[Gales]

(Original post by Cmca1)
We'll see.

Btw, if you're such an anti-unionist, why is the UK your location?

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Gales)
Btw, if you're such an anti-unionist, why is the UK your location?

I'm not anti-unionist. I respect unionists and want to engage in a debate with them about our future.

Why the UK? Because Scotland isn't independent yet.

I'm more reasonable than you think.

[Cyanohydrin]

(Original post by Gales)
Go for independence then, I certainly won't be moaning. However, I wouldn't expect Scotland to retain current standards of living.

At the end of the day. We aren't going to vote for independence and we will have to endure (by we, the vast majority of the Scottish people) this endless whining from nationalists for decades longer. Part of me wants to see independence just so these nationalists **** everything up and it will wipe the smug grins off their faces...especially the fat pie muncher Salmond.

(Original post by Cmca1)
I'm not anti-unionist. I respect unionists and want to engage in a debate with them about our future.

Why the UK? Because Scotland isn't independent yet.

I'm more reasonable than you think.

Are you Scottish, you go to Queens Belfast according to your profile???

[Cmca1]

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
At the end of the day. We aren't going to vote for independence and we will have to endure (by we, the vast majority of the Scottish people) this endless whining from nationalists for decades longer. Part of me wants to see independence just so these nationalists **** everything up and it will wipe the smug grins off their faces...especially the fat pie muncher Salmond.



Are you Scottish, you go to Queens Belfast according to your profile???

You don't think Scotland will vote for Independence, fair enough. Time will tell. You say the nationalists will **** (assuming f*ck) everything up, but the previous Labour government did a fine job of that from London and the Tories are failing to find a strong solution to the problem. So what is there to lose?

Read my all posts and take a wild guess. And yes, I go to Queen's.

[billydisco]

We need to get rid of Scotland so we can keep Labour out of Government!

[L i b]

(Original post by Cmca1)
14%....18%...that's two different figures I've heard reported...

So what? Have you even considered addressing my argument rather than making a rather pointless expansion on a fact which is raised within it? If I was factually inaccurate, that would be a fine reason to address that percentage, which of course I'm not.

The (shockingly obvious) reason that you've heard different figures reported is that it changes from financial year to financial year. In 2008-09, for example, the figure was 21%.

[L i b]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Firstly, independence, is about self determination.

No it is not. Scottish people self-determine as equal citizens of a democratic United Kingdom. Whether the UK Government permits a referendum on independence or not is utterly immaterial to that fact.

Secondly, "a nationalist rejecting a nationalist arguement"...If the only reason someone in England has for wanting to keep Scotland is because Scotland is British, it's not much of an argument.

I agree, which is why I reject Nationalism. When, however, I see a Nationalist rejecting another form of Nationalism based solely on identity grounds alone, I call it what it is: straightforward tribalism.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by L i b)
So what? Have you even considered addressing my argument rather than making a rather pointless expansion on a fact which is raised within it? If I was factually inaccurate, that would be a fine reason to address that percentage, which of course I'm not.

The (shockingly obvious) reason that you've heard different figures reported is that it changes from financial year to financial year. In 2008-09, for example, the figure was 21%.

I have addressed the same argument except where different figures were used previously on this forum.

Secondly, it comes as no surprise that oil revenues were the main component of the Scottish economy at a time of economic recession, as you've stated "In 2008-09...the figure was 21%." If the economy contracts and jobs and revenues are lost in other sectors, off course other existing components will become more crucial.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by L i b)
No it is not. Scottish people self-determine as equal citizens of a democratic United Kingdom. Whether the UK Government permits a referendum on independence or not is utterly immaterial to that fact.



I agree, which is why I reject Nationalism. When, however, I see a Nationalist rejecting another form of Nationalism based solely on identity grounds alone, I call it what it is: straightforward tribalism.

Complete self-determination and independence. There's nothing wrong with pursuing independence. Plen

And you left out part of my response where you quoted me. I have no problem with whatever nationality people decide to have, either within the UK or independent of the UK, so I wouldn't say it's tribalism. It's an argument based solely on wishing to have all decisions made closer to home as opposed to London policies governing each and every corner of the UK.

[L i b]

(Original post by Cmca1)
I have addressed the same argument except where different figures were used previously on this forum.

Secondly, it comes as no surprise that oil revenues were the main component of the Scottish economy at a time of economic recession, as you've stated "In 2008-09...the figure was 21%." If the economy contracts and jobs and revenues are lost in other sectors, off course other existing components will become more crucial.

It was 17% in 2005-06, before the current financial downturn. So that puts that idea to bed.

(Original post by Cmca1)
Complete self-determination and independence. There's nothing wrong with pursuing independence. Plen

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with self-determination. Scottish people already completely self-determine within the United Kingdom. And I say there is plenty wrong with pursuing Scottish independence on nationalistic grounds - I think it is a backward, illiberal, collectivist and outdated ideology which seeks to divide people on the most base criteria.

