[Cyanohydrin]

(Original post by TCD23)
My own personal views are the following:

I think that the status quo is the most likely of all options

Absolute rubbish. The most popular option by far is "devo max" with every poll giving that a majority.

they get more spent on you per head then any other nation in the UK).

This is not true. And this sort of racist rubbish is just arrogant and misinformed lies.

If you actually look at the per capita figures, then London is by far the most subsidised region (and this doesn't even take into account "hidden subsidies like the fact all the organs of state are based their and all the jobs that creates, or things like the Olympics). London is given the greatest subsidy of them all: being the UK's capital city. In turn, major businesses want to be close to the centre of political power and locate there. There is nothing inherent about London that makes it economically successful - just the fact that the rest of the country has consented to it being where all the functions of state and power are based.

The GERS figures published by National Statistics demonstrate that Scotland has had more revenue raised in it than government expenditure on it for about five years. In the last, it was in deficit - but less of a deficit than the UK as a whole, proportionately. So if anything, Scotland is subsidising much of England!

I don't even mind subsidising parts of England! That's how nations function.

[TCD23]

(Original post by Tycho)
What are you talking about? The SNP didn't "get in" in 2010, they were already in. They were re-elected with an overall majority. An overall majority within a system which is DESIGNED to prevent an overall majority. That's epic in anyone's book. The reasons for it are more varied and complex than you suggest. Firstly, Labour's campaign was laughably nonsensical, if you could even refer to it as a campaign. Secondly, the Liberal Democrat vote literally collapsed. Thirdly, and importantly, the SNP haven't done a bad job. They aren't perfect, but they aren't bad either. They have protected the people of Scotland against the devestating cutbacks of the Tories in London. They have protected Scotland where Labour would have failed - big time.

So which has its priorities right? The London government, which stores nuclear warheads on Scottish soil, at the cost of billions in maintenance, so that it can prance around on the international political stage and pretend it's still a big shot in the world? A London government which sends our armed forces to fight halfway around the world with a complete disregard for due procedure and international law? Or a Scottish government, which provides free education to many (the same free education that Brown and co enjoyed - and then subsequently demolished)? A Scottish government which prioritises healthcare in various forms (free prescriptions etc), instead of harbouring nuclear warheads that we neither need, nor have the independent power to use?

I think you'll find that the billions saved from withdrawing from such foreign conflicts and the removal of a nuclear arsenal will have a dramatically positive effect on our public services. Scotland receives more from the treasury because Scotland inputs more to the treasury. In fact, Scotland inputs more than it gets in return, on average. Do the maths. Independence is a no-brainer.

First of all no need to be rude.

Secondly you are dead wrong mate. First of all I said THE SNP ARE DOING A GREAT JOB LOOKING AFTER SCOTTISH PEOPLE, loud enough for you, you would be crazy not to vote them. Thirdly, the vote collapsed and as you said so did Labours, tottally different from why SNP got in mate. Fourthly, cutting down completely the military budget would be right but keep the nukes, we shouldn't be getting involved at all and we need to reduce our belated military budget ASAP, so we're agreed there. In fact idiot we agree on almost very point apart from one.

Your absolute Bull**** on the economy of the UK. Scotland do not put in more what utter ****e, because South East England does by miles. Why isn't English spending higher then? You are completely wrong, please show me an ACTUAL REPORT which shows that Scotland puts more in then England.

Fact of the matter is England puts the most in and gets the least out.

[Tycho]

(Original post by navarre)
The SNP are a laughable shambles of a party, and they're deliberately holding off a referendum because they know that if the held it tomorrow, they would be outright rejected.

I think we need a fairer Union. Many in England are sick of having to prop up schemes by the SNP such as free tuition or prescriptions whilst we have high tuition costs.

Yes, the Union is a good thing, and yes, it has made England and especially Scotland far better places. But we need a shake up.

The only thing laughable about politics at the moment is the completely dysfunctional and tired government in Westminster, trying to argue for a union which is no longer viable. How hypocritical of you to suggest the SNP's timing is "slow", when you consider that other parties in Scotland have rejected the right of the Scottish people to decide their future in a referendum for many years. The subject of a referendum needs to be fully debated before it can be voted upon. It's absolutely the most logical way to do things. Your approach is akin to sending the jury out before any evidence has been heard. Incidentally, the reason the pro-unionist parties want to hold the referendum sooner is exactly because they fear the argument for independence will be stronger than their counter argument. Why would they care otherwise? Your argument doesn't stack up.

England aren't propping up anything in Scotland. You are misguided by the nonsensical media propaganda that is polluting your naive mind. The SNP government has its priorities right, your one does not. This is the only reason the Scottish people are enjoying things that you are not. Instead of attacking the SNP in some sort of malicious form of envy, take it out on your own politicians in Westminster - if they'll listen.

Good luck with that.

[Cyanohydrin]

(Original post by navarre)
The SNP are a laughable shambles of a party, and they're deliberately holding off a referendum because they know that if the held it tomorrow, they would be outright rejected.

