Is Scotland about to turn the United Kingdom into the disunited one?

[Russie1912]

Although the events described in this article did not come true, I would like to hear from someone living in Scotland - is the author right? Are separatist tendencies in Scotland really so strong? And if yes, then on what basis Scotland is going to build its economy?
Is Scotland about to turn the United Kingdom into the disunited one? Part I | East+West Review Analytics Agency

[Major Sinic]

Although the events described in this article did not come true, I would like to hear from someone living in Scotland - is the author right? Are separatist tendencies in Scotland really so strong? And if yes, then on what basis Scotland is going to build its economy?
Is Scotland about to turn the United Kingdom into the disunited one? Part I | East+West Review Analytics Agency

Has anybody else read these East+West Review Analytics Agency 'articles' which this poster quotes from 'ad nauseam'? It is very poorly written and translated, and is banal in many of its conclusions. For instance it cites as evidence that Scotland is seeking to break away from the Union, the fact that Scotland has its own national Rugby and Soccer teams, yet ignores the fact that less than one in three Scots voted for the SNP in the General Election. The remaining 70% are of course too canny to want to sacrifice the massive subsidies provided by the Westminster Parliament for the sake of independence - mores the pity!

[Russie1912]

Thank you very much for your opinion! I was myself very much in doubt about the evidences. And - yes! - I don't like the translation myself and wrote to editor with my negative comments about it. However, there is hardly any more free Russian analytic sites where you can read what your fellow-academicians think about all that is going on in the world...

[CONORWATT]

Dear Whom it may concern; Scotland never voted SNP because voting against the torys via labour was much more important. and of course it was a general election.
Yes there is quite strong support for separatist agenda and almost full out support for a referendum on scottish independence. Now that the torys are in power
support for independence will rise rapidly as the cuts manifest.
By not allowing the scottish people a referendum on independence they (pro-union partys) are turning the public against them because the public see it as the unionist politicians not allowing the scottish people to have their say and at the same time increasing Alex Salmond popularity because he wants the public to have
it's say and making support for independence grow every day we climb this hole out of recession and more likely than ever before.
Support for independence fell during the recession because of economic insecurity period no other reason.
If the unionist let the people decide during the recession the people would have voted against independence but probably would have vote for more devolved powers
the SNP are very likely to get a majority next year after the failings of labour,being betrayed by the lib dems and the tories well they never had a chance in the first place.

Scotland will grow its economy on
1.tourism-scottish culture and history will be more prevailant and cherished and so attract more vistors. 4 billion a year
2.whisky-massive trade as always 3 billion a year
3 Oil- 30 years left as alway 12.8 billion a year
4- Fishing- Worth 350 million a year
5-1/4 and of europe wind energy pontential and 80 of UK's & 1/10 of europe tidal power potential. potentially a power house of europes renewable energy.
Financially Scotland is okay to be idependent more than half of all countries in the EU are smaller than Scotland

[Major Sinic]

Dear Whom it may concern; Scotland never voted SNP because voting against the torys via labour was much more important. and of course it was a general election.
Yes there is quite strong support for separatist agenda and almost full out support for a referendum on scottish independence. Now that the torys are in power
support for independence will rise rapidly as the cuts manifest.
By not allowing the scottish people a referendum on independence they (pro-union partys) are turning the public against them because the public see it as the unionist politicians not allowing the scottish people to have their say and at the same time increasing Alex Salmond popularity because he wants the public to have
it's say and making support for independence grow every day we climb this hole out of recession and more likely than ever before.
Support for independence fell during the recession because of economic insecurity period no other reason.
If the unionist let the people decide during the recession the people would have voted against independence but probably would have vote for more devolved powers
the SNP are very likely to get a majority next year after the failings of labour,being betrayed by the lib dems and the tories well they never had a chance in the first place.

I am delighted that the cause for independence is once again growing in your country. The sooner you as a nation are able to have a majority vote in a referendum for independence, the more likely it is to come about.

Scotland will grow its economy on
1.tourism-scottish culture and history will be more prevailant and cherished and so attract more vistors. 4 billion a year
2.whisky-massive trade as always 3 billion a year
3 Oil- 30 years left as alway 12.8 billion a year
4- Fishing- Worth 350 million a year
5-1/4 and of europe wind energy pontential and 80 of UK's & 1/10 of europe tidal power potential. potentially a power house of europes renewable energy.
Financially Scotland is okay to be idependent more than half of all countries in the EU are smaller than Scotland

I am equally delighted that you feel able to grow your own economy as a nation separate from the English. Your joy will be matched by the joy felt by many English at the removal of an economic leach from their backs. You make one error in your economic charter for Scotland. The North Sea oil is a British resource, not a Scottish one, so any claims you may have in this regard will be limited to no more than a share in the oil revenues.

The British taxpayer, through the Westminster Parliament subsidises Scotland to the tune of £8billion per annum. The injustice of this subsidy beggars belief. Scottish prescription charges are just £3, whilst English prescription charges are £7.20. Scottish students pay no tuition charges whilst English students have to pay a minimum of £3000. In addition there is strong evidence of racial prejudice in the selection procedures of Scottish universities against English students; universities which are subsidised by the parents of those same English students through their taxes. The elderly in Scotland have their pastoral care provided free of charge, whilst the English elderly have to sell their homes to pay for their care.

To add insult to injury Scottish MPs can and do vote on English matters which are not their concern, whilst English MPs are not able to vote on Scottish matters.

God know why the Tories want to keep the Union intact. England would be far better off economically and politically if Scotland was granted independence. The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

The first and deepest cut should be to the Scottish subsidy - all £8 billion of it.