And you left out part of my response where you quoted me. I have no problem with whatever nationality people decide to have, either within the UK or independent of the UK, so I wouldn't say it's tribalism.

So you don't care about whether the other tribe exists, as long as your one are seen to be the winners in some sort of headcount pissing contest?

It's an argument based solely on wishing to have all decisions made closer to home as opposed to London policies governing each and every corner of the UK.

No. Scotland is a completely arbitrary geographical constructed, thrown together by history. You cannot pretend that, independent of nationalism, there is any basis for considering it some sort of natural unit of government.

If you want localism, advocate it. The SNP are actually the most centralising political influence in Scottish politics because, shockingly, they are nationalists.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by L i b)
It was 17% in 2005-06, before the current financial downturn. So that puts that idea to bed.


Again, nothing whatsoever to do with self-determination. Scottish people already completely self-determine within the United Kingdom. And I say there is plenty wrong with pursuing Scottish independence on nationalistic grounds - I think it is a backward, illiberal, collectivist and outdated ideology which seeks to divide people on the most base criteria.


So you don't care about whether the other tribe exists, as long as your one are seen to be the winners in some sort of headcount pissing contest?


No. Scotland is a completely arbitrary geographical constructed, thrown together by history. You cannot pretend that, independent of nationalism, there is any basis for considering it some sort of natural unit of government.

If you want localism, advocate it. The SNP are actually the most centralising political influence in Scottish politics because, shockingly, they are nationalists.

Another figure plucked out of the air?

Hardly completely self-determine...Wales and NI don't fully self-determine their own policies and legislation either, apart from those within the competences of their respective devolved assemblies. The majority in those countries however have not elected a majority pro-independence party. But just because Scotland has done so, what makes that wrong? Why is it bad that Scotland at the moment wants to have a sovereign parliament in Edinburgh with all the competences of the 26 other member states of the European Union? and to have the same status as a country as most other countries in the world? It's a completely legitimate aim and desire.

[L i b]

(Original post by Cmca1)
Another figure plucked out of the air?

No, all my figures are National Statistics. That you have to resort of pretending that I'm lying really ought to tell you something about the soundness of your own position.

Hardly completely self-determine...Wales and NI don't fully self-determine their own policies and legislation either, apart from those within the competences of their respective devolved assemblies.

Places cannot self-determine, as has been covered. People can. As I've said, people from Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland self-determine as equal citizens within the UK. This is what happened before devolution, this is what happens under any model of devolution, this happens even if they do not get granted an 'independence' referendum.

So yes, Welsh people and Northern Irish people do completely self-determine.

The majority in those countries however have not elected a majority pro-independence party. But just because Scotland has done so, what makes that wrong? Why is it bad that Scotland at the moment wants to have a sovereign parliament in Edinburgh with all the competences of the 26 other member states of the European Union? and to have the same status as a country as most other countries in the world? It's a completely legitimate aim and desire.

I disagree entirely. The 26 other member-states of the European Union are working together to build a closer Europe and, largely, a closer world. They are not separating themselves up on the basis of identity politics. One cannot change the political inheritance that has been bestowed on one's state, but they certainly can change what they choose to do with that inheritance.

I'm for building closer bonds, not for division.

[Cmca1]

(Original post by L i b)
No, all my figures are National Statistics. That you have to resort of pretending that I'm lying really ought to tell you something about the soundness of your own position.

Places cannot self-determine, as has been covered. People can. As I've said, people from Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland self-determine as equal citizens within the UK. This is what happened before devolution, this is what happens under any model of devolution, this happens even if they do not get granted an 'independence' referendum.

So yes, Welsh people and Northern Irish people do completely self-determine.

I disagree entirely. The 26 other member-states of the European Union are working together to build a closer Europe and, largely, a closer world. They are not separating themselves up on the basis of identity politics. One cannot change the political inheritance that has been bestowed on one's state, but they certainly can change what they choose to do with that inheritance.

I'm for building closer bonds, not for division.

When I use statistics I try to back them up with evidence or a link perhaps?

The people of Scotland could self-determine...govern themselves independently of Westminster. Equally Wales and Northern Ireland could do the same if they wanted to.

They are indeed building a closer Union and I agree with that. Scotland, Wales and NI however, who have there own legislatures are bound by Westminster who are bound through the ECA 1972 by the European Union. So their own local parliaments and assemblies are a second national tier of government which is third when the EU is considered.

So Scotland who could easily survive and prosper as a nation is represented by a sovereign parliament with mainly English MPs and a European Union where they are under-represented. If Scotland was independent, they would have more MEPs. Currently Scotland elects 6, yet smaller countries such as the Repubic of Ireland elect 12, Malta elects 6?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...071001IPR11035

[Cmca1]

Furthermore, I don't see why the nations UK couldn't have close bonds as independent nations which would be members of the EU.

