Chances are, Human torch lives in a Sami hamlet that is very poor, very afflicted with frostbite and disease, in Lapland, of course.

There is hardly a day chefs villages, and even if there is so few tens of thousands

I would love to live in Holland,

Oh wait i already live there..

Yay :D

1. Germany
2. Sweden
3. Norway
4. Poland
5. USA (I'm Canadian, despite what Warlight seems to think)
6. Scotland

^ Hahaha! That's what I'm talking about!! (Free universities AND free health care, get rekt).

Edited 6/4/2015 21:11:57

Scotland sounds nicer than the Rest of UK

Heh, it's poor, low infrastructure, less money...no offence to Scottish, but you depend on England!

poorer, well I thought you were beyond that Juq, you know that in England the wealth is unevenly shared, that there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor nowadays and it is getting worse now. And I believe that if Scotland is more in the left side of the political spectrum, then even if Scotland is poorer according to its overall GDP (counting the average wealth), it does not mean that the middle class would be poorer than the English one.

Depending on England? if it was the case, England would have not done that much effort trying to reason Scotland to stay in the UK, Scotland has more ressources than England, and could do alone better than many countries. They just need to trust in themselves, and stop believing the English bashing your country and fearing the Europeans boycotting and threatening an independent Scotland.

Last but not least, an interesting report from an American journalist :

Scottish Independence: England's Shameful Secret (from forbes.com)

In 1974 the English government had received a secret study conducted by economics professor Gavin McCrone. Nearly all that North Sea oil is Scottish, Professor McCrone wrote. The oil reserves were far bigger than most people realized, he said. An independent Scotland would become one of the most prosperous countries in the world, comparable to Switzerland or Norway, he wrote. Its coffers would overflow. The biggest problem the country might face would be dealing with its massive balance of payments surplus.

Meanwhile, of course, the big loser from independence would be England.

The English government suppressed the report. The McCrone Report was hushed up, and didn’t see the light of day until about ten years ago. We only know about it because the Scottish Nationalist Party, using freedom of information laws, forced the English government to reveal it.

Today it’s available online.

And as the Scots gear up for this week’s referendum on independence, it makes devastating reading. All that talk about England and Scotland being “Better Together”? All that talk about the British “family” and the historic union? All that pompous finger-wagging from Englishmen who think of Scotland as a place to shoot grouse? All those pictures of the royal baby?

Take a gander at the secret report that the English establishment hid from the Scots for thirty years.

“The full significance of North Sea oil… remains in large measure disguised from the Scottish public,” Professor McCrone wrote (He cited ineptitude in Westminster rather than malice; as anyone who has ever lived in England knows, the charge is all too believable). Analysis by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, he added, gave “authoritative support” for the Scottish nationalists’ charge that the government had “giv[en] Scottish oil away to the international companies ridiculously cheap.”

It is worth remembering what was going on in the rest of England at the time. The country was plunged into economic and political crisis. These included a “three day week” and, in 1976, the humiliation of having to seek a bailout from the International Monetary Fund. Some English at the time genuinely feared a constitutional crisis.

In the circumstances the country needed every penny it could get to survive. North Sea oil was about the only bright spot in the economy. They were not going to give it up.

Realpolitik is nothing new. The English government was doing its job – protecting the interests of the English. And this is, of course, old history. Much of the oil has now been given away. An independent Scotland would not get the windfall it would have received decades ago. But the story nonetheless remains a shameful one – and one that the pro-union forces would rather not talk about as the Scots prepare, once again, to go to the polls to consider independence.

Edited 6/5/2015 08:36:12

Scotland are not economically poorer than the rest of the UK. We have many more natural resources, millions of people flock to Scotland to see the wonders of the Loch Ness Monster, and the beautiful Highland terrain. Furthermore, due to the lengthy coastline, multiple lochs, and windy climate, a lot of renewable energy is produced in Scotland. Scotland has a lot of room for improvement as well, as it holds the capacity to produce 25% of Europe's wind energy, and 25% of Europe's tidal energy. The reason Scotland tends to have less wealth than England is because Scottish people pay a lot more taxes, and don't get the same in return. Scottish people pay more tax than anyone else in the UK, and Scotland would be 8.3 billion pounds more wealthy independent, but since the Scottish taxes are accumulated in London, and due to the Tory government, they are distributed in the ways that they want them to be distributed. A lot go to London, and the various other big English cities, such as Birmingham, Sheffield, and Manchester.

