For England. Not for Ireland, Scotland or Wales. They'll immediately start the process to rejoin the EU. Happy days ahead. You'll always have London, they'll pay the bills for the rest of the country.
Why would those countries accept another countries debt? This type of thing was answered during the Scottish independence referendum, the same with currency etc.
It's actually not, this was one of "better together" questions that was answered at the time. The 3 nations can't legally take debt, only the English parliament can do that.
England doesn't make any decisions. Unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland it doesn't have it's own government to make those independent decisions. Every single decision you try to pin on England was a decision all 3 of those nations had a say in
I am not a fan of Brexit, it was the biggest mistake in the history of this country, but it was not England forcing the rest out. England AND Wales both voted in favour of Brexit. Scotland and Northern Ireland also DID get a say in it, it just didn't go their way. That's what happens in a democracy, people vote and the side that wins gets what they wanted and the side that loses doesn't. Are you suggesting Scotland and Northern Ireland should be able to overrule the wishes of the other 2 members?
Brexit is an example of every single individual UK citizen getting an equal vote. Leaving when that was the result of the vote meant that every citizen was equal and everyone's voice mattered. Not leaving afterwards because Scotland and Northern Ireland didn't vote in favour of it would have been saying that those are the only voices that matter in our Democracy and everyone else doesn't get a say.
I know itâs âdemocracyâ of a sort but the question boils down to âare Scotland, Ireland and Wales âcountriesâ or just areas of the UKâ? All were fully functioning countries in their own right before being bribed or persuaded to join this union! Should they not have a mechanism to leave the same as the UK had to leave the EU?
I fully agree that there should be, but that wasn't the specific topic we were discussing. I had responded to someone that claimed that England alone decided to take on the debt, I simply stated that England does not make it's own decisions and that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had a say in the decisions that resulted in the debt, as well as other decisions the UK had made. You brought Brexit into it claiming England made the decision and I stated that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did get a say, including Wales agreeing with England. Nothing about this conversation, at least where I have been involved, has been about if there should or should not be a mechanism for them to leave.
How revisionist. Scotland made bad choices in the Darien Disaster by trying to join the international trade of "being cunts to brown folks" and failed. England was no better and to pretend there's any moral high ground between either of them is asinine.
England spends more than they actually have per year so that makes zero sense. To cap your hilarious claims off, business tax and corporation tax is claimed as originating in England despite coming from Wales.
The UK as a whole does that. That doesn't mean England are subsidising them. The lack of a devolved government just makes it harder to separate out UK expenditure on England and compare it to what England generates, like we can with the other 3
English MPs are not a monolith, none of the nations MPs are. English MPs aren't all after the same thing because what's good for London isn't what's good for Manchester or vice versa, same with Cornwall, Birmingham, Newcastle, York, etc.
It isn't England by itself having 543 coherent votes against Scotland's 57, Wales' 32 and NI's 18 overruling the latter 3 to just give itself whatever it wants. It's 650 MPs with a separate and equal voice voting on what they individually think is best, as a representative of their 1 constituency and 543 of the constituencies happen to sit in England because England has the most people and places that need representation.
Of the 4 Nations only 1 of them gets drastically more MPs per capita than the other 3, and it's not England. It's Scotland. Scotland has 1 MP per 43k population, Wales has 1 MP per 99k, Northern Ireland has 1MP per 107k, and England 1MP per 108k. If you're Scottish you have roughly.5x as much influence over your constituency and who you have represent it and it's individual needs as any of the other nations.
If, theoretically, we made all 4 Nations each have 25% of the MPs then Northern Ireland voters would have 1.65x the voting power of Welsh voters, Welsh voters would have 1.75x the voting power of Scottish voters, and Scottish voters would have 10.57x the voting power of English voters. That means overall Northern Irish voters would have 30.52x the voting power of English voters. Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be, right? Why should the individual voice of a voter in a union be treated as less than 1/30th as important as another voter just because of where in that union they happen to live?
Absolutely agree, you can have equal say when you contribute equally financially. All drain the life out of English tax payers money. Like a female tennis player wanting menâs pay when they play less sets.
That is not what I said and is not fair or helping. We are 1 country made of 4 nations. Scottish voters deserves equal say, and are not a drain, that equal say just does not mean an equal number of MPs. Same with Welsh and Northern Irish voters. You need to get that stick out your arse and stop pretending like England is the only contributor in the country. It's people like you treating folks so poorly when they're just expressing concerns that is driving this division
There is no stick in my backside, I just get fed up when people whinge all the time Scottish university students donât pay a penny and nhs prescriptions are free to all, a thankyou to English tax payers would be nice.
It is not "Whinging" to express concerns as to how a democratic system functions. Yes, they get those things that those of us in England don't get, and probably also should, but it is not their fault we donât and it is not off of our backs that they get them. We should be compaigning for us to also get them, not "whinging" that they do.
England didn't decide anything you numpty, those funds went onto services across the UK. Since only England gets less then what they pay in, the rest of the UK should get most of the debt proportionally.
HS2, the RNs aircraft carriers and nuclear deterrents, crosslink, those are all big UK government borrowings that go on the notional debt for all countries even if the spending happens in England.
