England Says Yes: What are the benefits of Scotland's secession from the Union? (1 Viewer)

[WyvernDoe]

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?

Thanks

Stephen

 

[Roofgardener]

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 ?

 

[RobF]

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?

Thanks

Stephen

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.

While there are some changes since then - the UK exiting the EU and the Single Market taking Scotland with it being the obvious one - much of it still applies.

But I think you'll find there isn't going to be a definitive answer. There's a number of hard to address questions. For example, depending on what form Scottish independence would take, would they remain in the UK single market? Would they seek to, and be able to, rejoin the EU? What will the value of oil to their economy turn out to be? What would their currency be?

Certainly plenty to think about.

 

[Roofgardener]

....

Certainly plenty to think about.

No kidding. (and thanks for those links to the Economics Affairs report. )

Consider a relatively small issue; the military. What happens to all those soldiers, sailors and airmen in the UK armed forces ? Are they British, or Scottish, or would that be down to individual choice ?

We'd have to transfer SOME military material over to the new Scottish nation, on the basis that Scottish taxpayers helped fund them. But what ? A single Type-45 destroyer ? Three Type-23 frigates ? Four F-35 fighter/bombers ? One sixth of an aircraft carrier ? Two thirds of a Bay-Class floating dock ? They would hardly constitute a viable defence force. And how would Scotland maintain them ? Would the Americans be happy for us to give Scotland an F-35, considering the complex issue of technology transfers ? (or perhaps they would be happier with a squadron of Typhoon Eurofighters ? )

Where would we base our Vanguard nuclear-armed submarine fleet from ? Scotland is ideal, as the deep bays are ideal for hiding submarines in, and restricting foreign intelligence agencies from getting access. Or even spy satellites from intervening.

The list goes on. This would be FAR more complex than Brexit.

 

[Saintman2884]

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 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.

But I've often gotten the impression that compared to their southern neighbors, Scots tend to be more left-leaning on more socio-political issues like nuclear disarmament, social welfare programs, acceptance and support of further EU integration(most Scots voted overwhelmingly Remain on the Brexit vote), some other individual Scots Ive talked or listened to say they like their economy, existing infrastructure and future infrastructural projects to resemble Nordic Scandinavian economies, they argue they see themselves and Scottish culture and customs as being more Nordic-influenced due to their region's long history and ties to Scandinavia.

I just get this underlining sense that its more then just persistent, nagging questions that fuel these discussions that pop up once in a while then just disagreements over Brexit, or that Scots views on economic or social issues are more unified then they are in England or even Wales. It's almost like their this deep chasm of vast historical, cultural differences that permeates subtly under the surface that most perhaps tend to acknowledge but overlook its current relevancy or that it may still be a bit of a factor.

 

[Roofgardener]

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.

 

[RobF]

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.

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.

 

[Roofgardener]

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.

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

 

[RobF]

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

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?

And, no, Scotland's thriving due to the progressive changes it had already begun and the further opportunities that came from forming the union and international trade developing, along with their continuing self-driven improvements in agriculture and commerce, do not put any truth whatsoever into the notions that Scotland "was a fairly primitive place" (it wasn't), "until the English took over and boosted its economy, education, infrastructure" (they didn't 'take over'), or that they "brought it kicking and screaming into the 1800s" (nope), or that Scots like Telford and Mackintosh were educated under English education systems (they weren't).

If you didn't know that much about Scottish history, it's fine to say so, you know. It's not like it's that well covered in English education.

 

[Roofgardener]

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.

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 !

 

[RobF]

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.

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.

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 !

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.

 

[Roofgardener]

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.

Hmm.. well.. disruptive is putting it mildly.
They are unlikely - on pure economic grounds - to get membership of the EU. However, EU politics might work FOR them, as I'm sure the EU would see it as an opportunity to get revenge on the UK.

I'm really not sure how the economics would work out for an independent Scotland, however.