more basic objection (phew), which is that the revenue figures for Scotland make no mention of North Sea oil. These are falling, but were still more than £6bn in 2009-10.

If you add in a proportion of those revenues, in line with Scotland's share of the UK population, it makes very little difference to the overall story. But if you say that more than 90% of the oil revenues are Scottish, as Mr Salmond would consider geographically appropriate, then you get Scotland 'putting in' £48.1bn in tax revenues in 2009-10, not £42.7bn.

Put it another way: Scotland provided 9.4% of total UK revenues and got 'only' 9.2% of UK public spending in return.

Now of course, the UK Treasury doesn't agree that the oil revenues belong to Scotland, and it almost certainly never will. In fact, as any Scottish Nationalist will happily tell you, it was the Treasury that helped to invent a new extra-territorial category of national output for North Sea oil, in the 1970s. Treasury statisticians will tell you it made sense to keep the oil sector separate from the broader UK economy. Mr Salmond will tell you it was a Whitehall plot to steal the oil from the Scots.

[JeffG]

The Scots deserve more freebies, to compensate for the weather.

[Andy Capp]

At least we could have lighter evenings!

[GMR]

For Scotland? Yes.

I'd like to think the scots would want to be part of the UK and that together we're more than the sum of our parts, but I can't agree that it's right to enforce the union on an unwilling partner. I think the Scottish people need to decide, and need to be free to decide.

I say "no". They should stay part of the union.

[Ron]

That's really not a valid argument. England is given a budget by the govt and Scotland is given their budget by the same govt. Scotland chooses to spend its budget differently, giving free personal care to the elderly for instance.

And before anyone tries to say Scotland is given too much money, it is true to say the govt spend on the north of England is significantly higher per capita than Scotland. Given the current north sea revenues, Scotland is more than paying its way right now. It is a popular myth that the English are subsidising Scotland. If anything the opposite is true right now.

If you don't like the way the Westminster govt spends your money in England you can vote fore someone who will do it differently. Alternatively you could move to Scotland if you prefer the way they spend the tax money.

But if I remember correctly some items that the English didn't want were forced onto us by Scottish members of the UK parliament voting for them!