Where is the strength of the UK Union?

[robstvr]

Ok, I'm Scottish, hence the focus to follow.

Until this year I was against the break up of the union, but for a bit more devolution. I am now assessing once more, and am by no means decided.

There are several threads running at the moment with some discussion of the Union. Leaving aside the usual mud slinging and talk of events from 2 - 300 years ago, what are the reasons we see for the Union remaining together. I have my own (probably simplistic, or plain wrong) reasons, and I hear plenty of "Scotland couldn't survive without the handouts" chat on the fora. This seems like a ridiculously altruistic reason for Westminster to hold on to the other home nations. I have not come across any defined reasons or clear rhetoric on why the three main parties so ardently want the Union to remain. Maybe I ought to read up a bit more.

Anyway, with you guys, what are the arguments for the Union, other than nobody could survive without England?

[paulrockliffe]

We're one island, it just makes sense doesn't it.

[robstvr]

Erm, 814 inhabited island last time I looked. And Europe is how many? The US? Canada?

How about Ireland? That giant's causeway must be bloody big.

At least be factual, or funny.

[thinfourth2]

robstvr said:

I hear plenty of "Scotland couldn't survive without the handouts" chat on the fora. This seems like a ridiculously altruistic reason for Westminster to hold on to the other home nations. I have not come across any defined reasons or clear rhetoric on why the three main parties so ardently want the Union to remain. Maybe I ought to read up a bit more.

Anyway, with you guys, what are the arguments for the Union, other than nobody could survive without England?

Scotland runs at a loss

However

England runs at a bigger loss judging by the amount of public borrowing that is going on

[elster]

The fact is in the current situation Scotland can't afford to go it alone.

Which is why of going for independence the referendum will be on having fiscal powers.

[robstvr]

thinfourth2 said:

robstvr said:

I hear plenty of "Scotland couldn't survive without the handouts" chat on the fora. This seems like a ridiculously altruistic reason for Westminster to hold on to the other home nations. I have not come across any defined reasons or clear rhetoric on why the three main parties so ardently want the Union to remain. Maybe I ought to read up a bit more.

Anyway, with you guys, what are the arguments for the Union, other than nobody could survive without England?

Scotland runs at a loss

However

England runs at a bigger loss judging by the amount of public borrowing that is going on

So, that just supports my question. The losses being the case, why is Scotland not cut loose, and why do successive govts try to keep it all together? What are the wider fiscal, defence, political reasons? Does the union keeping together, for instance, have greater temperance on US intentions towards Europe as a whole, great place to keep nukes? That sort of thing.

[robstvr]

elster said:

The fact is in the current situation Scotland can't afford to go it alone.

Which is why of going for independence the referendum will be on having fiscal powers.

But, that's just the argument i can't believe, from my first post "Scotland can't go it alone" I don't buy it. Oh, I can sort of accept that maybe it couldn't. However, it cannot be just altruism for Scotland in Westminster that has Westminster keeping the union.

There has to be something beside revenue Scotland brings to the table. No one here seems to admit that.

[s2art]

The reasons are many, although some will be subjective. Breaking up the union will be expensive and messy. Great Britain, being an island, is a 'natural' entity. Having a common currency within it is probably better than having two, in which case Scotland would never be truly independent as the current mess in the Eurozone demonstrates. (and Scotland joining the Euro while the rump UK retains the pound just seems silly). The UK is a transfer union; areas doing well transfer wealth to areas doing badly. This is not yet true for the Eurozone, but it will have to become one to survive. If Scotland was 'independent' but joined the Eurozone it would just be ceding its independence to Brussels; most law and regulation would emanate from Brussels, fiscal and monetary control would reside in Brussels, in fact Scotland in this scenario would be equivalent to a county in England. What sort of 'independence' is that?
Scotland within the UK is a big fish in a medium sized pool. Scotland as a region of the EU would be a very small fish in a big pool. The UK is big enough and ugly enough to tell Brussels to feck off when required, Scotland alone isnt.
And as a reminder, just imagine what the credit crunch would have done to Scotlands banking industry without the entire might of the UK to back up RBS and the like.

Thats just for starters.

[s2art]

robstvr said:

elster said:

The fact is in the current situation Scotland can't afford to go it alone.

Which is why of going for independence the referendum will be on having fiscal powers.

But, that's just the argument i can't believe, from my first post "Scotland can't go it alone" I don't buy it. Oh, I can sort of accept that maybe it couldn't. However, it cannot be just altruism for Scotland in Westminster that has Westminster keeping the union.

