Alex Salmond Andy Murray

If Scotland get their independence courtesy of SNP leader Alex Salmond how will the English media/English fans react to Murray at Wimbledon?

Can you imagine the English cheering for "Scotland's number 1" in place of "Britain's number one"?


Keep it nice.

Let's just see how all this public politics fan out.

Let's consider that Scotlands Health system poops on Englands, plus they can afford to put students through University without a massive cost to the taxpayer and also government funded jobs pay better than Englands so really and truly England need Scotland more than the other way round from a statistical point of view.

Yawn... I have no interest in what country Murray was born in.

hawkeye wrote:Yawn... I have no interest in what country Murray was born in.

What I want to know is will people cheer for him when he's not recognised as being British by English/Welsh people. Personally I feel his fanbase will decrease quite a bit should Scotland become independent.

legendkillar wrote:Let's just see how all this public politics fan out.

Let's consider that Scotlands Health system poops on Englands, plus they can afford to put students through University without a massive cost to the taxpayer and also government funded jobs pay better than Englands so really and truly England need Scotland more than the other way round from a statistical point of view.

Scotland can 'afford' to put people through the higher educational system at no cost because they get funded by the UK government. Not to mention they'd be in deficit if they went independent themselves:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/7338683/Independent-Scotland-142-billion-in-the-red.html

Looks small compared to the rest of Britain, but consider - where will the money come from? Even their oil won't bail them out! (assuming they even get it, which isn't even a certainty in itself - they may have the territory but who owns the oil rigs themselves? Answer: Not Scotland).

We need Scotland? Fat chance. Don't get me wrong, I like the Scots and hope they stay, but they are a resource drain at the moment, wasting British money on their silly little policies that have zero sustainability - which is why they aren't going for independence, despite their claims; ever wondered why they are so seemingly determined to get devo-max? It's to keep the British cashflow running into Scotland - cash they struggle to survive without.

We sure as hell don't rely on them, so think it through before spouting claptrap.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Even their oil won't bail them out! (assuming they even get it, which isn't even a certainty in itself - they may have the territory but who owns the oil rigs themselves?

Mostly American owned companies. Is that relevant?? They are paying for the rights to drill for oil in the territory.

Some of my best friends are Scottish, but what's all this I hear about their men wearing skirts?

carrieg4 wrote:

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Even their oil won't bail them out! (assuming they even get it, which isn't even a certainty in itself - they may have the territory but who owns the oil rigs themselves?

Mostly American owned companies. Is that relevant?? They are paying for the rights to drill for oil in the territory.

True to a degree, take British Petroleum though. American majority but still about 40% British, and it's doing most of the digging there.

But it's another resource out of the window. It means Scotland will need to purchase its own oil..... despite it being right in front of them.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

SAHARA STALLION wrote:Even their oil won't bail them out! (assuming they even get it, which isn't even a certainty in itself - they may have the territory but who owns the oil rigs themselves?

Mostly American owned companies. Is that relevant?? They are paying for the rights to drill for oil in the territory.

True to a degree, take British Petroleum though. American majority but still about 40% British, and it's doing most of the digging there.

But it's another resource out of the window. It means Scotland will need to purchase its own oil..... despite it being right in front of them.

Aren't they paying for the rights to dig in the territory though? Although BP is there in name it is more of an umbrella company, the drilling is sub-contracted out to mostly US companies such as Transocean etc.

This is a bizarre conversation to be having on a tennis thread. In answer the the OP - British, Scottish whatever - a great player and I will always support him.

I would rather it didn't happen. However even if it did the current timetable of the SNP is targetting May 2016 (referendum autumn 2014). The current British number 1 will be 29 in May 2016. It may be that someone like Oli Golding could have overtaken him by then.

SAHARA STALLION wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Let's just see how all this public politics fan out.

Let's consider that Scotlands Health system poops on Englands, plus they can afford to put students through University without a massive cost to the taxpayer and also government funded jobs pay better than Englands so really and truly England need Scotland more than the other way round from a statistical point of view.

Scotland can 'afford' to put people through the higher educational system at no cost because they get funded by the UK government. Not to mention they'd be in deficit if they went independent themselves:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/7338683/Independent-Scotland-142-billion-in-the-red.html

Looks small compared to the rest of Britain, but consider - where will the money come from? Even their oil won't bail them out! (assuming they even get it, which isn't even a certainty in itself - they may have the territory but who owns the oil rigs themselves? Answer: Not Scotland).

We need Scotland? Fat chance. Don't get me wrong, I like the Scots and hope they stay, but they are a resource drain at the moment, wasting British money on their silly little policies that have zero sustainability - which is why they aren't going for independence, despite their claims; ever wondered why they are so seemingly determined to get devo-max? It's to keep the British cashflow running into Scotland - cash they struggle to survive without.

We sure as hell don't rely on them, so think it through before spouting claptrap.

Right,

The UK is £4.8 Trillion in debt.

Scotland account for £142 Billion?

Hmmmm I wonder where I want to live??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7957110/Government-urged-to-reveal-true-national-debt-of-4.8trillion.html

Think twice before giving it large you butt monkey!

You're missing the point.