You do realise a considerable amount of that is spent in Scotland? There are Trident Naval bases in Scotland. Most shipbuilding is in Scotland. And also, none of those projects are remotely in the region of NHS or welfare state costs. Not to mention, defence expenditure is part of Scotland, Wales and Ireland (both North and Republic) collective security, not just England.
Its very selective and biased to interpret these as 'English' projects that solely benefit them. Its exactly what the likes of Iran, Russia and now even Israel and US wants us to do - tear each other apart so we're divided and weaker.
The carriers were built and are maintained at Rosyth. The frigates are built in Glasgow (as were the destroyers). The submarines are based in Scotland. A vast part of the spending for these things is in Scotland.
And yes, there are infrastructure projects that pertain solely to England, just as there are infrastructure projects that pertain solely to Scotland. There is nothing wrong with that - remember that there is no English government which might otherwise implement those projects, so it has to fall to Westminster.
The Barnett formula means that Scotland has been getting 20% more per head for decades. That's a deficit that's funded by debt. Why should England pay for that debt?
there's no way Scotland will walk away from the union without debt.
Except for over 25 years England has been using Public Private Partnerships to fund schools, infrastructure, healthcare and the Barnett formula only counts the Public part so Scottish public spending has been cut in real terms since Blair.
Yeh you saying âitâll happenâ doesnât make it so whether you like it or not. England is a failing state. Celtic nations need to get away from their influence.
You realise Scotland has next to no say in the terms of Scottish independence? Other than kicking up a stink, the final terms will be almost entirely dictated by Westminster as itâs their legal right to do so.
You seem so certain on something you know very little about.
If Scotland voted to leave the UK in a lawful, agreed independence referendum, the terms would almost certainly be negotiated as a major constitutional settlementbetween the Scottish and UK governments, followed by legislation in both Parliaments. There is no pre-existing UK law that says,for example, âScotland gets 8% of theassets and assumes 8% of the debt.â
A negotiation in which Scotland has barely any power, a âno dealâ situation would be devastating for Scotland and negligible for England, and Westminster can simply say no to anything they disagree with. If you think Scotland are leaving without taking their fair share of debt youâre delusional.
Because itâs common sense? The political pressure will be on the Scottish government to get an independence agreement, there is no pressure on the British government, Scottish business relies on access to the English market, the reverse isnât true, Scotland relies on England for defence, the reverse isnât true.
Same way that everyone knew the UK would have very limited power in negotiations post-Brexit. A small economy very dependent on a large economy doesnât have as much power as a large economy negotiating with a smaller one. Sometimes the smaller one can influence the larger one (Canada seems to be doing ok against the US right now) but ultimately England can strangle the Scottish economy without a huge cost to England if a negotiating Scottish government refused to give into demands to split the national debt or concede on other points England cares about.
Because England can repeal the use of the ÂŁ from Scottish business.
This single and very legal action, by itself, would cripple Scotland for decades.
By the way, since you seem to think that England is 'failing', what exactly do you think will happen when the largest country by far in all metrics is forced to subsidise its neighbours post dissolution?
Peace and happy time?...
The 60 million + will over run the newly independent states with militia within a year.
đ€Ł 3 new third world countries coming up without the UK backing. Let them go I say. Good riddance to spongers. They will be turned away by Europe as they offer nothing financially. Leeches.
We have more to offer than you realise. Wales is the 5th largest electric producer in the world. We also have water and other natural resources that England has been exploiting for years, think what happened in the recent past with our coal industry. Welsh miners being paid a pittance to damage their life expectancy and cost to the locals when all profits went to England (NCB). I live near where the aberfan disaster happened - I've seen it first hand. Our communities continue to suffer from Westminsters decisions who do not have the welsh peoples best interests at heart. Same for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As for calling us all 'spongers' I think your gonna be feeling very foolish if we all join the EU without England.
They wonât take you, they couldnât afford to carry your financial burden. Power and coal etc wonât generate enough to run a nation. They donât breed you very economically savy in Wales.
What you mean it won't generate enough to run a nation. Wales in the 5th largest energy (electricity) producer in the world. We generate approx double of what we consume.
Wales is the 5th in the world. It uses approx half of what it produces. Whilst put in with the rest of the UK the figure dilutes as England (for example) uses far more than it produces. Alot of wales electricity is used by England, so is the water from our reservoirs.
Ok, thank you for the link but that doesn't back you up.
The claim it makes is that Wales is the fifth largest exporter, not the fifth largest producer.
However, the figure of around 15Twh exported shows it not to be even close to the fifth largest exporter. Could they have meant per capita maybe?
So by your what your saying if it was based on total, not excess, wales would be higher on the list?
My mother only makes excellent cakes because I bought the ingredients đ. Wales generates so much electricity due to the landscape. We have alot of mountains that are perfect for wind turbines. Wales has lots of natural resources which have been exploited by our neighbouring country for years (eg iron, coal, slate).
What always confuses me though is although we are one of the world's top exporters of electricity, we pay on average more for our electricity and standing charges than England. Some of us in wales pay higher charges than London!!!