[CONORWATT]

"You make one error in your economic charter for Scotland. The North Sea oil is a British resource, not a Scottish one, so any claims you may have in this regard will be limited to no more than a share in the oil revenues. "
NO I didn't

Currently the oil fields are british but you no as well as I that those of oil field are in scottish water territory the are 50 fields in the north sea scottish water territory contains 21 that should independence come we would retain not the uk.

I am glad you want to break the union I believe that we will both be a lot happier when it comes.

Any how H.M Mackenzie once quoted
"Scotland most imporant resource was not it oil but its young people"
Just under half of scotland young people go to university for any nation that is a outstanding achievement and one that a nation must take advantage off.

[Major Sinic]

"You make one error in your economic charter for Scotland. The North Sea oil is a British resource, not a Scottish one, so any claims you may have in this regard will be limited to no more than a share in the oil revenues. "
NO I didn't

Currently the oil fields are british but you no as well as I that those of oil field are in scottish water territory the are 50 fields in the north sea scottish water territory contains 21 that should independence come we would retain not the uk.

The proportions in the allocation of North Sea oil tax revenues will no doubt be the subject of negotiation, political and judicial review.

Any how H.M Mackenzie once quoted
"Scotland most imporant resource was not it oil but its young people"
Just under half of scotland young people go to university for any nation that is a outstanding achievement and one that a nation must take advantage off.

To universities extensively subsidised by the English taxpayer. Universities which are racially prejudiced against English students. In response English universities should start to charge Scottish students the full cost of tuition as they would any foreign student.

[LibLeft]

The proportions in the allocation of North Sea oil tax revenues will no doubt be the subject of negotiation, political and judicial review.

As I understand it, the Law of the Sea which covers international boundaries in its current interpretation of the English Scottish border gives Scotland the lion's share of the Oil in the North Sea.

[Midas]

As I understand it, the Law of the Sea which covers international boundaries in its current interpretation of the English Scottish border gives Scotland the lion's share of the Oil in the North Sea.

Sorry but you're wrong there. As I said in my post here:

Oil found in the North Sea to the north of the line extending from the mouth of the river Tweed and out to the westerly maritime boundary of Norway belongs to The United Kingdom as a mineral resource found in its exclusive economic zone. If you check with the UN you'll find that the EEZ agreements were made with the government of the UK, not with that of Scotland. As Major Sinic correctly points out, some of the revenues from that oil might go to Scotland, but under law, both that of the UK and of the various UN charters, it belongs to the UK and is thus not Scottish oil.

You can complain all you like, but that doesn't change the facts.

[LibLeft]

Sorry but you're wrong there. As I said in my post here:

How do you believe the international boundary between England and Scotland would be set if Scotland separated?

[Russie1912]

How do you believe the international boundary between England and Scotland would be set if Scotland separated?

But it would be ridiculous! Europe has been trying to eliminate boundaries since the end of WWII. Do you really think Scotland will surround itself by walls?

[CONORWATT]

But it would be ridiculous! Europe has been trying to eliminate boundaries since the end of WWII. Do you really think Scotland will surround itself by walls?

Well why, boundries exist to show where a country starts and ends
in europe we don't need to show passport when entering or leaving other
european countries.
Territory laws hav to exist in the sea because it would be completely unfair for a
big country with hardly no connection to the sea to came and take oil.
It wold be unfair for England to go to there north field oil fields when there are more than 8,000 miles from london and 6,000 miles from newcastle

[LibLeft]

Not ridiculous at all. If England ans Scotland became completely separate countries, the boundary would need to be set from the land boundary out to the limit of coastal waters. This would not only be about oil, but about fish, mineral rights and legal control of ships in the area. Such borders exist between all other coastal members of the EC- Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark all divide up the Baltic with Russia and the Baltic States- international boundaries cover all of the baltic. Similarly there are international boundaries between France and the UK, UK and Ireland, France and Spain etc.

If Scotland became a separate country, within the EC, it would still have international boundaries with Norway, Iceland, etc plus with NI and England.

[CONORWATT]

It already has been blair made 6000 miles of previously scottish water english in 1999 to set a new marine boundary.
Currently members of the EC enjoy free fishing anywhere in the waters of other members.
previously coming from an fishing community all the local fisherman would talk about the spanish fleets and get extremly annoyed when the
spanish had good hauls and they never caught hardly anything.

[Midas]

How do you believe the international boundary between England and Scotland would be set if Scotland separated?

Difficult to say, but my first thoughts are that the maritime boundaries between England and Scotland, starting in the mouth of the River Tweed and the Solway Firth should both be angled to give Scotland an EEZ of proportionate size to that of England, based on the ratio of their respective land areas. However for this to happen I'm pretty sure that Scotland would need to be totally independent and not retain any links with the UK.

[LibLeft]

Difficult to say, but my first thoughts are that the maritime boundaries between England and Scotland, starting in the mouth of the River Tweed and the Solway Firth should both be angled to give Scotland an EEZ of proportionate size to that of England, based on the ratio of their respective land areas. However for this to happen I'm pretty sure that Scotland would need to be totally independent and not retain any links with the UK.

It would not happen like that. The UK is party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention was negotiated in the 80s and binds all signatory countries. If countries separate there are pre-agreed methods of deciding which waters belong to each successor state. These rules are based on the average direction of the border between the two states among other factors. Unfortunately for England, the majority of the reserves are in the potential Scottish sector.

A split between the two states would leave Scotland with far more oil per person than England.

[LibLeft]

More information here:

It's Scotland's oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CONORWATT]

Scotland would share the queen until a referendum on a republican constitution knowing the underlying nature of the SNP that would happen.