There is a diverse economy in Scotland, with money being pulled in from various places, such as agriculture, industry, oil, construction, financial business, transport, and more. We also have an excellent fishing association. This is shown how Scotland survived the Global Financial Crisis much better than England. Scotland would also be richer, since Westminster has been costing them billions of pounds (64 billion right now) in repaying debts that England are responsible for. The acts that England are doing are devolved matters, which Scotland have no contribution to, but are obliged to pay this amount of money because they are part of the UK. Moreover, Scotland's national deficit spending is lower, and Scottish public finances are stronger than the UK as a whole.

Scotland also has very strong exports, consisting of petroleum, electrical goods, finance & insurance, mining, transportation, machinery, and Scottish cuisine. Scottish whisky and haggis are very strong exports that are exported to many countries, (with the highest demand in Germany).

Scotland is also the second most reliable place (after London) for investments. 11% of UK's FDI was secured in Scotland, despite the fact that Scotland makes up 8% of the population. USA and Norway put millions of pounds into Scotland, and are always satisfied.

If Scotland had full control over tax, business regulation, labour market, exports, and innovation, the economy would be much stronger. There would be no need to give money to London, for the wealth to be distributed unfairly according to taxes paid, and they would be much better off economically because of this.

Scotland's most popular party (SNP) are a left-winged government, who are very interested in evening out the wealth distribution in Scotland, as opposed to the right wing Tories in London. This will prove beneficial to Scotland's economy because less people will be living on less money, and places like the Highlands, which are currently poorer than the rest of Scotland thanks to David Cameron, can become more economically stable.

For all these reasons provided, Xypapy, I hope you reconsider your asinine, ignorant, statement of no offence to Scottish, but you depend on England!

Edited 6/5/2015 16:11:36

North Sea Oil means nothing. Or it means war. America doesn't want Scottish independence, and England's not losing it's oil, and it will be ready to fight with (favourable) 10:1 odds.

It's not just taxes that are making Scotland poorer. Living in Scotland means you don't have to pay English taxes. Scotland is more rural, and more rural means more poorer (that's why socialist parties are more popular there). Every country "pulls in money" from various sources, but the thing is, how important is that money compared to the stock industries? And what debts is England paying for, but Scotland apparently isn't responsible for?

Electrical goods, you can get from Germany or Estonia. Financing you can get in Luxemburg or Liechtenstein (post box offices). Mining, yes, you can get some goodies from Scottish mountains, but not much more than other mountains. Transportation? No proper roads in its own country, and transportation? No, not at all. Machinery? Germany. Scottish Cuisine? Don't know anything about it (and I've been all the way to Netherlands, still don't know anything about it). Scottish Whiskey? Yes, fun fact, but that's like saying Portugal greatly helped America gain independence (by way of Madeira wine).

If Scotland had tax control, it would be much better, but it wouldn't. Rebuilding everything is not an easy task. Maybe this "Tory Government" will be repeated in the future in Scotland, but this "Tory Government" is now everyone's problem, not just Scotland. Like I said, the SNP is so popular because folk are so poor.

North Sea Oil is a very useful resource for the time that it is there. It gives Scotland a great industry, and it brings lots of wealth into the country. England will not fight for it, a war of such would be disapproved on in this day and age.

A huge amount of England's debt is social services, health, and transport, all of which are devolved matters that Scotland have authority over, where Scotland must help pay back these debts because they are part of the UK. Scotland is very strong in agriculture, with huge amounts of their country dedicated to it, which is actually causing more benefit than harm, as opposed to what you think.

