Theres no subsidising going on.

It is the final stages of a dying empire. They sold our ass's in 1942 to stay an english speaking nation.
Then they lost Egypt, partitioned India, lost the free cities to China.
Not to mention Canada and Australia only acknowledge the UK in spirit.

Brexit is the final roll of the dice to try and somehow embolden the "commonwealth"

The Brits were the best dressed pirates but now the ship has sunk.
Some humility and re-imagining of its constitution is needed.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Mar 20 2021 12:34pm

That's not how forgiveness works. Read the fucking Bible.

We still use the Barnett formula to this day, look it up and educate yourself on how the budget is allocated

London and the South East generates far more tax revenue than any other region in the UK and it subsidises Wales, the North East, Scotland and the North West. That is an indisputable fact: https://www.ft.com/content/44455301-6ef2-4528-bd3c-6bfa6376ef36

From the tories point of view, they have no incentive to grant an independence referendum. We had one only 6 years ago, the polling is pretty close at the moment, and most importantly they are not constitutionally obliged to grant one

I believe in the preservation of the union but also in self determination, so if devolved nations wanted to leave I would let them. I'm not the government though, so there's no point getting angry at me for pointing out facts



That is simply not true though. Most of the colonies were not profitable. It made individuals that were wealthy even wealthier but barely made a dent in tax revenue (estimated at about 3% of the total)

Furthermore it really isn't only a question of only comparing GDP of London and an Independent Scotland.

Of course London will always overachieve economically.
Theres literally more people living in greater London than all of Scotland.
Many huge company headquarters and London is a major travel hub.

It will continue to be successful.

The goal of going independent is to have control over the decisions that shape our identity.

Do we support international wars? Do we support protectionism?
Do we transition to renewable energy?

It's much sinpler to make a modern constitution for 7million people than it is to make one for 70million people in 4 different countries. With 3 distinct languages.

A modern constitution is needed.
Let Scotland be the example for your own new constitution. Fix the broken relationship between government, the people and the corporations.

If it fails, you can learn from it. And England has nothing to lose from Scotland leaving the union? Right? In fact they will gain some subsidised money back?
They could re-upholster the seats in the houses of commons with the money saved!

Or purchase prince Philip a new range rover.


Those with something to gain from independence can see beyond the fear of losing.
Those that have been successful in our history have taken calculated risks.

Its human nature to fear and to take the path of least resistance.
However there is quite often a better reality just beyond your comfort zone.

Sounds like they were quite profitable then, even if it wasn't reflected in tax revenue.

I'm not angry at you. Or anyone for that matter. I also know about the Barnett formula. Do you understand it?

I think you've heard that London subsidised devolved countries and that fits your argument so you believe it.

My point is that Scotland can have an equally high quality of life as in an independent country than it does now under your so called UK subsidisation.

My tax goes toward cleaning the toilets in the house of commons and it also goes toward trident nuclear deterrent.

Take those obligations of my bank sheet as an indy Scotland and I'm already saving money.

As it stands the UK makes decisions with my tax money that are tailored to fit London. That doesn't help me.

Of course it was profitable for certain individuals, but not the country, which was the topic at hand

@red - Yes, because it does. That is a fact and stated in the FT article I linked

@green - Maybe, but with Scotland's huge spending deficit and 15% extra it gets in the budget, that would be difficult to achieve

@grey - Agreed in terms of policy decisions, but not in terms of £ value that is dished out. That is a very important distinction to make

What you are suggesting is simply not the case.

Please do some research.

Per person scotland has generated more income than anywhere in the UK for 30 years.

https://www.businessforscotland.com/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/

Even if what your are saying had any truth, ask yourself why Scotland needs to be "Subsidised"

Maybe it's because after years of London-Centric government, we are worse off than we would be as an independent country.