Should Scotland and England seperate?

January 26, 2007 12:16pm CST
I don't know how many British people there are on MyLot but i thought i would pose the question anyway. I'm a Scottish person living in England and i have no idea what would be best. I don't like the idea of having to have ID to get into my own country though. Plus Britian is practically run by Scottish people so there would have to be quite a reshuffel in Parliament. What do you think?
2 responses
5 Feb 07
i would be for it. I am not quite an outsider looking in. I am an American citizen, but I also became a citizen here. I do not consider myself British in any way. I do consider myself Scottish. As I am an American/Scot. My grandfather was born here. Being from where I am from, freedom flows strong in my veins. Can Scotland go it alone? Yes, it could it done properly. Our tax money flows down south, and it funds seem to only trickle back up. Oil is still going strong up here. Why should we not benefit from our own government? We need to control our own immigration, taxes, healthcare, etc......Why "give" us a devolved government if we shouldn't consider a split? I think it the vote should be put to the people. Don't let the English government decide for us.
5 Feb 07
I think thats a fair arguement!
@snowflake5 (1579)
• United States
27 Jan 07
I don't think England and Scotland should separate. The whole separation business is just silly nonsense put about by people (English and Scottish nationalists) who like to blame whatever ills they are experiencing on the other group. If you look at history, prior to the Act of Union, both England and Scotland were minor players in Europe and used as pawns by the Dutch (through William of Orange) and the French (through their influence on Ireland and Scotland) and played off against each other. Britain didn't start to become prosperous till the two nations put their differences aside and joined together. Both would be weakened by separation. Scotland at the present derives great benefit from money flowing from London (though this wasn't the case in the past) and the English would lose their dominant position in the EU and in the UN security council if the UK broke up. I think some Scottish nationalists look at the Rep of Ireland and imagine that if they broke away, they'd be as rich as the Republic. But the Rep. of Ireland benefitted from three decades of EU funds flowing from Britain and Germany to Ireland (because at the time Ireland was the poorest of the 15 EU countries), and their prosperity is built on that. It's too late for Scotland to benefit in the same way. The accession of the poor eastern european states means that Scotland doesn't qualify as poor anymore, and funds will continue to flow east. The same argument applies regarding oil and emulating Norway. It's too late, as the oil fields are running low. The time for Scottish independence was in the early 80's. It's too late now, the economics don't make sense. Regarding your point about "Britain being practically run by Scots", this is a myth put about by English nationalists who hope to undermine Gordon brown. Actually, he'll be the first PM respresenting a Scottish constituency since Alec Douglas-Home (Tory). Scottish MPs had more chance of becoming PM in the 19th century. And there has not been a Welsh PM since Lloyd George. If people want to attack Gordon Brown on his policies, they are welcome to - but it's wrong to attack him on his ethnicity, in fact it's racist to do so. The whole point about the United Kingdom is that all citizens are equal and all have the right to become Prime Minister. I say this as an English person.