There has to be something beside revenue Scotland brings to the table. No one here seems to admit that.

Of course. Its partly a numbers game, the bigger the better. Its partly a security issue, does the rump UK really want a border with Scotland that may, in some possible future, need to be defended? Its partly a resources issue, not just oil but land, water, agriculture etc etc. These are other reasons too.

[elster]

robstvr said:

elster said:

The fact is in the current situation Scotland can't afford to go it alone.

Which is why of going for independence the referendum will be on having fiscal powers.

But, that's just the argument i can't believe, from my first post "Scotland can't go it alone" I don't buy it. Oh, I can sort of accept that maybe it couldn't. However, it cannot be just altruism for Scotland in Westminster that has Westminster keeping the union.

There has to be something beside revenue Scotland brings to the table. No one here seems to admit that.

How do you imagine that Scotland will pay back their share of the UK debt?

Defence would be the biggest problem, mainly due to employees in Scotland, bases in Scotland and Scotland being able to afford them.

It would be a hugely expensive exercise purely for no change, other than Scottish politicians get to play with the big boys.

[JensenA]

The SNP and it's supporters want independence because it is a pride 'thing', a principle, a passion, whatever you want to call it. It's a kind of racism in a way, "we Scots don't want to be goverened by you English! We want to run our own country". It's a clever tactic because it tugs at the passion strings of the Scots.
The reality is that we are all one country on one Island and it just makes sense, the English the Scots and the Welsh all get on with each other (apart from Football and Rugby matches), we have Scots, English and Welsh soldiers all fighting and dying alongside each other in the wars we fight - we are One nation, it makes sense, it's as simple as that.

[Jim the Sunderer]

I ain't paying import duty on my Tweed.

Keep the union.

[robstvr]

JensenA said:

The SNP and it's supporters want independence because it is a pride 'thing', a principle, a passion, whatever you want to call it. It's a kind of racism in a way, "we Scots don't want to be goverened by you English! We want to run our own country". It's a clever tactic because it tugs at the passion strings of the Scots.
The reality is that we are all one country on one Island and it just makes sense, the English the Scots and the Welsh all get on with each other (apart from Football and Rugby matches), we have Scots, English and Welsh soldiers all fighting and dying alongside each other in the wars we fight - we are One nation, it makes sense, it's as simple as that.

This is ludicrously over simple. It just is... because...? But there's one reason the union is good - the Scottish contribution to defence.

[robstvr]

Oh, fk it, I give up. Other than one reference to "bigger is better" can nobody come up with anything other than "Scotland can't pay for itself", or the like?

I know there's history, I know it would be a pain in the ass to impliment, but can nobody put aside their arrogance and admit that maybe, just maybe, Scotland brings something to the party?

This "If Scotland was 'independent' but joined the Eurozone it would just be ceding its independence to Brussels; most law and regulation would emanate from Brussels, fiscal and monetary control would reside in Brussels, in fact Scotland in this scenario would be equivalent to a county in England" is not correct, as English counties are represented via Westminster, and Scotland would have direct, unfiltered representation.

[s2art]

robstvr said:

Oh, fk it, I give up. Other than one reference to "bigger is better" can nobody come up with anything other than "Scotland can't pay for itself", or the like?

I know there's history, I know it would be a pain in the ass to impliment, but can nobody put aside their arrogance and admit that maybe, just maybe, Scotland brings something to the party?

This "If Scotland was 'independent' but joined the Eurozone it would just be ceding its independence to Brussels; most law and regulation would emanate from Brussels, fiscal and monetary control would reside in Brussels, in fact Scotland in this scenario would be equivalent to a county in England" is not correct, as English counties are represented via Westminster, and Scotland would have direct, unfiltered representation.

I said Scotland brings something to the party. Numbers, defense, resources etc.

And I think you are kidding yourself if you think 'direct, unfiltered representation' in the EU is anything like as influential as the current set-up with Scottish MPs over-represented in Parliament, coupled to Scottish MEPs and other British MEPs in the EU parliament.

[tank slapper]

robstvr said:

I know there's history, I know it would be a pain in the ass to impliment, but can nobody put aside their arrogance and admit that maybe, just maybe, Scotland brings something to the party?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be mainly Scots who bring this up. Perhaps they are insecure about something? Personally, if Scotland wants to leave the UK then that's OK by me, so long as they pay for it themselves and don't expect anything from the rest of the UK subsequently. If they are happy with that and want to go it alone then let them get on with it.