[L i b]

(Original post by Cmca1)
When I use statistics I try to back them up with evidence or a link perhaps?

They are from GERS - Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland.

The people of Scotland could self-determine...govern themselves independently of Westminster. Equally Wales and Northern Ireland could do the same if they wanted to.

The people of Scotland already self-determine.

They are indeed building a closer Union and I agree with that. Scotland, Wales and NI however, who have there own legislatures are bound by Westminster who are bound through the ECA 1972 by the European Union. So their own local parliaments and assemblies are a second national tier of government which is third when the EU is considered.

So Scotland who could easily survive and prosper as a nation is represented by a sovereign parliament with mainly English MPs

An English MP can't represent you? I may be misinterpreting this, but that sounds disturbingly close to out-and-out racism. You can be represented by a white person, a black person, a woman, a man, a straight person, a homosexual. None of these things matter and - ultimately - there will always be some majority characteristic of your representatives that you don't share in.

and a European Union where they are under-represented. If Scotland was independent, they would have more MEPs. Currently Scotland elects 6, yet smaller countries such as the Repubic of Ireland elect 12, Malta elects 6?

Yes, precisely - which I have already noted and said I object to, and find it difficult to see why anyone would justify that situation. As to an independent Scotland, it is entirely wrong to say Scotland 'would have' more MEPs. That is decided solely on negotiation with an accession state and subject to the agreement of all other member-states. There is no automatic entitlement.

Furthermore, I don't see why the nations UK couldn't have close bonds as independent nations which would be members of the EU.

If you think that Scotland and the rest of the UK will be as closely bonded politically after independence then it's a bit odd that you're arguing in favour of it...

[Kaiser MacCleg]

(Original post by Gales)
Go for independence then, I certainly won't be moaning. However, I wouldn't expect Scotland to retain current standards of living.

On what basis?

[Cmca1]

(Original post by L i b)
They are from GERS - Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland.


The people of Scotland already self-determine.


An English MP can't represent you? I may be misinterpreting this, but that sounds disturbingly close to out-and-out racism. You can be represented by a white person, a black person, a woman, a man, a straight person, a homosexual. None of these things matter and - ultimately - there will always be some majority characteristic of your representatives that you don't share in.

Yes, precisely - which I have already noted and said I object to, and find it difficult to see why anyone would justify that situation. As to an independent Scotland, it is entirely wrong to say Scotland 'would have' more MEPs. That is decided solely on negotiation with an accession state and subject to the agreement of all other member-states. There is no automatic entitlement.



If you think that Scotland and the rest of the UK will be as closely bonded politically after independence then it's a bit odd that you're arguing in favour of it...

At what point was I racist? An English MP representing an English constituency, will put the interests of his constituency first, England second and the UK third. Equally an MP from Scotland will put the interests of their constituency first, Scotland (which already has policy divergence on devolved areas) and the UK 3rd etc etc. That's not racist. Where does race come into it and how did you manage to find that racist?

Since when did "a white person, a black person, a woman, a man, a straight person, a homosexual" all become different races? And where did I mention anything racist? Sheer ignorance of the fact that I have already said I do not care for the nationalities that people decide to pick whether in the UK or outside the UK.

Secondly, the number of MEPs in Europe is not done proportionally. Consideration is given to the smaller states to prevent the dominance of 3 or 4 countries in the EU and to ensure all areas can be represented. So Scotland would get more MEPs, do you think they'd get the same number as Malta? 6 again?

I never said closely bonded politically. The closest political bonds they would have would be in the EU and British Isles groups such as the British-Irish Council. But they would still have very closely linked economies and within the EU, citizens would have entitlement to free movement, etc.

[Craig_D]

Here's a thought (which no doubt other people have already said); if Scotland becomes independent, unless Salmond introduces tuition fees for Scottish students he'll have no choice but to allow English students to study in Scotland for free.

[Cyanohydrin]

(Original post by Craig_D)
Here's a thought (which no doubt other people have already said); if Scotland becomes independent, unless Salmond introduces tuition fees for Scottish students he'll have no choice but to allow English students to study in Scotland for free.

And Welsh and Northern Irish!

The current fees structure is not sustainable anyway, although Salmond will keep them in place until 2014...

[Craig_D]

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
And Welsh and Northern Irish!

The current fees structure is not sustainable anyway, although Salmond will keep them in place until 2014...

Yes indeed, silly of me to omit the good people of Wales and N. Ireland; it does however seem to be the Scotland vs England issue which dominates the media.

It could be sustainable if they stay in the union, though? That creates an interesting problem, I wonder what would happen if the unionists used the fact that a vote for independence is a vote for fees in their propaganda campaign?

It's ok for me. I get to stay neutral.