All of these industries that I have mentioned get significant amounts of money that Scotland puts towards its GDP. Scotland has incredible transport, despite what you seem to think, as Lothian has the highest rated bus service in the entire UK, the trams have been a smash success, and the trains are not overcrowded, but can get you from point A-B in no time. Scottish cuisine is popular in England, France, Germany, and many other western countries, and this unique food and drink provides a national identity for Scotland.

Scotland would not be "rebuilding everything" like you say. It wouldn't be starting from the bottom. Several of the matters are already devolved, and it is no problem transitioning from the British authority, to Scottish authority. Yes, the Tory Government is everyone's problem, and that is why Scotland are the smart ones who are trying to break free from the Tories! And no, there is a Conservative Government in Scotland, but they are very unpopular. Labour has been popular in Scotland, until the rise of the SNP, and the Scottish Tories have never gained any significant bursts of energy. If the Scottish people were really so poor, then why aren't the SSP trying to rebuild?

England will not fight for it, a war of such would be disapproved on in this day and age.

Would it?

A huge amount of England's debt is social services, health, and transport, all of which are devolved matters that Scotland have authority over, where Scotland must help pay back these debts because they are part of the UK. Scotland is very strong in agriculture, with huge amounts of their country dedicated to it, which is actually causing more benefit than harm, as opposed to what you think.

You're making it sound like Scotland doesn't have social services, health, or transport. Scotland probably helps more to England than England helps to it because England actually has 10x the population. Of course agriculture causes benefit, but it also causes ruralness and education lack, and really, agriculture? What can you grow in actual nice weather?

All of these industries that I have mentioned get significant amounts of money that Scotland puts towards its GDP. Scotland has incredible transport, despite what you seem to think, as Lothian has the highest rated bus service in the entire UK, the trams have been a smash success, and the trains are not overcrowded, but can get you from point A-B in no time. Scottish cuisine is popular in England, France, Germany, and many other western countries, and this unique food and drink provides a national identity for Scotland.

Ha, then you're just proving my point - Scotland would be helpless. Probably the only reason the transportation is highly rated is because it's practically empty and it's good enough to get from Glasgow to Edinburgh and if you really want to be isolated, Iverness. Scotland has massive population holes, as to be expected from somewhat low population density.

When I went to the Netherlands, I saw no Scottish food. Also, I go to Poland, still not seeing Scottish food. Maybe you're right, but until further notice...nothing compared to real wines (Porto).

Scotland would not be "rebuilding everything" like you say. It wouldn't be starting from the bottom. Several of the matters are already devolved, and it is no problem transitioning from the British authority, to Scottish authority. Yes, the Tory Government is everyone's problem, and that is why Scotland are the smart ones who are trying to break free from the Tories! And no, there is a Conservative Government in Scotland, but they are very unpopular. Labour has been popular in Scotland, until the rise of the SNP, and the Scottish Tories have never gained any significant bursts of energy. If the Scottish people were really so poor, then why aren't the SSP trying to rebuild?

You claim Scotland is trying to escape England's "tory government", but what I mean to say is, one day, Scotland will have a bad government, too, if it does gain independence, that is for sure. And then what? Both Hebrides want independence? Mind you, Scotland's independence is pushed by the Scots, the (now small) Hebride's independence is pushed by the Scottish Gaelic. It's inefficient and bad to try to get independence each time you don't like your country's government.

Think Britain and the EU. Nigel Farage has talked much about this (though I don't agree with most his points, he is right about this): Everyone thought the Euro was going to be great, yet now there are it's unsupporters, notably, Nigel Farage and Helle Thorning-Schmidt. The reason the SSP won't rebuild is because they can't rebuild. Noone likes the words "socialism" and even worse is "communism". The "benefactors" don't like them, either, since they seek to destroy them, so it's rare nowadays. (Though the Communist party has grown by 0.01% this election, so good for them :))

Edited 6/5/2015 23:51:41

First of all, the Iraq war was disapproved of by all political parties other than Labour, and that is Tony Blair being a complete idiot. Would you really expect nothing to come of a war England declares on Scotland after they proclaim their independence?

