An Independent England

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Sounds like the OP has a great idea, to me -- although I've never been to the UK except to be hostage in the the Foreign Travelers' Connecting Flights Terminal -- also know as Duty Free Hell.

But before England starts whacking off and disowning parts of the dirt connected together in the British Isles, I thinks it's only fair they vacate the Malvana Islands as soon a possible. The UK has already dirtied up the North Sea. They don't need to dirty up the Southern Atlantic waters for Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.

However, if the ice caps do, indeed, melt. The point should be moot. London will be underwater and as will be the Malvinas. Plus, I'm certain the Welsh would be more than happy to be their own country once again.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Balls.
Canada would be infinitely poorer in many ways without Québec.
A country is not just a financial arrangement.


This is very true. I remember on a visit that even the most conservative Volunteer Staters were outraged by an op-ed suggestion in the Tennessean (Nashville newspaper) that TN could solve all its financial, racial and other problems in one fell swoop by simply gifting Memphis to Arkansas, just across the Mississippi River.

Sometimes political entities are a bit like families; you don't automatically disown your brother because he has no financial common sense, fewer resources or less ambition/skill than you. You just adapt and try to help. There are plenty of bright and enriching times, too.
 

D_Kissimmee Coldsore

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Posts
526
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
There is a culturally remarkable clip on youtube of Scottish football fans in Athens singing about this Irish Seige. At least the billy boys know something of their nation's heritage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OITh-CnMcQc
They know so much that they like to go out and fight toe-to-toe with Catholics in the streets and bars all over the city. Culture my arse. Fucking bigotry.

As far as the West Lothian question is concerned, have your own wee parliament if you want it. We're happy with ours, so it's fair if you want yours. As far as our independance goes, I don't believe enough of our population think that because the English generally don't have much love for us we should doom ourselves and the rest of the UK by breaking off (that's essentially the basis for a lot of this "patriotism" the SNP capitalise on, that we're "ignored"). The UK is already in a piss-poor state as it is.
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,678
Media
0
Likes
2,812
Points
333
Location
Greece
Plus, I'm certain the Welsh would be more than happy to be their own country once again.

We never stopped being our own country.

What I find bizarre in all is, is that UK Unionists tend not to see that a United Europe is just a bigger version of the UK, and whilst they support one, they do not support the other.
 

Viking_UK

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Posts
1,227
Media
0
Likes
150
Points
283
Location
Scotland
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
We never stopped being our own country.

What I find bizarre in all is, is that UK Unionists tend not to see that a United Europe is just a bigger version of the UK, and whilst they support one, they do not support the other.

It's the big fish, small pond syndrome. They'd be marginalised in a united Europe, whereas we Scots, the Welsh and Northern Irish probably wouldn't notice much of a difference.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
We never stopped being our own country.

What I find bizarre in all is, is that UK Unionists tend not to see that a United Europe is just a bigger version of the UK, and whilst they support one, they do not support the other.


There's an optimum size for a country. The UK works well and is accepted as a national unit, alongside the four home nations. Don't break what works. The EU may or may not work well (that's a big argument) but (outside of Belgium) is rarely accepted as a "national" unit. People are proud to be British or French or Greek. Not all that many people in the EU are proud to be citizens of the EU.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I thinks it's only fair they vacate the Malvana Islands as soon a possible.

There has been some exploratory drilling around the Falkland Islands which has been very promising. A new order of technology is needed to drill in the South Atlantic, but on the basis of North Sea expertise this looks possible. Exploration and drilling rights in British sovereign waters are of course an asset which can be marketed. The next government might just see this as the windfall payment to clear the defecit on Britain's balance sheet.

Ownership of territory is subject to international law in which Britain's ownership is accepted. If Argentina or anyone else wants to challenge this they must do it through a legal process. Britain has owned the Falkland Islands since before the state of Argentina existed and the population who have been there for generations are British. There is an overwhelming legal case for Britain's ownership backed by a British resident population and which Britain showed in 1982 she was willing to defend with military force. This provides a safe legal and military environment for exploitation of Falkland Islands oil.
 

avg_joe

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
3,055
Media
0
Likes
94
Points
268
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It's a well known fact that England is richer than Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland.
Its unemployment rate is lower - its education results better, its crime rates lower, its life expectancy higher.
The English tax payer on average pays in more and takes out less from the Central pot than our celtic cousins.

Cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Leeds are ignored, whilst the glorified towns of Cardiff, Edinburgh & Belfast have massive redevelopments, get public sector buildings built, in some cases tram systems, just because they happen to be capitals; at a nationwide cost.

If England was independent, taxes would be lower due to the reduction in benefits. And the money saved from keeping Glaswegians alive past 50 could bring a benefit to us.

Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are leeches - England keeps them propped up.

What are people's views on this?
I don't deny that England has the best system in the world in terms of education, social, politics, and justice. I like the British disciplines. But it is too cold for me to live there. Can't stand the cold weather.
 

vlls

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Posts
240
Media
15
Likes
136
Points
213
Location
Victoria, BC
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
It's a well known fact that England is richer than Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland.
Its unemployment rate is lower - its education results better, its crime rates lower, its life expectancy higher.
The English tax payer on average pays in more and takes out less from the Central pot than our celtic cousins.

Cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Leeds are ignored, whilst the glorified towns of Cardiff, Edinburgh & Belfast have massive redevelopments, get public sector buildings built, in some cases tram systems, just because they happen to be capitals; at a nationwide cost.

If England was independent, taxes would be lower due to the reduction in benefits. And the money saved from keeping Glaswegians alive past 50 could bring a benefit to us.

Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are leeches - England keeps them propped up.

What are people's views on this?

That line of thought never ends... you could theoretically start breaking England itself apart with the same rational. I would challenge you to think less selfishly and more patriotically. Solidarity should be the strongest principle in any society. A societal system requires all its parts to function and even those who are of lower economic status contribute directly or indirectly to the sustenance of society as a whole. We pay our dues by re-distributing the wealth, due in part by the socio-economic disparity that capitalism inevitably brings about.
 

B_nyvin

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Posts
399
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
103
Age
40
Location
Pensacola FL
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There has been some exploratory drilling around the Falkland Islands which has been very promising. A new order of technology is needed to drill in the South Atlantic, but on the basis of North Sea expertise this looks possible. Exploration and drilling rights in British sovereign waters are of course an asset which can be marketed. The next government might just see this as the windfall payment to clear the defecit on Britain's balance sheet.

Ownership of territory is subject to international law in which Britain's ownership is accepted. If Argentina or anyone else wants to challenge this they must do it through a legal process. Britain has owned the Falkland Islands since before the state of Argentina existed and the population who have been there for generations are British. There is an overwhelming legal case for Britain's ownership backed by a British resident population and which Britain showed in 1982 she was willing to defend with military force. This provides a safe legal and military environment for exploitation of Falkland Islands oil.

The falkland population is something like 3,000...hardly even note worthy. Further the falklands have been an offical possession since 1833. That's about 26 years after Argentina became independent, let alone "existed".

Also you're talking about ~60 billion barrels worth of oil (if that). That's like what the north sea produces in about 4 to 5 months.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The falkland population is something like 3,000...hardly even note worthy. Further the falklands have been an offical possession since 1833. That's about 26 years after Argentina became independent, let alone "existed".

Also you're talking about ~60 billion barrels worth of oil (if that). That's like what the north sea produces in about 4 to 5 months.

The British settlement on the Falkland Islands dates from 1766, with sovereignty disputed with Spain. There was a Spanish occupation 1831-1833. Spain has now relinquished all territorial claims to the Falklands. Argentina as a country did not exist before 1816, and didn't get its constitution until 1853. Argentina rests its claim on an inherited claim from Spain.

The (small) number of people living in the Falklands is not an issue in interational law. Rather the concept of self-determination is absolute.

There are unresolved issues around the Falklands including Argentina's continuing claim. Britain has a large military presence in the Falkland islands.

A British oil rig will take up position in Falkland waters in days.

Estimates are that Falklands oil is in the region of 60 billion barrels. North Sea oil has so far produced 40 billion barrels - the source is:
British drilling for Falklands oil threatens Argentine relations - Times Online

The UK of course shares the North Sea. Falklands oil represents real wealth.
 

123scotty

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Posts
562
Media
4
Likes
53
Points
213
Location
scotland
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Scotland, the SNP support shows there is considerable support for independence; but they assume that they'd have total access to oil.
It was English money which was used to access that Oil - the deepest in the world. It cost millions to get at that.
If scotland did get the oil. England would just veto any application to the EU, impose tariffs and bar immigration, crippling the Scottish economy - Hence, Scotland isn't a viable country.

yes i agree scotland should be independent. the cost of accessing oil payed for by england please show me? was it not the oil companys that paid for it? as for england refusing scotland to join the eu err england would also have to re apply to join the eu. and as for bar immigration i am lost there.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The EU rule is that if a part of a nation state breaks away from that nation it is the breakaway part (only) that must re-apply for membership. If Scotland leaves the UK then Scotland will have to apply to join the EU. It will have to demonstrate stable government and economy, so the process will take some time. Spain has stated that she would veto Scottish membership - the reason being that Spain does not want to encourage Catalonia and the Basque Region.

The EU logic is that as nation states become less and less meaningful it really doesn't matter if the nation state you live in is Scotland or the UK - just as at the moment it doesn't much matter whether you happen to live in Tayside or Fife regions. Basically the EU has no interest in helping Scotland become independent - the EU ideal is that all states should become one new EU state.

The Scottish oil issue is a complex one. For starters there are real issues about just where you draw a frontier in the sea. The usual idea is that you continue the trend of the land border, so the diagonal from Gretna Green to Berwick-upon-Tweed continues across the North Sea (which makes around half of the oil in English waters, but some argue for a different frontier and claim virtually all would be in English waters). The technology used to exploit the oil was UK technology - so England, Wales and NI all have a claim. And anyway the oil is running out - not the best foundation for an economy.

More to the point are the debts attached to RBS and other Scottish registered financial organisations. In a break-up these are attached to the Scottish national balance sheet. The key is where the companies have their head office, not where they trade.

If Scotland does get as far as an independence referendum these issues will come to the fore. At the moment SNP forms the government in Scotland, but I very much doubt could get a yes vote in an independence referendum.