As I said, the difference in debt is large, but then so is the income - oil rights aside (and in answer to carrie's point, yes Scotland should get money for the oil rights [assuming that area of the North sea is considered their territory; I think it should count geographically speaking, but you'd be surprised at what gets negotiated in terms of territory - see the China sea controversy for instance] - but as it stands the oil is supplied to Britain, and possibly America [not sure about this though]. The point therefore is that whilst there's obviously no issues at the moment, an independant Scotland may have to, in return for the rights, negotiate the actual oil supply with Britain, despite the supply itself being in Scotland! Scotland will of course ultimately profit from the whole situation, but it's generally predicted to be a lot less than the SNP thinks - which seems to be along the lines of 'we're all going to be Scottish Sheiks' ) what does Scotland have on its own? The answer to which is, honestly, not a lot that really brings money in outside of Edinburgh and a reasonable tourism trade - there's just no infrastructure for Scottish financial independence, no major business, and outside of oil few resources. Britain as a whole has a weakness in the latter too but at least it has big business.

According to your theory if you were in, say, £10 million debt you'd have a better chance of surviving without going bust than say the UK does with it's potentially trillions of debt just because you're in less debt than the country - that's simply not true (assuming you're not secretly a multi-millionaire of course :smile:).

You claimed that Scotland was better off than the rest of the UK because of its unique policies and pay, and yet you completely overlook the fact that Britain gives Scotland a hell of a lot of money - yes, it's lovely to be able to go to university for free if you're a Scot, yes it's nice to be able to get better pay in certain positions, but realistically this is off the back of British money. Scotland alone cannot afford all of this (I even recall them conceded that they'll need to raise taxes by a fair bit to cover the 'free university' and other policies in the face of independence).

So yes, Scotland is better off as it is, but to say that we need them more than they need us, given how heavily they rely on British money, is far-fetched at the very best. As I said, i'd be disappointed and surprised if they went for indepedence, and Scottish public opinion seems to support staying part of Britain, but an independent Scotland would struggle, and even if it did survive, it wouldn't be in the relative comfort they have at the moment.

Your missing the point entirely.

You bringing in oil which has no relation to government debt.

And potentially trillions? It actually is. Yes England has funded Scotland, but if the Conservatives are recognised as a 'British' party, I am not sure where you are getting at in terms of 'funding' where do Scottish taxpayers money go to? HM Treasurey? Is Scotland not part of Britain?

Health figures, Scotland beats England.

Scottish power and energy is totally different to stats.

Unless you know something the world doesnt?

legendkillar wrote:Your missing the point entirely.

You bringing in oil which has no relation to government debt.

And potentially trillions? It actually is. Yes England has funded Scotland, but if the Conservatives are recognised as a 'British' party, I am not sure where you are getting at in terms of 'funding' where do Scottish taxpayers money go to? HM Treasurey? Is Scotland not part of Britain?

Health figures, Scotland beats England.

Scottish power and energy is totally different to stats.

Unless you know something the world doesnt?

You must be joking? Oil has no relation to the financial health of an independent Scotland? Seriously?!

I see i'm wasting my time here now if you cannot even observe that single point, so I'll leave it after this, but you seem to be completely unaware of the situation Scotland faces:

- Scotland turns over a loss as it is. This is why some of the national debt is set to be thrown on Scotland in the case of independence. Why would they be losing money? See my last post.

- So if they are in deficit that will be quite vast compared to what would be their GDP, how will they get out of the situation? See my last post. The NHS in Scotland may get hit as a result, though obviously it's the taxpayer who will suffer first. And likely suffer a lot in the face of cuts.

- In terms of Britain, it cuts a country that is operating on deficit, that is giving back less than it brings back in, loose. You're right, the income of the Scottish taxpayer is not negligable, it would be a blow, but then given we don't have to fund the running of the country anymore, it would likely be a far softer blow than that to the Scottish taxpayer.

As for oil, it's the root of the problem for independent Scotland - the SNP financial plan for running the country with any sucess appears to rely nigh on solely on favourable negotiations on Scottish oil reserves. Frankly it's worrying.

Frankly if Scotland does go independent, what's to stop a situation happening like Albania/Kosovo?

Or am I being dramatic.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Frankly if Scotland does go independent, what's to stop a situation happening like Albania/Kosovo?

Or am I being dramatic.

Er, a tad, in fact more than a tad. The Anglo-Scottish bloodletting has had a very long history, but was largely blown out more than 200 years ago and settled down in a society where people have been allowed to let off steam by expressing their views for about the same length of time. The Balkans had not played their blood-letting out properly before Titoist rule which kept them under wraps by force; when the valve was released tensions which had not been properly vented came sharply to the surface. I think democracy is vital to such processes - the Balkans have been ruled by others, the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary, or dictators like Tito and Hoxha until very recently and those are bad conditions in which to resolve inter-ethnic or religious tensions. In fact, very often one lot feels that the other lot had a better deal from an overall unjust ruler and wants to sort it out the minute they have the freedom to.

On the other point, namely Murray, I think Murray would certainly lose some support in England if competitors like him were no longer regarded as "British", but the BBC still report on some of Ireland's most successful sportspeople on a "they are almost one of ours" basis, so perhaps not as much as one might think. It would depend more on his personality (I am not sure how 'loved' he is by the tennis-watching public anywhere)

Anyway, the negotiations after any referendum would take years, so we are probably looking at a minimum of 4 years before it could happen. If Murray's going to win a slam it will be before then.

What a wonderful thought provoking article!!