Scotland's social services, health and transport are provided by the Scottish government, as a devolved matter, and as they are smaller, they have much less debt to deal with, but the larger services in England, which have much more debt, Scotland must pay for. In the more rural parts of Scotland, there are still many free schools and universities, and are not lacking. Scotland is very concerned about their greenbelt, and make sure to keep a lot of land arable to keep their agriculture industry booming, with huge amounts of cereal, barley, wheat, rapeseed, oats, potatoes, apples, pears, strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, gooseberries, blueberries, blackcurrants, redcurrants, and rowan fruit.

The Scottish Transport is so highly rated, because they enforce their safety rules, their cleanliness rules, and yes, to a certain extent it is mild, but what did a low population ever stop a country from being independent? The low population density, for example, in the highlands, is largely due to a historical event called the highland clearances, which moved thousands of families out of the highlands, and ridiculously changed the population density in the region. Inverness is a strategically placed city at the Caledonian Canal, and allows quick access into the highlands, without only a desolate village to refuel. It is also a city that attracts a lot of tourism, because of Loch Ness, and the mythical Nessie. The lack of population in the highland however, can actually show how beautiful the scenery is, and also pulls in a lot of sightseers, compared to England's boring low-lands, with hardly any interesting terrain.

At the moment, yes, Scotland is trying to break free of the far-right policies of England, that seem to get pulled in all the time, and with the Lib-Lab pact weakening every day, it seems like they will no longer keep the Scots satisfied in a UK government, so with the own Scottish Parliament, with some devolved powers, the population of Scotland want a bigger push, and want to be ruled by a left-winged government, and hugely close the wealth gap, that the Tories continue to enforce. Perhaps there would be a bad government from time to time, but some of the most left-winged governments lie in Scotland, and that is the governments most Scots support. The Hebrides are not wanting independence, they massively support an independent SCOTLAND, not an independent Western Isles... That would be pointless, as they have some of the lowest population in the entire of Scotland, and have very little industry.

You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about when you say "The reason the SSP won't rebuild is because they can't rebuild. Noone likes the words "socialism" and even worse is "communism"." The reason the SSP can't rebuild, is because the public have no faith in them. After the fall of Tommy Sheridan, and the proof that half of the SSP had intentions to lie in court, the public have lost all faith in the party.

This conversation has been largely derailed, and surely you understand now that Scotland does not "rely on England", and it would not be "helpless".

Edited 6/6/2015 18:24:49

Juq currently:

First of all, the Iraq war was disapproved of by all political parties other than Labour, and that is Tony Blair being a complete idiot. Would you really expect nothing to come of a war England declares on Scotland after they proclaim their independence?

It wasn't disapproved by the folk who matter, and that's all that matters. And at this time, David Cameron doesn't even matter, Obama matters. I do expect it since it will be American (and by extension, NATO) supported. The worst that could happen is that Russia could supply some guns to Scotland. War will be a last ersort though, probably an ultimatum is more likely. Also, England is in the big gambling, Scotland is in the small gambling. England has 10x the population and is undeniably Britain's powerhouse, so of course it has much bigger gambling, with much more debt, to think that it ever won't would be folly.

The Scottish Transport is so highly rated, because they enforce their safety rules, their cleanliness rules, and yes, to a certain extent it is mild, but what did a low population ever stop a country from being independent? The low population density, for example, in the highlands, is largely due to a historical event called the highland clearances, which moved thousands of families out of the highlands, and ridiculously changed the population density in the region. Inverness is a strategically placed city at the Caledonian Canal, and allows quick access into the highlands, without only a desolate village to refuel. It is also a city that attracts a lot of tourism, because of Loch Ness, and the mythical Nessie. The lack of population in the highland however, can actually show how beautiful the scenery is, and also pulls in a lot of sightseers, compared to England's boring low-lands, with hardly any interesting terrain.

