English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

At the last count their populations were:
Scotland approx 5 million
Wales approx 3 million

or, would the English taxpayer (approx 50 million) have to subsidise them.

Now, fight over that.

2006-12-29 10:25:25 · 8 answers · asked by frank S 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

8 answers

Why do you want us to fight over a stupid question? You are an idiot!

2006-12-29 10:37:14 · answer #1 · answered by floss 4 · 0 0

Cracker where do you get your research from? i am a Scot and i do not want Independence... believe me as anybody who thinks about it know Scotland could easily survive with a good standard of life on its own.

there would be many problems, all four countries (you forgot NI) have integrated well since the act of union and the odd football match does not express honest opinion but either poor or good sportsmanship.

bring back the annual Scotland England game....it was fun for the majority, that's all.


PS before you ask the oil provides a third of the UK economy and England did not pay for the research the Texan oil companies did...

cracker you can lease out what you want to the London stock exchange.......how legal is that when a country declares sovereignty. much of the empire has dealt with the same issue and you would be given the same answer in reply, how much franchise do the commonwealth give this country......think about it

2006-12-29 10:41:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

But you see if they have a small population, they only need to serve a small population so taxes wouldn't be effected much. Economy is what would be effected, maybe in a good way but maybe in a bad way. That needs a closer look at.

2006-12-29 10:29:43 · answer #3 · answered by Alasdair W 2 · 0 0

Interesting concept, kinda like the fairly recent Federal revenue sharing schemes now plaguing the U.S. Any one of our individual states inhabitants could have (and did) survived quite nicely under the original concept of state soverignty. Now they are all totally dependent on Federal handouts.
How about scaling government services to the individual around their actual need, their ability to produce, and not tax them based on "visions of the future"? (deficit spending?).

2006-12-29 10:58:49 · answer #4 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 0 0

No - Scotland & Wales couldn't survive without English charity.

England diverts billions of pounds to support the Scottish every year. And don't they just love us for it and support our national football team in tournaments?

*** UPDATE ***

andrew m - Did you click on my link? Have a look into the Barnett formula that calculates the diversion of English tax to Scotland.

The oil you mention is sourced from international waters by corporations registered on the London stock exchange. It's a myth that Scotland creates the wealth from North Sea oil rigs.

I do love Scotland though - don't get me wrong. I think it's a stunning country and have always enjoyed visiting.

2006-12-29 10:33:24 · answer #5 · answered by Cracker 4 · 0 4

I think you overlook the obvious, that people under the age of 18 do not pay tax. Your argument crumbles immediately.

2006-12-29 17:25:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well S.Ireland are very poor because they got their independence so yes Sotland and Wales would be.

2006-12-29 10:38:50 · answer #7 · answered by HHH 6 · 0 0

Actually Scotland would probably be much better off being Independent.

"Far from England subsidizing Scotland, the reverse is true."
Read this and find out how - http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/biglie.html :-)

2006-12-29 10:54:21 · answer #8 · answered by Butterscotch 7 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers