On 17/05/2013 14:07, Tim Watts wrote:
On Friday 17 May 2013 11:15 Huge wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On 2013-05-17, Nightjar wrote:
On 17/05/2013 10:22, cryptogram wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12:04 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:
Caused a bit of excitement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183



Would we be better off without the Jocks?

Possibly, but interestingly we are not being given the option of saying
what we think, whereas they are. We are in a union and surely both
parties to the union should have a say.

From the analyses I've seen, running Scotland as a truly independent
country would be extremely challenging. They probably don't want the
referendum to have too great a chance of succeeding.

I imagine what they really want is "devo max", where the English give them
shed-loads of money and they spend it on whatever they like.



Last I heard, Defence would still be sorted by UK PLC (that's a big bit of
spending). As would probably a number of other things.

Do Scotland magically aquire North Sea gas/oil fields? Or is that a UK
thing?

That depends upon whether you listen to Alex Salmond, or stick to the
way the oil income was structured by HM Treasury when it all started.

I find it very strange - this whole devolution thing. Local governemnt makes
sense in layers - as we have now.

But is this a case of the jocks, paddys and leeks hate the limeys so much -
in which case there is no hope for anyone to ever live in an integrated
society as we've been together with all of the above for centruries....

The Scots have never forgiven us for allowing them to put their king on
our throne, or maybe it is for bailing them out when their attempts at
colonisation nearly bankrupted the country.

Colin Bignell