It's so highly rated, because it has such a high staff:rider ratio. Also, low population doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to gain independence. To gain independence, you must have dumb, savage, proud folk. To keep dependence, you must have smart, meek and neutral folk. Notice how all three adjectives on the keeping dependence side are much better. It's rare that getting independence is good. Moving on, Scotland doesn't has big a tourism industry as England and Walaes. Stop.

At the moment, yes, Scotland is trying to break free of the far-right policies of England, that seem to get pulled in all the time, and with the Lib-Lab pact weakening every day, it seems like they will no longer keep the Scots satisfied in a UK government, so with the own Scottish Parliament, with some devolved powers, the population of Scotland want a bigger push, and want to be ruled by a left-winged government, and hugely close the wealth gap, that the Tories continue to enforce. Perhaps there would be a bad government from time to time, but some of the most left-winged governments lie in Scotland, and that is the governments most Scots support. The Hebrides are not wanting independence, they massively support an independent SCOTLAND, not an independent Western Isles... That would be pointless, as they have some of the lowest population in the entire of Scotland, and have very little industry.

So basically you give me no answer other than Umm, they support it now. Now, I was wrong - the Outer Hebrides want autonomy, not independence. How about this then: Should Wales break free since they mostly voted Labour, too? Should the world break free because of opinion difference? Should Babbington Head break away from England because they have consistently voted Labour, too? And you say it would be pointless for the Hebrides to gain independence, as they have the lowest population and little industry - so wait, we've found Scotland's Scotland, haven't we?

Was the SSP ever popular? I doubt it. It's not even the public, the benefactors never supported them in the first place.

This conversation has not been derailed, you're proving to me yourself that Scotlannd would be poor and bad without England. Though I may have been exaggerating when I said it would be helpless, it does need England.

Do not argue with Juq, he is always right! He lived in Scotland for 70 years, and had a major degree in Scottish geopolitics!

What I have been trying to say, is that the international community would heavily dicourage England declaring war on Scotland. Is that not self-evident? Are we in the middle ages? Russia will give guns to Scotland? What are you on about? And you seem to completely understand, and concede my point that Scotland are giving a lot more money to pay off England's debts, than vice versa. I don't know what you mean by England is bigger in gambling than Scotland is... What are we doing, comparing Las Vegas to New York?

You also concede my point about the transport being undeniably stronger in Scotland, than England. Are you implying that people who want independence must be dumb and savage? That is highly offensive and ignorant. Nicola Sturgeon (the witch goddess) is arguably the most intelligent, and best debater of all the UK political party leaders, and she is not backed by a bunch of idiot drones who have no idea what they're talking about. Wouldn't you agree that Scotland has a higher tourism-to-population ratio than England does, because more population means more cities, more cities means more attractions, and more attractions means more tourism. Also, you're trying to say that Wales has more tourism than Scotland does? You make me laugh.

No, I'm not saying that every single constituency that does not vote for the majority should become independent, I'm saying that Scotland are being included in several laws and policies, that are reserved matters, that are greatly hindering the country from economical development and growth, and this is not the case for other constituencies. An overwhelming majority of Scottish citizens want to be ruled by left-winged policies, and they continue to have half of their laws made up by a far-right government in London, instead of a Centre-Left government in Edinburgh. You seem to not understand, after the countless examples of Scotland's flourishing, prosperous industry I have shown you, and you say it would be pointless for Scotland to be independent.

At the height of the SSP, they had 6 Scottish seats, which is good for a party of their size, especially for a socialist one. They were going to continue to get better, before their leader corrupted.

I'm trying to say that this thread has been derailed. Does the title say "Scottish Independence Debate"?

Well, I guess that Britain will stop Scottish independence because of oil, and seriously, tourism England, especially London much more touristy than Scotland.
If they establish a state I guess at first it will be difficult and perhaps with the help of oil they can get, do not know if they will become Norway but who knows...

Britian won't stop Scottish independence, they allowed a referendum to occur, and almost definitely will in the future. They are not Spain. Do you understand my tourism-to-population ratio? Because I am not talking about the gross amount of tourists that flock into the country.