gp_

Tony Blair avoided talking about his Christian faith. I know plenty of Muslims who work in banks or are otherwise involved in charging interest. They (like most Jews and Christians) take religious injunctions against usury as not applying to modern banking at non-exploitative rates.

You are rather proving yourself short termist. Are you saying no other party can win elections for the next 30 years? Or that the conservative party's policies will not change in that time (they have changed at least 3 times in the last 50 years) in that time to something you like better? There is evidence of anti-English sentiment in this thread!

The fear of what, exactly? My main fear is that when independence proves to be an economic disaster the Scottish nationalists will scapegoat Britain causing a hostility and division. Brexit did not require the delusion, myth making or blaming that Scottish nationalism seems to require. There was real discussion about the economic consequences and how they could be dealt with. Whereas when presented with questions about how to deal with the difficult issues the Scottish Nationalist response is to ignore them (this thread is a good example).

Where territorial boundaries will lie is a matter for negotiation. Scottish Nationalists are like all other nationalists. Not a surprise. Oil is worthless? Tell that to the Saudis or the Russians! It was because western Europe reduced oil and gas production that Russia is in such a good position.

Surely you mean, once they rejoin the EU? There would be no problem having a customs union with the Britain until then.

If they are, why are they not already doing that in the EU?

Numbers to back that up including a share of the cost of things that are paid for at the UK level on an appropriate basis (e.g. defence estimate that takes into account the cost of defending Scottish waters and airspace). All the other extra costs I listed but which you seem not to want to discuss. As for GDP, Scotland is middle of the range compared with English regions, and it is something that changes over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GRP_per_capita Same with incomes: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8456/

You live in England? Which citizenship will you choose after independence?

The cash cow? That is just delusional. There is no doubt that the rest of the UK net subsidises Scotland. It is based on very selective counting of what is included. It is not a lead for independence, it is a lead for pro independence parties, heavily spun, and buys into the "England wants to force Scotland to stay in the union" conspiracy theory. The SNP had a majority at the time of the last referendum. What about determining whether the people of England and Wales want to remain in a union with Scotland? Is that also not essential? What about regions of Scotland that want to remain in the UK, or become independent of Scotland? Should they not be given that option? I would personally prefer Scotland to remain in the UK, but I would rather they left than keep using the threat of independence to dictate terms or keep dithering (the uncertainty does no one good). I also think we should give NI to the Irish Republic for similar reasons.

Absolutely not true all nations desire to be independent. Scotland itself voted against it last time! The aim of the EU is to create a new nation by combining the old, and while the UK left there are quite a lot of nations that are or, or want to be, part of that. Lots of US states chose not to be independent nations. Scotland has a long history, but not as a nation state. For the last 300 years it has been part of the union. Probably more than half the time the modern concept of a nation state has existed. 300 years before the union where people's primary loyalty was to their lord, not the nation. Of course Scottish nationalists (by which I mean people who support leaving the union, not those who vote for one party that supports this - nationalists vote the Alba party, or the Greens, non nationalists might vote SNP to support other policies, etc.) try to pretend otherwise, but that is why there were Scots on both sides of the "First war of Independence". The history of Robert the Bruce's family (Norman nobility) is a good case of how things worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bruce . His father fought for Edward I, but that is just one factoid.

That is part of the problem, but I do not think its the whole story as prices have risen in all regions. The article claims there is an excess housing in every region and that the percentage excess in London has more than doubled between 2011 and and 2021.

Yes, but a lot of Scots Nats seem to be "never kissed a Tory" types. The same was true with regard to Brexit, but it still shifted from 75% remain in 1975 to 52% leave in 2016. So "independent" means leaving one union to join another? Scottish Nationalism is very short termist and ridiculously optimistic. I have never heard a reasonable explanation of how they would deal any of the big issues in a way that would actually be of benefit.

You could take/retain British citizenship and stay here. In fact, depending on the criteria decided on and your exact Scottish background you may not even qualify for Scottish citizenship (you probably will at least have a choice of which to choose, but nothing is guaranteed).

Why are prices so much higher now than then? That is despite a less than smooth ride for the economy over the last 20 years. No, people are added to the population when they are born or move to the country, and subtracted when they die or leave. People who do not buy a house still need somewhere to live, so comparing the number of dwellings to population is correct. Exactly. There is enough housing, but it is being deliberately left unused. Tax people 2% of the value of a house annually that is not occupied for at least 90 days each year and you would soon fix that problem.

An actually interesting article about housing, not just in the media, but in the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/30/no-housing-shortage-britain/ I have not fact checked it, but I did look at some numbers and the growth in the number of dwellings matches the growth in population from 2001 to 2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/datasets/dwellingstockbytenureuk/2020/ukdwellingdataset2020.xlsx I do think it is definitely true that house prices are driven by things like interests rates rather than supply and demand.

