Should Britain be split into 4 separate nations?

Post by **Jockey** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:58 pm

The SNP are gaining ground in the Scottish parliamentary elections to be held 3rd May. Indeed, they are strong favourites to win power. If they do get power, they have promised a referendum to break from the union and go it alone. I always dreamt this would happen in my lifetime. Scotland a proud nation again. My worry is would the army step in? The newspapers are coming out with loads of pro union propaganda, but it looks like at last its not sticking.

Post by **STEVE G** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:21 pm

Jockey, just be patient until North Sea oil has run out and then you can have the place; if you are interested we can perhaps throw in Newcastle as well.

Post by **caller** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:29 pm

I think its the wrong question - it should be, should Scotland go it alone?

I'm all for that, it will reduce my tax burden!

Post by **Big Boy** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:31 pm

Now that the gas and oil have almost run out, I don't think Scotland could sustain itself. This probably makes it an ideal time to dump on our poorer cousins. However, us English are very tolerant, and don't have the same chip on our shoulders - we know that we have to support our cousins.

The English government would almost certainly withdraw the investment it has made in Scotland etc eg I can't see things such as the nuclear deterrent being left in foreign hands. The Scots would probably outprice itself as England's dumping ground eg how much would it charge to host England's rotting nuclear fleet?

Why worry about the army stepping in? It would only be a quarter of the strength that it is now, although I suppose England would hold on to all of its juicy weapons, and leave the other 3 nations with a few small arms.

I honestly believe we need each other. I realise the Scottish, Welsh and Irish people have rather large chips on their shoulders, but we would all be worse off alone.

I suppose on the bright side, the English Parliament could get rid of all of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs from their ranks.

As a united nation we do hold a little respect in the world. Divide us to the 4 winds, and we would lose that respect.

Jockey - I think you summed it up nicely with your

I always dreamt this would happen in my lifetime.

I guess reality always strikes home when you wake up, and you realise that you can not do without the English.

Post by **Jockey** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:39 pm

Demographically Norway is very similar to Scotland. While the Scots have been fed lies saying we could not sustain ourselves, the Norweigans have become the most wealthiest people in the world per head of population. Scotland would be rich. There is still oil and gas (although all pipelines go into England's shores), coal, minerals, whiskey, tourism and brains. All the English have out of that lot is coal, tourism and the odd tin mine.

Post by **Wanderlust** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:48 pm

I think we would all be worse off by separating, although England far less than the others. I don't really understand why it is still an issue to be honest; can someone explain why without resorting to historical reasons and just concentrating on the here and now?

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:55 pm

as all of us would have to be in the European system it wouldnt make a crap of difference in the long run probably make us all worse of in the end

Post by **Jaime** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:57 pm

There is no question that the UK is already composed of 4 separate nations - each with its own national institutions; representative sports teams, museums, galleries, opera companies, quangos etc. etc. - shouldn't the question be related to a split into 4 separate states?

Semantics maybe but the difference between nationhood and statehood is crucially relevant to any discussion about self determination.

Post by **STEVE G** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:14 pm

As the Sarge said, as long as you are going to stay in the EU, I can't see how it would really change anything. I'm back here in Luxembourg at the moment, and I regularly go into Germany or France and to be honest it's hard to know the difference.
To me this is a good thing; nationalism tore Europe apart for about a thousand years, it's about time we got over such childishness.

Post by **Jaime** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:45 pm

More questions:

When discussing national self determination, how important is the issue of whether a nation such as Scotland would be 'better off' without its paternalistic neighbour, in this case, England?

Is it all about instant financial comparisons or is it really about self confidence and, dare I say it, pride?

Post by **Jockey** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:04 am

If Germany won the war would England like to be called European but the parliament is in Berlin? The trouble with English people is they can't understand how it feels to have a parliament in another country other than your own. Have you ever thought to consider why?

Post by **caller** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:12 am

And the question at the top of the page changed!

I just thought I'd point that out to make sense of some of the above answers. It was initially about splitting the UK into 4.

My concern is the thieving, pension grabbing No.2 that is very soon to be No.1 in the current Labour administration. He's a Scot! How unbiased could he be in overseeing such a split? He's making me poorer by depriving London boroughs of funds as it is, in favour of the north. I have no confidence in him.

But even if the SLP or whatever they are called get in, led by a man whose name is that of a fish, if I am right? Then he still has to deal with the fact a large chunk of Scots want the UK to remain!!

I'm all for it, on my Countries terms - that's England. Give it 10 years or so, there's a lot of work just on the legislation side, then it could happen.

Post by **Jockey** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:24 am

On the plus side at least 6 out of 4 acknowledge Scotland would be better off alone without England. Some of the posts here are depressing, reminding us that we are ruled by mindless twats who hung drawn and quartered Mel Gibson.

Post by **Big Boy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:31 am

Jockey wrote:

we are ruled by mindless twats who hung drawn and quartered Mel Gibson.

Does that not say it all? The Scots want their independance, but do not even have the resource to provide an actor to play one of their heros.

As 4 nations we are all dependent upon each other (some more than others), but each nation has a part to play. Divide us, and we'd all be lacking in one area or another.

Post by **caller** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:34 am

Hanging was too good for him!

But what's your point Jockey? Why can your MP's vote in a UK parliment and influence its direction and spending, but mine can't vote in yours? I don't think thats fair and the Govt. understimated the strength of feeling that has arisen about that.

If there's a split. then thats the end of Scots politicians in the South, it has to be. Some might find the limitations of Scotland as an independent state difficult, but then its ripe for a new thinker to come along. It seems to be holding on to traditions and views that others have moved forward from?

You may perceive that as a good or bad thing?

Still, maybe the start of an interesting debate!

Hua Hin Forum

Should Britain be split into 4 separate nations?

Would Scotland be better off without England?

Should Britain be split into 4 separate nations?