I think we need a fairer Union. Many in England are sick of having to prop up schemes by the SNP such as free tuition or prescriptions whilst we have high tuition costs.

Yes, the Union is a good thing, and yes, it has made England and especially Scotland far better places. But we need a shake up.

Well surely this is the whole point of devolution?

Also, it is up to the English people to demand regional governments that could grant these subsidies, or indeed elect people to Westminster if you want free prescriptions and so on.

[TCD23]

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
Absolute rubbish. The most popular option by far is "devo max" with every poll giving that a majority.



This is not true. And this sort of racist rubbish is just arrogant and misinformed lies.

If you actually look at the per capita figures, then London is by far the most subsidised region (and this doesn't even take into account "hidden subsidies like the fact all the organs of state are based their and all the jobs that creates, or things like the Olympics). London is given the greatest subsidy of them all: being the UK's capital city. In turn, major businesses want to be close to the centre of political power and locate there. There is nothing inherent about London that makes it economically successful - just the fact that the rest of the country has consented to it being where all the functions of state and power are based.

The GERS figures published by National Statistics demonstrate that Scotland has had more revenue raised in it than government expenditure on it for about five years. In the last, it was in deficit - but less of a deficit than the UK as a whole, proportionately. So if anything, Scotland is subsidising much of England!

I'm lol'ng my head off here mate. Every poll shows that the ENGLISH support it more then the Scots. Have a lookie at the following image.



As for your second point that is so wrong I'm wondering if your trolling. That must be why the ENGLISH taxpayer and banks had to bail out your banks right? So basically we saved you even having a bank.

As for calling me racist I think the viewpoint that bad old England is keeping the average Scotsman down is a tad more racist. Oh and my Grandad was Scottish himself so I guess I must hate him now.

[Tycho]

(Original post by TCD23)
First of all no need to be rude.

Secondly you are dead wrong mate. First of all I said THE SNP ARE DOING A GREAT JOB LOOKING AFTER SCOTTISH PEOPLE, loud enough for you, you would be crazy not to vote them. Thirdly, the vote collapsed and as you said so did Labours, tottally different from why SNP got in mate. Fourthly, cutting down completely the military budget would be right but keep the nukes, we shouldn't be getting involved at all and we need to reduce our belated military budget ASAP, so we're agreed there. In fact idiot we agree on almost very point apart from one.

Your absolute Bull**** on the economy of the UK. Scotland do not put in more what utter ****e, because South East England does by miles. Why isn't English spending higher then? You are completely wrong, please show me an ACTUAL REPORT which shows that Scotland puts more in then England.

Fact of the matter is England puts the most in and gets the least out.

I wasn't being rude, I was being matter-of-fact. People really should think subjectively and challenge what they read in papers.

You contradict yourself. How can you "cut down completely" the military budget but "keep nukes". Scotland doesn't need nuclear weapons. Perhaps the English want to keep them, and that's entirely a decision for the English people, but Scotland doesn't need them. They are expensive, useless weapons that input nothing positive into a society. The vast majority of countries in the world are not nuclear powers, so why does Scotland need to be? I compare keeping nuclear weapons to the awful habit of smoking: expensive, unhealthy, pointless.

Why do Scotland input more? Simple really. The tax system is decided by the government in Westminster. It's the same across the board, and hence ordinary taxes raised in Scotland are at least the same as England - by percentage of population (but likely more due to the fact that Scotland has lower unemployment). Coupled with the huge oil reserves under the North sea (which - be under no illusions - ARE Scottish waters, despite what your political elite might have you believe), presents a picture of prosperity for Scotland. These oil reserves are worth billions; and billions; and billions. The tax received by the treasury on these oil reserves - and any future reserves - is literally astronomical. Why on Earth would your London government be so vehemently pro-union (pro Scotland being in the union), if they saw Scotland as a financial liability. Think about that for a minute.

[Cyanohydrin]

(Original post by TCD23)
Your absolute Bull**** on the economy of the UK. Scotland do not put in more what utter ****e, because South East England does by miles. Why isn't English spending higher then? You are completely wrong, please show me an ACTUAL REPORT which shows that Scotland puts more in then England.

Firstly, please calm down for a moment.

Regards this business with subsidies. It is indeed true that the per capita public spending in Scotland was £1,567 higher than then that in England, and £1,319 higher than the UK average (using the data from the 2007/2008 financial year).

However, this is not money coming from England. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax - which is roughly equivalent to about £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £527 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services (which are located in London - benefiting the South East of England of course).

I would also like to remind you that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's which is 9.8%, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would be much less than the UK - which has the 4th largest in the world, despite being the 7th largest economy in a pathetic attempt for it's political class to play superpower.