Some of us have little choice. That describes all my British friends.

Slow progress over centuries results in massive improvements. The latter is arguable and the evidence has shifted to it being wrong. There is evidence that people had better nutrition after the fall of the Roman Empire (no imperial taxes), and life improved for slaves in the late Roman Empire and post Roman states. For example in Anglo Saxon England it was a crime for a slave owner to rape a slave and the victim would be freed, where as it was just exercising property rights in the Roman Empire (even if the victim was a child). The first serious condemnations of slavery came at the same time, and slaves populations gradually became serfs (a huge improvement). Although this was partly down to religious motives, the abolition of slave tends to indicate a more affluent society that can do without forcing people to work for nothing. In any case the general movement has definitely been upwards. If there was a reversal with the fall of the Western Roman Empire (the eastern carried on until the 15th Century, remember) Western Europe had certainly recovered from it within a few centuries at the most. I also think there is reason to think the rate might be slowing. We have seen the first drop in big new inventions in the last few decades. Some the seventies, most of our apparent progress has been making what we could already make smaller and cheaper. There have been very few big new things like the transistor, jet engine, antibiotics etc. What is a reasonable level of comfort? It is relative and a perception. If you asked an average Ugandan and a rich American what they consider to be living in "reasonable comfort" you would get very different answers. Per capita GDP estimates for medieval England are higher for many poor countries today, and their standard of living was substantially higher than that of people in ancient times. Its quite probable that if you could take someone from a really poor country today and give them an equivalent position in medieval Europe they would find they were living in reasonable comfort. Although the rate was slower in the past, progress was substitutional over time. I have definitely given up income for more leisure and time with my kids and it is worth it. I also eat mostly real home cooked food. What if you want an 80s standard of income? What if you want and 80s affluent standard of living (foreign holidays, TV, nice car)? I do not think you could do it (with hourly earnings the same relative to average) because if you include equally good housing that would take far too big a slice. If you compromise on the housing, probably - and better because things like electronics and telecoms have improved so much in terms of what you get for your money. A ZX80 cost £100, you can get far better (more powerful by many orders of magnitude) computers for less nowadays (a cheap phone, a Raspberry PI, etc).

Her name is a bit incongruous in the circumstances True, but people do think like this. I used to live in Covent Garden in my twenties. Even though I had a good job, I could definitely not afford more than the the studio flat I rented in that sort of area. I mentioned during a conversation that I thought it was unfair that my taxes were being used to give people cheap housing in the area (council housing flats nearby on the same road) that I could not afford, and the two people I was talking to (including a former Daily Mail journalist!) accused me of not wanting poor people to live anywhere near London. They also said people needed to live in central London to get to work so they had to be provided with housing there.

To avoid passport checks at the border in Ireland while also avoiding passport checks between NI and mainland Britain. Given NI unionists have mostly Scottish ancestry and cultural links with Scotland (Ulster Scots) there is a good case that Britain without Scotland should not retain NI. I disagree. No one in the NW speaks "Scots". Admittedly "Scots" being a separate language is a nationalist myth - a thousand years ago Scottish English was very similar to Middle English, and Scottish English now is very similar to modern English. Whereas English and languages related to it (Dutch and German) have diverged over time. That brings us to another difference between the NW and Scotland. The history of the NW was not been romanticised. A lot of Scots look on wars with the English as a national struggle, imposing a modern mindset on a medieval culture where people's primary loyalty was personal to their feudal lords, not to their country. The "first war of independence" started as a war between rival claimants to the Scottish , and throne Robert the Bruce's father fought for Edward I against John Comyn (the other leading claimant).

We need the common travel area as long as NI is in the union. I agree with you a united Ireland is desirable - it is inevitable, so why extend the debate? I would rather Scotland stayed in the UK, but its better for Scotland to leave rather than keep being on the verge of leaving.

People have been saying we are there for decades. When did we start getting predictions that because people were so well off we would increase our leisure time instead of working more? They go back to at least the 90s.

I agree it is probable, but nothing is certain. It would also be a useful bargaining chip for Britain. Then there is a matter of who gets which citizenship.

The rate of increase has been faster since the industrial revolution, but its always tended to increase. Bronze age productivity was higher than neolithic, iron age higher than bronze age, medieval higher than classical, early modern higher than medieval.

Increasing productivity per person is the usual state of things. We call it "human history"

Very true, but everyone (even most people here who are presumably interested in the issue) believe the myth. A failure to understand that supply and demand are curves, not points.