I started off having no particular opinions about it and thought it's a bit like a marriage that breaks down, you cannot force people to love or live together, but the more I think about that analogy the more I wonder just exactly what is it that Scotland wants with Independence.
When you consider that according to the 2011 census figures the breakdown was as follows in millions:
England 53,012,456
Scotland 5,295,000
Wales 3,063,456
Northern Ireland 1,810,863
So the largest majority is in fact English even if we remove the minority ethnic groups, Wales and Northern Ireland combined form only a small percentage of the overall population of the UK, so my question is this:
Isn’t the real situation in fact that the Scots want to end their union with England as we English are by far the largest majority by nationality?
This then raises another question, do we then not also have a say in whether or not we (the English) wish to have a union with Scotland? It does seem strange that only one partner in the marriage is having a say on whether a couple continue living together or not. Most people I know would say “let them do what they want” so from what I can see there is no pressure from most English people for Scotland to go or to stay. I reckon that most English do have a great affection for our Island neighbours and see our union over the years as a great thing, we have worked well together, but this referendum is being seen more of a slap in the face to the English, more of a rejection of us than a break up of a union.
Salmond himself seems to have used any tactic available to secure a ‘Yes’ vote, in particular allowing 16 year olds to vote. Lets be honest a 16 year old has hardly had any real political experience to decide on something that could so greatly affect their own future in the world and at that age you tend to have some radical views. There are also many Scots living in the rest of the UK, but unless you actually live in Scotland you cannot vote, another fudge by Salmond.
The biggest change to the rest of the UK would be no Scottish MPs in our parliament, which in turn means less chance of any future ‘Labour’ government getting into power as it was only ever the Scottish ‘labour’ vote that got the Labour party elected in the UK, so they did have a disproportionate say in UK politics.
The Shetlands, Orkneys and Western Isles have always seen themselves as not being part of Scotland and may themselves push for independence for themselves after a ‘Yes’ vote, would Salmond be in favour of this or would he change his tune when he realised his ‘Scottish’ oil was at risk?
Even without Scotland the ‘Union’ would still exist so the ‘United Kingdom’ of England, Northern Ireland and the Principality of Wales would still exist and its combined population of over 60 million would still be the third largest in Europe behind Germany & France so our influence would not be diminished and we would still be a member, whereas Scotland would not be. Past associations would not entitle an independent Scotland to join the EU as Salmond often claims, they would have to apply in the same way as any other country wishing to join and that could take years, if ever. Just think of the opposition by coutries such as Spain who have their own Basque seperatist groups who are demanding independence, they would certainly block a breakaway Scotland from gaining membership.
Even if we assume that they could continue as a member, they would then be subject to EU rules which for example would allow anyone from England to receive the free university tuition currently available in Scotland, but not available in England and they could not stop it happening. What about the ‘Euro’ if and I say if, they were allowed into the EU would they adopt the Euro?
As for the £ Sterling, does Salmond actually believe he will be able to align himself to the £ without England controlling his economy? He can call his currency whatever he wants, but without the Bank of England’s consent it will never be the £ Sterling and even if Scotland were allowed to use the £ Sterling it would be subjected to Bank of England control, a Scottish £ would not be independent.
There are some down sides for England in this equation, we would need to move our nuclear submarines bases at Faslane for example, but it would be done and no doubt contingency plans already exist for such an eventuality. We would need to lose some excellent Scottish regiments which would be a great pity, but again numbers could easily be made up again. Our defence contracts such as shipbuilding would probably move south so that could advantage English shipyards which often lose out to Scottish ones.
Even the North Sea oil is not as cut and dried as Salmond would have people believe. All reserves belong to the nearest land mass and international law gives each country territorial waters that extend a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 miles outwards from its geographical borders. In Scotland’s case that would be a diagonal line from the Solway Firth to just above Berwick on Tweed.
You then extend this diagonal line outwards for 13.8 miles in each direction unless you reach another countries territories. This means that a lot of the North sea oil fields and especially the new unallocated blocks fall below this line, so not all of the oil is Scotland’s as Salmon would have people believe.
As for defence, Salmon wants Scotland to be nuclear free hence the removal of our nuclear subs, that would also include the Trident missile system. He says he wants to be a part of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) yet he rejects being part of that defence system. Does he really think that they will be welcomed into a mutual defence organisation after leaving large gaps in that same defence system? England, Norway & Sweden would have to fill the shortfall in our Northern defences. Even the English Scottish border would be deemed unsafe as we (England) would have no defence against attack coming from that direction, not by Scotland itself I add, but because Scotland would not be properly defended. It may have a credible home defence, but it’s defence roll internationally would be none existent.
I along with many others hold dear our union with Scotland and apart from our individual national pride which is to be celebrated, I reckon overall it has been a good thing and I would be sad to see it go. It has been to each countries mutual benefit, each has helped the other in various ways and we have been the richer for it. I personally feel that Salmond has opened a can of worms in calling into question something that has worked well for over 300 years, a bit like your best friend telling you they no longer enjoy your company, either way it is Scotland’s decision and I wish them well whatever they choose, but remember you cannot reverse independence once you have voted to have it and many trials will lie ahead for both countries.
a big supporter of Scottish independence and always banging on about it, but lives in America and keeps all his money there, some patriot!