What Impact Would Scotland’S Departure From The Uk Have On England?

[naomi24]

There are many threads running on the benefits or otherwise for Scotland should it leave the Union, but what do you feel are the implications for England if the division occurs? Will England be worse off or better off, and how?

[2sp_]

And for that matter, what would the impact be on Wales and Northern Ireland...

[naomi24]

Yes, indeed.

[jeffa]

If the perpetrators of the view that Scotland has been a leech draining the UK's paltry resources for decades are to be believed, then the rest of the UK must surely be much off without the sponge north of the border!

[ludwig]

I have no idea really, but I'd quite like to see it happen.

I think that if there's a 'no' vote the nationalists will just keep resurrecting the question every few years until they get the 'right' answer, a bit like happens with Quebec and Canada.

[EDDIE51]

What ever happens the Scots share of the 'national pot' will be even greater than it is at present. They already get free prescriptions for everyone more cash per head of population for the NHS, and free University education.
Now they are on a win/win situation to get even more. I am seriously thinking of moving North , I have relatives up there anyway who keep asking us to move in with them .

[mikey4444]

The rest of us generally need those 58 Scottish MPs to keep the Tories at bay !

[Quizmonster]

Jeffa, you seem to have missed out a vital word between 'much' and 'off' in your respose above. I think I know which word it actually is!

[Wharton]

One aspect, which will have serious financial consequences for the remainder of the UK, is Scotland's commitment to the removal of nuclear weapons. It's not just a case of finding deep water for four submarines, there's the storage for the weapons to be considered. If you have visited Faslane, Coulport and the surrounding area you'll understand what I mean. I see £billions having to be borrowed. The USA might help there, they own the things anyway.

[jeffa]

Mikey, why do you (and others) persist in perpetrating this nonsense? And that's what it is - mathematical nonsense!

If you take the results of every general election since the Second World War and remove the Scottish MPs from their results, the party with the largest number of seats would have been different just twice, and those two parliaments sat for a combined total of just 26 months.

[Peter Pedant]

Mikey please be told !
you know QM has DECLARED that the 58 MPs have never made any difference to policy - ever !

[ el hamdu lillah - but really I am not sure if that comment is appropriate here ]

Beeb are so tired of 'how will it run .... ' that we even have, 'how will it run in la belle France ? ' wizz marching bands and god knows what ( news item 1430 BBC tv )

Nicholas Bourdin very articulately refers to l'alliance ecosso-francaise
' zey av bled for us, yeah ! mais oui ! " forgetting that quite a few English bled for la belle France in the Great War and WWII.

[mikey4444]

Jeffa...If there have been two occasions since WW2 when the Scottish votes have made a difference (your words not mine), than why when I say it is it nonsense ? Nonsense for me but not you it would appear !

I stand by every word that I said.

[jeffa]

Because it's such a rarity, and hasn't happened since 1974! I don't believe you have any grasp of UK politics. N.B. this is not a personal slur, before you start bleating. It's simply my opinion of you based on the nonsense you post.

[mikey4444]

So its just coincidence that my nonsense is opposite to your views then Jeffa is it ? You appear to be saying that the removal of the Scottish MPs from Westminster is nonsense in one post and then admitting that it wasn't in a further post. Make your mind up ! By the way, in February 1974, Scotland elected 71 MPs.


Also, you will have to go some to beat the personal attack that somebody made on me yesterday, over the new Royal Pregnancy, so you are not even trying !

[jeffa]

"sigh"

The point is that, since the last war, Scottish MPs have made next to no difference to the result of general elections. The February 1974 election is one of the two when they did. The other was in 1964. Since the second election of 1974, removing Scottish MPs from the result would have had no effect on the party which got the greatest number of seats.

I appreciate that the notion that Scotland is keeping the Tories at bay is something you've always imagined to be a fact. But it isn't. It's just maths.

[mikey4444]

I have nothing further to add than I already have jeffa !

[jeffa]

As our American cousins say, you sure don't!

[Obiter]

Whatever the result, unless it is a landslide one way or the other, it will leave Scotland a deeply divided country. Some of the remarks and tactics used during the campaign are reminiscent of the worst excesses of religious sectarianism.

[New Judge]

"If you take the results of every general election since the Second World War and remove the Scottish MPs from their results, the party with the largest number of seats would have been different just twice, and those two parliaments sat for a combined total of just 26 months"
"If you take the results of every general election since the Second World War and remove the Scottish MPs from their results, the party with the largest number of seats would have been different just twice, and those two parliaments sat for a combined total of just 26 months."

I'm sure you're right, jeffa. However, and crucially for this debate, if the Scottish seats had not been contested in the 2010 election we would not be saddled with this ridiculous Coalition (Tories would have secured 305 out of 591 seats).

[jeffa]

Yes or No, Scotland will never be the same again. That much is surely evident to all.