lewist wrote:Hi, draykorinee, and welcome to TH.
I'm a Scot and will vote for independence, for the Union of the Parliaments to be dismantled, the Act of 1707 to be repealed. The United Kingdom will continue, as no one has seriously suggested doing away with the 1603 union of the crowns.
Thanks fot that distinction.
Even the shambolic No campaigners are admitting that Scotland can be a successful and viable nation.
IN the short term, yes, in the longer term, I don't think that's right. (BTW, I don't regard myself as a campaigner, though I may be shambolic anyway
It increasingly looks as if the English politicians are becoming worried about the prospect of losing our financial contribution. We get back far less than we contribute,
because of the enhanced public spending in Scotland, I'm not sure that's right.
and we hold the sources of energy, not just oil but most of the renewables.
None of which are yet viable without huge public subsidies. It is by no means certain that they can be developed further over and above other alternatives. If, for example, a way of delivering electricity over long distances were found, who is to say that Saharan sunshine would not be a better bet?
However, I'm interested in your assumption that it would be a good thing to have influence on the world stage. One of the events leading up the Act of Union was the Act Anent Peace and War, which was an assertion that foreign policy was a matter for parliament and not the crown. What's so great about being able to bully other nations in far flung places?
What if another nation (or even an extremist group) were to bully Scotland, over oil or fish....?
Maybe the world would be a better place if we were all pacifists, but that world hasn't arrived yet....