What will Scotland actually gain from becoming independent? What are the benefits? I just don't get it. Could someone explain in layman terms.
They will gain nothing and lose the place they have at the world table The currency and markets will crash so we will all lose Stronger together
Their own government. Currently they are governed by Westminster where there are 650 MPs. Only 59 of those are Scottish, so essentially laws and policies for Scotland are decided by MPs from another nation (if you subscribe to the idea that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all separate nations). This point is even more pertinent when the Conservatives are in power as they only hold one seat in Scotland and, over the last 20 years, have struggled gain more than 15% of the Scottish vote. Half the time Scotland gets a government they didn't vote in. However, to confuse matters a touch, an independent Scotland will make moves to join the European Union which will then hand over some of the power of their government to Europe. The benefits (or drawbacks) to the country and the people are up for debate. Some people think Scotland will be better off, others don't and are worried they will actually be in a worse situation. Looking at the polls, it appears it's about a 50/50 split. We'll get to find out the exact figures tomorrow. The reality is you can ignore all the rhetoric, all the speeches and all the speculation because no one knows if independence will be beneficial for Scotland. All we know for sure is it will allow them to rule themselves. For some Scots that's enough, for better or worse.
So does this mean if they do leave, the overall Labour vote will be down, meaning the Tories have a much better chance of winning more elections, because the Scottish anti-Tory vote is no more?
I read an article on this last week. Many people have been saying we will be condemned to forever having a Tory government if Scotland vote for independence, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I believe only 4 elections since the war would have had a different outcome had Scotland's vote not been taken in to consideration. It wouldn't have made any difference to Blair's election victories. I'd link you to the article but there are so many Scottish Independence stories on the net, I can't find it.
That's not the one I read, but it does the trick. It was an in depth analysis of each election since the war that I read by one of the broadsheets, I'm guessing The Independent.
I think I read that as well. Like you say, we've been so overwhelmed with articles on the subject that it's difficult to remember one from the next.
Population of England approx 53 million Population of Scotland approx 5.2 million Population of Wales approx 3 millions Population of NI approx 1.8 million Total UK: 63 million (approx) So 1 MP per 96,923 head of UK population. 59 Scottish MP's = 5,718,457 So if anything, Scotland are over represented in Westminster. They should only have 53/54 MP's.
I wasn't claiming they were either under or over represented, just that they are governed by a parliament where the vast majority of representatives are from different countries.
I made this comment elsewhere - and someone responded with That is 4 out of 18 elections, almost a quarter, and about 16 years of government altered. But, as it stands, Scotland currently gets quite a bit of autonomy over decisions that affect them, health and education for example, and are being promised more (tax raising powers). The Scottish MP's though get to vote on these issues in Parliament which aren't affecting Scotland. There's 2 sides to that of course, because if they prevent Scottish MP's voting on social issues in the UK parliament then we will effectively have Tory rule in England anyway. I'm starting to think that the cleanest solution is independence because greater devolution and starting to prevent Scottish MP's voting on certain issues in Westminster (which there'll be a greater call for), will cause chaos here. You could have the possibility of a Scottish MP being leader of their party and becoming PM but then not being allowed to vote on certain issues!
The stuff that has been spoken about in the last week or so should Scotland vote no is bizarre, so I guess you're right. However, if they vote yes we may as well suspend parliament for the next four years because all politicians will be doing is negotiating the break apart of the union. It will basically put policy making on hold for the foreseeable future.
Very simplistic but interesting http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...icmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=1
The interesting part of that would be there is an 18 month negotiation period taking us to March 2016, there is a UK General Election in May 2015. There will be Scottish MP's elected that will leave in less than a year - that could result in a change in who has a majority, so then do we need another election or will they try to hold on to control? If we think it's been mad up to now, it's not even started yet!