Lets not decend to that level. Exactly what external powers want. The UK is stronger untied - including England. Anyone who argued for EU cannot seriously argue against the UK.
We have shared history, culture and ideals. There are also differences, which should be celebrated. But the UK together achieved much and can go onto archive more, together. Well worth the money invested.
Yet theyâre not though are they. You swearing to try to emphasise your point makes you look stupid. England is the largest bet utiliser of debt in the UK as the largest population.
Everything youâve posted in this thread is moronic, Scotland receive significantly more funding from Westminster than they contribute in tax revenue, this is an undeniable fact, Scotland is a net recipient from the United Kingdom, not a net contributor.
Because the UK government holds the power to let them be independent and the UK debt is also debt from money spent on Wales, Scotland and NI. If they're not going to take on their share of money spent on them then why would they be permitted to become independent? That's a debt of ÂŁ268 billion for Scotland right out the door.
Not just that, even if Scotland refused the debt and just left, what country would ever lend money to a country that effectively defaults.
Scotland would make Zimbabwe seem investable. The morons on this sub who seem to believe that Scotland's can walkaway without 8% of the UK national debt are just high on paint.
Countries don't routinely borrow from other countries, it's not what happens. Countries issue money for use by the population in it. That is debt because money is an IOU, literally the most basic form of debt.
Scotland certainly cannot keep this debt share as an independent country even if it wanted to. It would have to issue enough of its own currency to replace all of England's money in Scotland, for England's money will be of no use to people living and working in Scotland.
This process is actually a relatively trivial one as the government simply needs to issue enough of the new currency to replace all of the currently in circulation English pounds at an agreed exchange rate.
So if Scotland is only responsible for 8% of the national debt, is the money being shared equally? Shouldn't that figure be higher? The fact you say it's not shows that they are not getting their fair share being part of the UK. Same for Wales and N. Ireland
Like the other guy said Scotland is around 8% of the UK population so the easy way of figuring their debt liability is just finding out what 8% of the national debt would be.
There's actually a bit more to it though and that would be including the Barnett formula, since Scotland gets roughly 20% more tax spent there per capita than the rest of the UK. If Scotland managed to get on the legal path to independence I bet you there will a lot of bargaining over the Barnett formula vs raw population percentage as that be another roughly 1.6% of national debt Scotland would be taking with it. The entire process would be extremely complex.
Yes I understand what your saying. It would be very complicated. Would they not have to also take into consideration what part of the debt would be attributed to Scotland rather than it just going off population alone?
Eg if the uk debt was ÂŁ100 but ÂŁ80 of that was spent on soley English projects, eg such as train lines, would it be right to still attribute 8% of that debt to Scotland? And vice versa if eg 80% of that debt was spent on Scottish projects? Im assuming it would be very hard to get an accurate figure no matter what
You could make those arguments yes, but there's tons of multi-beneficiary spending going on too. Like the armed forces for example. It's not going to be clear cut which money was spent where, the fairest options are by population or by public spending distribution.
The 8% figure is calculated based on population percentage, it has no bearing on spending or historical uses for the debt that was accrued. It's the fairest way to do it.
Debt in this context is not like Scotland owes England or the UK (which is really just England writ large), it is the sum of all UK debts in Scotland which includes all the money in circulation in Scotland.
It's a shame that we only have one word for debt because there's a big difference between personal debt such as a credit card balance or mortgage and between money in and of itself which is all called debt, even though it has an entirely different nature to credit card debt.
Lol and you think that England could stop those nations from going independent if they so chose?
That's saying you don't think people have a right to self determination.
you think that England could stop those nations from going independent if they so chose?
Depends on what you mean by that. Wales and Scotland do not have the legal authority to make that call. Their devolved powers do not include the ability to unilaterally declare independence, and the only exception to that is Northern Ireland due to the Good Friday agreement.
Now if you're actually saying that England couldn't physically stop these nations from becoming independent I think you should seriously look at the population differences between the nations of the UK.
âCherry pickingâ real statistics. Then declaring others are flawed. Hilarious. England and its people know full well they depend on Wales and Scotland for their wealth. Hence why you are all on here bleating away against the breakup of the UK and not promoting it.
Please enlighten us, what wealth do Scotland and Wales generate for England? Absolutely every statistic out there shows both nations are heavily subsidised.
I genuinely couldn't care less if the UK broke up and your argument about all being on here... What are you doing here?
I mean you can just Google spending per capita for each nation and realise you're actually wrong. England is the worst receiver of public funds, and most of what England gets is mainly sent to London. The people being robbed here isn't the Scottish.
Because if they refused, most of the global finance agencies that manage national borrowing would see it as a default (historical precedent) and then assign them a "junk" credit rating.
It would actually be better for them in the long run to accept a portion voluntarily, which would allow them to borrow to fund new policies.
England â UK
UK = England, Scotland, Wales + Northern Ireland
The UK government happens to be based in Westminster, but England is not the UK. If you think any of these countries can leave the union without taking their share of the debt, youâre living on another planet.
5
u/Glum_Judgment6232 Sep 14 '26
Yep...And this would be like Brexit XXL on steroids