2007-03-17 05:30:47 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Why not? Scotland's financial sector is already international and leading businessman are backing independence. The comment that Scotland has no industry is looking at it from a traditional viewpoint and if you apply that to scotland then you'd have to apply it to the rest of the UK which seems to survive on the service sector.
Scotland is one of the richest parts of Europe for natural resources, it exports electricity to the rest of the UK and Eire. It will probably be exporting water to the south soon too. There is enough oil left to set up a contingency fund for the future and if you take new technology and bio sciences, Scotland is doing well there too.
Isn't it a bit arrogant to say that Scotland couldn't survive? Look at comparably sized countries in europe that don't have what Scotland has. They are doing fine. Why not Scotland? It is interesting that unionists moan about Scotland being a burden then in the same breadth deny independence. Scotland must be useful and viable for the UK if they won't let it go. The UK isn't a charity.
2007-03-18 08:45:15 · answer #1 · answered by drakshug 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that the question that has to be asked is...What is the benefits to Scotland and England if they split..once this is considered then we may have an answer one way or another.
Too put the situation into perspective the rise of Nationalism was very much helped by the 20 years of Conservative rule from Westminster. I can recall English tory MPs being imported into the chamber to vote on Scottish matters when Scotland had a Labour majority, the very thing that they are complaining is happening now since the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
Like Mel Brooks once said,"its good to be the King" hehe
2007-03-17 08:18:21 · answer #2 · answered by Excocet 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we could quite easily. As vibrance0404 said, there would be initial problems to overcome on both sides of the border which would need a bit of time to iron out. I also have to say, however, that I don't like the idea very much.
The UK is a prime example to the rest of Europe of how a union of nations can work to the advantage of all. And I would not like to see the UK as a political entity completely breaking up.
I would much rather see the remit and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament being increased to match Westminster's remit in England, while still retaining the union. I would like to see the House of Commons solely dealing with English matters, while all four nations of the UK are fairly represented in a 100% elected upper house at Westminster and by their own Parliament or assembly. I truly believe that such a move would consolidate rather than weaken the UK.
2007-03-19 02:03:21 · answer #3 · answered by Spacephantom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes , Scotland has Oil, taxpayers their own government which has had training 4 5 years . Scotland should become independent from England . Mon the SNP
2007-03-18 06:27:47 · answer #4 · answered by kooldudekylet 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course we Scots would survive as an independent country. It is time for us to take control of our country again.
Doesnt it seem odd the ammount of english people who suggest we cant? could this be because they know, deep down that we would not only survive but prosper by splitting the uk. at the moment we are traeted as second class citizens.
England on the other hand would slump.
its time some people actually read and looked at more facts than just the so called barnett formula.
2007-03-17 12:59:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, an independent Scotland would fall off and slip into the Atlantic sea, lost forever!
Of course Scotland would Survive it's made of solid rock and soil. If you mean Economic survival, that's a different story. Life would certainly be tougher for ALL peoples within the British Isles. But if all the UK counties would be the worse off for it- Why spilt up the winning team?
I hate Nationalists, Bigots and Xenophobics of any description, take off your blinkers people it's a beautiful world out there.
2007-03-17 06:02:21 · answer #6 · answered by Jimbobarino 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
yes, there would no doubt be some initial problems but with money from north sea oil etc it would easily sought itself out in the long term, the rest of britain would be the same initial problems till it adjusted then it would be fine. any of the countrys in the UK could survive alone but they are stronger together complimenting each others strengths and weakneses
2007-03-18 07:43:24 · answer #7 · answered by vibrance0404 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Scotland would be any less capable of matching the success seen in the other small countries in Europe. You just need to look at how successful it's closest neighbours are - Ireland, Iceland and Norway - who just happen to be 3 of the richest nations in the world. :-)
2007-03-17 07:37:47 · answer #8 · answered by Butterscotch 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes. "Great" Britain's "empire" has ruined and/or oppressed too many lands to count on one hand. They have roamed about the free world like a roaring lion seeking whom they can devour, much like Satan.
2007-03-17 06:08:51 · answer #9 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
they could but it would be totally pointless. Whats wrong with being a Briton? Scotland would suffer not england.
2007-03-17 05:42:02 · answer #10 · answered by wave 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