A blow to the English ego, I admit, but if the people in wales and Scotland voluntarily and by themselves say they do not want to be together with Englandn anymore, then that is their most natural right that no body can deny them.


I only insit that they pay for their independenace themselves, not us. To call themselves independent while dpeending on us to pay their bills would be more than I tolerate. Its too bad that the whole EU today is about right this: people not beig linked and affected to each other beig forced to pay each other's bills.


The company of thieves and daggers. Most even want to be in this business, the others get forced by the majoirty to not escape from it.

The catch with the independence game is economics.

Put bluntly, Northern Ireland can only exist as part of the UK, or as part of the Republic of Ireland.

Similarly Wales can only be part of the UK, or be re-integrated into England as it was prior to the late 1960's.

Neither can function as independent entities.

Scotland can function as an independent state, theoretically, but the shock of independence would cause severe economic damage in the short term with a very long term recovery. At the moment a majority of Scots aren't too keen on making that leap of faith. We Scots do seem to be remarkably fond of money if we want to painfully honest with ourselves.

Only England can function by itself relatively painlessly as it's the only net-contributer in the UK, the other three parts are subsidised to greater or lesser degree.

Ultimately the United Kingdom doesn't make sense for England if you look at it in pure economic terms BUT from the stand point of military defence then it becomes much more understandable.

If we take a look at the strategic position that England found itself in prior to 1707, it was at war France and had very poor relations with Scotland, a traditional French ally it shared a land border with. Therefore the Act of Union was a marriage of convenience - it allowed Scotland (more specifically it's ruling elite) to recoup it's losses after the failure of the Darien scheme. It allowed England to concentrate it's attention against France without having to glance nervously over it's shoulder to the north in case Louis XIV tried to use Scotland as a base to open a second front.

That's a gross simplification, but that's the basic essence.

If Scotland became independent and affiliated itself with the EU whilst Northern Ireland rejoined the Republic, an EU state, England (or England and Wales) would find itself surrounded by EU territory on all sides. Fanciful perhaps, but entirely possible.

My own complaint about how Scotland is governed within the UK does come down to economics - the Scottish branches of the main UK parties appear have no interest in allowing Scotland to become a net-contributer to the UK exchequer.

It would severely damage the "Scotland Strong in UK" message if Scotland could become self-supporting in the same way as England is and would give further impetous to the SNP's pro-independence message. For the UK Government allowing Scotland to have the necessary economic levers to improve it's economy would have a disruptive effect on the internal UK market and economy.

Neither appear to be willing to run the risk, unfortunately. A Scotland that was a consistant net-contributer to the UK would be much happier within it, I suspect.

Mike.

^ Good and informative post Mike :yep:

Looks like matters could soon be gathering pace.

It seems we agree, Mike, that independence is about being able and economically strong enough to be economically/financially strong (=autark) indeed. I described a general principle, you added the individual background of the Welsh, Irish and Scottish cases.


I'm fine with whatever they decide, voluntarily and without being pressed from outside. I just insist on that whatever it is - they must be able to afford it by their own means. Same I tell the Basques. The Catalonians, The Walonians. Or, fictionally, if they would have a referendum, the Bavarians in Germany. Everybody is free to deny being ruled by foreign people. But nobody has the right to demand that others have to pay for his living. Everybody has to prepare his living so that he can bear his own weight. Desires for more are just motivations for doing the work on the way form here to there all by oneself. They do not give you claim over others who should give you a free ride.


So much for the theory. Reality already is a labyrinthic mess. And thats why the EU is a mess as well. Its the architect of this labyrinth.

Your last point is not untrue it has to be said. Or written, as the case maybe!

One point about Scotland that does seem to be consistently missed by it's detractors in England is that at one time it was a net-contributer to the UK's finances. During the period of what's termed the "Industrial Expansion", the mid 19th Century until roughly the 1920's to 30's, Scotland consistantly sent more money south than it received back in spending.

Even taking into account the tax revenue generated by North Sea Oil, during the post WW2 period Scotland has been a net-receiver more often that not. Even with past oil revenues factored in it's barely been break-even at best.

In order for that to change there would have to be either major investment by the UK Government (which prior to devolution only did "just enough" rather than trying to fix things once and for all) or Holyrood is handed the means to improve Scotland's economic outlook for itself. However, as I wrote before, that would upset the UK economy as one region would gain a competitive advantage over the rest.

How to square that circle, I have no idea.:-?

Mike.

Quote:

Independent Group: Which MPs could be next to defect?

https://news.sky.com/story/independe...efect-11643623



As more days pass by the lesser the chances anymore will join them. Granted the big vote next week could raise the chances but in most part I hold no hopes of a big shake up in that stagnant rotten HoC.

Ian Austin is now the ninth Labour MP to leave but says he won't be joining the Independent Group.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47330079

It looks like the tide could be turning against PM May.

Is Brexit in danger? That is the real objective of the EU, they do want Britain back but with under Franco-German vasallege.

Without the ERG in the Conservatives and the DUP PM May has no chance but hey if she wants to flog a dead horse feel free.

Here is my odds as it stands

Brexit with a deal 10%
Brexit no deal 10%
Brexit delayed 50%
General election 1%

Next weeks vote shall be a pop corn and beer day.

Yes due to a bogde awful deal. The EU rather we did not leave but one thing is for sure if we leave and in the near future try to grobble our way back in you can bet the EU boot will hurt to get back in.

Ha, Brexit is danger no matter what happens,
The Awful Deal,
No deal + Crash out,
or Even just cancelling it altogether (since the EU as an institution appears to be faultering badly)

So its a mess no matter which way it goes.
At least, there is no option without any negative consequences.
I'm struggling to find reasons to care anymore to be honest. - of course that can change depending on the outcome.

Pretty much how I see it now Francis :yep:

I fear she is wasting her breath but I'm confident should Parliament prevent the will of the people there will be heavy prices paid at the next General Election seeing as how all votes will be in the public domain.

Am I correct in believing that Parliament can vote in a way that gives a binding instruction to the government as to what the final outcome will be?

Should that be the case then the game has already ended.

I am now in favour of a second reforendrum and if the people vote to stay so be. I have said it right from the start it was a pack of lies on all sides and treated like a joke contest. The last two years have confirmed to me time for a revolution. British politics is not broken its dead and buried.

STOP BLOODY VOTING FOR THESE LOOSERS! :stare:

Benefits of a Brexit from a libertarian point of view (= horrors of a Brexit from an EUrocratic point of view).

https://mises.org/wire/benefits-brexit

I stick to it, the EU should be destroyed, and every step helping in that is welcome to me, no matter who it is contributing to this cause. The danger emmitted by the EU already is too monumental and too threatening by now as if one can afford to be choosey anymore. This does not automatically make the enemy of my enemy my friend. It only makes him a tool I do not hold back from doing what it does - helping in the destruction of the EU.

Before it destroys us and everything our ancestors have bitterly fought and suffered for. And that was not just meaningless profanities like not needing to change your money when crossing borders for holiday.

Though I must admit that the second arugment given in that essay, liberty from illiberal values, is being eroded everywhere nowadays and not just in the EU, the pressure to agree to "consensus" equals totalitarian uniformity and prevents debate and discussion and disagreement, political correctness no longer just threatens to sanction divergent opinions, but already actively suppresses and defames them. Nudging, reframing, "cinvincing" - its all harmless sounding words meaning to prevent people from thinking of their own and opposing the will of the parasytical elitist regime at the top.

I hear on the news that usless PM May has kicked the can down the road yet again. The vote has been put back to March 12th, place your bets she still has a few more days to kick the can down the road one more time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47348610

Well stated, a federal superstate EU will lead to war in Europe, or several.

Do you seriously believe that?