I think it's more to do with
how you post rather than
what you post, F. However, when you say
I really wish that the vote had have been YES, because then we could really see what happens to a state that splinters off to see if it can be economically viable in this world today.
I'd given that some thought, as I imagine most Scots have. I'm pretty sure it would have made almost no difference in the short term. The Scots already have their own system of jurisprudence and their own education system, so really we're looking at Health and Financial stability as the two questions, and I'm pretty certain nothing would have been done to change either of those issues in the short term. In the longer term, however, I suspect that there would have been moves to do two things: first and foremost, make Edinburgh a significant financial centre by creating similar incentives to those the UK coalition has already put in place for London. Salmond would have realised that the UK's quicker than expected recovery from the crash precipitated by the banking industry is due in no small part to that same banking industry (which is rapidly returning to all its old ways, I fear) and Cameron has already said he won't impose the same conditions on the trading floor as the Europeans are demanding. Thus, Edinburgh and London would find themselves in competition and banks have no loyalty, as they've proved many times in the past, so if the incentives and guarantees were right they'd relocate like a shot.
Secondly, he'd realise that to sustain the health service in Scotland he'd have stark choices: raise taxes or attract more business. He wouldn't want to raise taxes, so he'd look to similar tiny countries, who are independent and enjoy high standards of living. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway all offer models which he could easily adapt. Switzerland especially is probably the ultimate democracy and it helps that the topography is similar :-))
Then he'd have to look to exports. The Scottish Whisky exports are already significant and a good earner for the country but tourism has the potential to be a much greater earner than at present. Scotland also has rather a lot of some natural resources: fresh water is one, and this has been the driest September in 50 years for us, so I imagine it won't be that long before we start hearing of hosepipe bans in England, anyway.
Overall, I really think Scotland would have done well out of independence, but we shouldn't lose sight of what triggered all this.
When devolution was first proposed, those at Westminster determined that both Scotland and Wales should have a voting system for their assemblies that would effectively prevent any single party gaining an overall majority. Thus, in an unbelievably self-serving act of utter dishonesty they forced the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments to use proportional representation - the same system which all party leaders other than the LIb Dems have strenuously denied the UK electorate over the years. Despite that, the SNP gained the overall majority that the Westminster gang believed would be impossible. I believe we could see a similar situation occur in Wales, so it's worth bearing in mind that it's not the English
per se whom the Scots dislike, but rather the Westminster Parliament.
And I've lost count of the number of times the BBC starts its national weather forecast with words like "It's going to be a beautiful day..." when what they mean is that it's not going to rain in London.
