Sure, there's plenty of reading on the subject, since it was widely debated in the run-up to the 2014 referendum. For examples, the House of Lords Economic Affairs committee published a report, 'The Economic Implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence', in 2013. For an overview, the summary is a decent starting point.Hello
I am considering starting a project on the benefits of Scottish secession.
Has anyone ever considered if there are any benefits to England's residents and taxpayers if Scotland leaves?
No kidding. (and thanks for those links to the Economics Affairs report. )....
Certainly plenty to think about.
I apologize if these long statements sound to a few of the British SR or MAP posters on here like an obvious, " well, duh, so what?" or "That's sort of commonly understood here and doesn't factor in as much" sort of observation, but I've heard stories, tidbits, some historical information surrounding events that led to centuries of mutually lingering mistrust between Scotland/England dating back to the Viking Age. Keep in mind that for centuries, your shared border was one of the most bloodiest, violent, seemingly lawless in the world. The Border Raids, English medieval invasions and occupations, ethnic peasant revolts and then counter-invasions, skirmishes, bloody costly battles between rivaling English Tudor and Scottish Stuart dynasties, which led to James I ascension in 1603(and IMHO, this is where the core concept of an united British Isles Commonwealth began with James' vision of a personal union; FWIW, of the 4 Stuart kings who ruled England from 1603-1649, and then 1660-1688, James I and Charles II were the best, craftiest, politically saavy, and most successful of that particularly dynasty, so much so, that I believe their reigns are underrated in terms of success, longevity, and enlarging united England's maritime commercial/colonial interests worldwide. The Stuart dynasty was the one that argued, promoted, and successfully established the first English colonies in New World, Caribbean, and established the first trading ports in Indian subcontinent, a country that the British would come to eventually dominate for nearly two centuries). Then there's the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 and battle of Colluden, but thats another extremely complex, nuanced discussion for another day.Hmmm... probably not THAT much in the way of fiscal benefits from secession per se.
I believe the SNP is wokely anti-nuclear, so we'll probably have to close the Royal Navy submarine base at Faslane , so THAT will probably come back to England, with the resulting boost in jobs ?
Presumably HM Revenue will lose out on Duty on Scotch Whiskey ?
I'm not sure whether you're trolling or whether you're genuinely under the mistaken impression that the above isn't largely false.Perfectly reasonable analysis, Saintman2884.
I would point out that Scotland was a fairly primitive place until the English took over and - in common with many of our colonial posessions - boosted its economy, education, infrastructure, and brought it kicking and screaming into the 1800's.
Many Scots - under English education systems - went on to stride the world stage, such as Telford, Mackintosh, and many others.
No, in this case, I was being sarcastic. (or "trolling', if you prefer ? ).I'm not sure whether you're trolling or whether you're genuinely under the mistaken impression that the above isn't largely false.
If the latter, could you just say when it is you think the 'English took over', in what senses Scotland was 'fairly primitive' at the time compared to England, and what specifically is it you think the English did to 'boost its economy, education, infrastructure' that was 'in common with many of our colonial possessions'? Thanks.
So you read @Saintman2884's post and thought that's a good post, I'll reply saying so, but then I'll be sarcastic? Why? What in the post made you think it made sense to 'sarcastically' post the false understanding of history that might come from an English nationalist who thinks watching Braveheart gave them a comprehensive Scottish history education?No, in this case, I was being sarcastic. (or "trolling', if you prefer ? ).
However, there is truth in the trolling. (in particular, note the improvements in agriculture and commerce with the collapse of the fuedal Clan system). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scotland#Union_with_England
As it happens, I read it long before you linked to it. But, again, no. The fact that Scotland and England formed a union and Scotland benefited from the increase in trade is not remotely equivalent to England 'taking over' a 'primitive' Scotland and 'bringing them kicking and screaming into the 1800s' like 'many of our colonial possessions'. Those are two very different things.RobF, if you read the Wikepedia article I linked to, then it suggests that Union with England DID provide a massive economic and - more importantly - social boost.
That's the question. It would be disruptive. But whether the consequences to Scotland would be beneficial, neutral, or severe, would very much depend on what the following arrangements were.Be that as it may; in response to the opening post; I can't see a Scottish secession giving much of a benefit to England. Perhaps slightly reduced support payments, but nothing outrageous.
The impact to Scotland, however, would be severe !
Hmm.. well.. disruptive is putting it mildly.As it happens, I read it long before you linked to it. But, again, no. The fact that Scotland and England formed a union and Scotland benefited from the increase in trade is not remotely equivalent to England 'taking over' a 'primitive' Scotland and 'bringing them kicking and screaming into the 1800s' like 'many of our colonial possessions'. Those are two very different things.
That's the question. It would be disruptive. But whether the consequences to Scotland would be beneficial, neutral, or severe, would very much depend on what the following arrangements were.
Personally, I think we'll find out at some point, since as things are currently going Scottish independence looks pretty inevitable to me.