[glazbagun]

I think the main opposition to break up of the union is simply that it would seem a(nother) regression. Englands influence expanded through wales, through Scotland and Europe and eventually the UK influenced the entire world. Then British power began to recede- colonies broke away or gained independence, we've fallen from the most powerful nation on earth to one which is possibly not even the most powerful in Europe.

The hub of UK expansion and empire was England. And while the weakening of Britains position over the past 90 years has had impact on all of the UK, it has hit England harder than Scotland because Scottish nationality was never linked to being an awesome powerhouse that ruled the world and kicked the ass of allcomers. We've (Scots) are more likely to view Scotland as being in the UK as opposed to being the UK, which is a much more English view- how many people, even foreigners, use England and Britain interchangably?

So losing control of Scotland would be another pretty close to home example of how far English power has receded since the good old days. And with mass immigration, industrial disintegration, skinheads, etc all causing some to openly question what it means to be English any more- all whilst every tube station, library and railing reminds them of past prosperity, I think it would be pretty traumatic on England.

So I think the strength that the Union gives the English is that the feeling of a small nation being dependent on their wealth, international prowess and all the throwbacks from Empire that are good for the pride in their country- they're still the centre of something. Scotland gains(and loses) by feeling under appreciated, and having easy access to the rest of the UK where their cultural difference is enough to mark them out as different but not so different as to alienate them.

Maybe.

[elster]

robstvr said:

JensenA said:

The SNP and it's supporters want independence because it is a pride 'thing', a principle, a passion, whatever you want to call it. It's a kind of racism in a way, "we Scots don't want to be goverened by you English! We want to run our own country". It's a clever tactic because it tugs at the passion strings of the Scots.
The reality is that we are all one country on one Island and it just makes sense, the English the Scots and the Welsh all get on with each other (apart from Football and Rugby matches), we have Scots, English and Welsh soldiers all fighting and dying alongside each other in the wars we fight - we are One nation, it makes sense, it's as simple as that.

This is ludicrously over simple. It just is... because...? But there's one reason the union is good - the Scottish contribution to defence.

Sorry, but that isn't the case.

At the moment there is a higher proportion of defence based in Scotland than anywhere else.

This doesn't mean it is paid for by Scottish contributions.

[elster]

tank slapper said:

robstvr said:

I know there's history, I know it would be a pain in the ass to impliment, but can nobody put aside their arrogance and admit that maybe, just maybe, Scotland brings something to the party?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be mainly Scots who bring this up. Perhaps they are insecure about something? Personally, if Scotland wants to leave the UK then that's OK by me, so long as they pay for it themselves and don't expect anything from the rest of the UK subsequently. If they are happy with that and want to go it alone then let them get on with it.

I am very much for this.

I think if they want independence give it to them, in full.

Not just giving them free reign to set their own taxes

[robstvr]

glazbagun said:

I think the main opposition to break up of the union is simply that it would seem a(nother) regression. Englands influence expanded through wales, through Scotland and Europe and eventually the UK influenced the entire world. Then British power began to recede- colonies broke away or gained independence, we've fallen from the most powerful nation on earth to one which is possibly not even the most powerful in Europe.

The hub of UK expansion and empire was England. And while the weakening of Britains position over the past 90 years has had impact on all of the UK, it has hit England harder than Scotland because Scottish nationality was never linked to being an awesome powerhouse that ruled the world and kicked the ass of allcomers. We've (Scots) are more likely to view Scotland as being in the UK as opposed to being the UK, which is a much more English view- how many people, even foreigners, use England and Britain interchangably?

So losing control of Scotland would be another pretty close to home example of how far English power has receded since the good old days. And with mass immigration, industrial disintegration, skinheads, etc all causing some to openly question what it means to be English any more- all whilst every tube station, library and railing reminds them of past prosperity, I think it would be pretty traumatic on England.

So I think the strength that the Union gives the English is that the feeling of a small nation being dependent on their wealth, international prowess and all the throwbacks from Empire that are good for the pride in their country- they're still the centre of something. Scotland gains(and loses) by feeling under appreciated, and having easy access to the rest of the UK where their cultural difference is enough to mark them out as different but not so different as to alienate them.

Maybe.

Reasonable, and it is interesting to consider the "heart strings" side of the larger partner. I had these thoughts in mind, but not in such a coherent way, so thanks for your clarity of argument.

Sorry to those I skirted over who did point out the benefits of Scotland being in the Union, typing quicker than thinking. Neither is that fast.