[andrew_don]

From a Scottish perspective, currently, there is not a chance Scotland would vote to leave the Union.
However, Alex Salmond, whether you like him or not, is a very effective politician and he proved that by gaining a majority in the last Scottish Parliament election, 2010.
The leaders of the opposition in Scotland - being Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie are weak politicians and the polls show it.
David Cameron must be careful, aswell, the Scots don't like him and with one Tory MP - if he truly believes Scotland should stay in the Union - he needs to give the Labour Party - people like Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling - who are of reasonable popularity in Scotland the chance to have a large say in the 'No' campaign. If the campaign is run by Cameron, Osborne and the Tories from Westminster, the people of Scotland generally will not like that and Salmond will turn it into a SNP v Tory/Salmond v Cameron affair, which would bolster the 'Yes' vote in my opinion.
Currently, there is around 30% of hardcore Scottish Nationalists who want independence and around 45-50% of hardcore Unionists who will want to retain the Union. It is becoming a case of how much support each side can yield from the 'undecided' vote.
By talking to voters in Scotland just now, I can assure everyone from both sides the contest has merely just begun and I think it will be a close vote in 2014.
My prediction is Scotland will vote 'No' by around a 5% margin.
If Devo Max is on the ballot, that will definitely get through, but would be a big hit to the 'Yes' campaign as Salmond would loose the supporters who are saying 'If Devo Max isnt on the ballot, I will vote Yes'
It should be a good contest to watch unfold

[navarre]

(Original post by Tycho)

England aren't propping up anything in Scotland. You are misguided by the nonsensical media propaganda that is polluting your naive mind. The SNP government has its priorities right, your one does not. This is the only reason the Scottish people are enjoying things that you are not. Instead of attacking the SNP in some sort of malicious form of envy, take it out on your own politicians in Westminster - if they'll listen.

Good luck with that.

Scotland can't hold it's own economically, at least not with the social schemes it has in place. Stop kidding yourself. It's English money propping up Scottish schemes. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's unfair and unequal.
The SNP are a bunch of idiots- I'm not saying the politicians at Westminster aren't, but the SNP aren't exempt. Their only policy is independence, the same thing they've been droning on about for some time now, and when they finally have a chance, they delay the referendum in a desperate effort to muster up at least something close to a majority by 2014.

[Cyanohydrin]

I think it will be a close vote as well.

Look at Quebec/Canada. 49% to leave and 51% to stay!

[Tycho]

(Original post by TCD23)
As for your second point that is so wrong I'm wondering if your trolling. That must be why the ENGLISH taxpayer and banks had to bail out your banks right? So basically we saved you even having a bank.

The RBS is a Scottish bank by name only. The majority of the board within the bank are English, as are the majority of their assets and liabilities. Look at the shareholdings of the bank before you start to throw this argument around.

Seriously, challenge what you read - you're clearly not.

[Tycho]

(Original post by andrew_don)
...he needs to give the Labour Party - people like Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling - who are of reasonable popularity...

Very funny. I had thought this was a joke post and this line really did confirm it so I didn't read further. Thanks for giving me a laugh.

[Azog 150]

(Original post by navarre)
Scotland can't hold it's own economically, at least not with the social schemes it has in place. Stop kidding yourself. It's English money propping up Scottish schemes. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's unfair and unequal.
The SNP are a bunch of idiots- I'm not saying the politicians at Westminster aren't, but the SNP aren't exempt. Their only policy is independence, the same thing they've been droning on about for some time now, and when they finally have a chance, they delay the referendum in a desperate effort to muster up at least something close to a majority by 2014.

My main gripe with the SNP is the way in which it has supported the complete centralisation of political power in Scotland in Holyrood at the expense of localisation. That's the sort of thing that will lead to an independent Scotland suffering the same gripes from the Scottish fringes (Such as the Orkneys and Shetlands) that the United Kingdom currently does from Scotland. Why should the people of the Highlands or Scottish islands give up all their power to people sitting in Edinburgh? Strong feelings of localism (present throughout the British Isles) and centralisation do not mix.

[TCD23]

(Original post by Tycho)
I wasn't being rude, I was being matter-of-fact. People really should think subjectively and challenge what they read in papers.

You contradict yourself. How can you "cut down completely" the military budget but "keep nukes". Scotland doesn't need nuclear weapons. Perhaps the English want to keep them, and that's entirely a decision for the English people, but Scotland doesn't need them. They are expensive, useless weapons that input nothing positive into a society. The vast majority of countries in the world are not nuclear powers, so why does Scotland need to be? I compare keeping nuclear weapons to the awful habit of smoking: expensive, unhealthy, pointless.

Why do Scotland input more? Simple really. The tax system is decided by the government in Westminster. It's the same across the board, and hence ordinary taxes raised in Scotland are at least the same as England - by percentage of population (but likely more due to the fact that Scotland has lower unemployment). Coupled with the huge oil reserves under the North sea (which - be under no illusions - ARE Scottish waters, despite what your political elite might have you believe. These oil reserves are worth billions; and billions; and billions. The tax received by the treasury on these oil reserves - and any future reserves - is literally astronomical. Why on Earth would your London government be so vehemently pro-union (pro Scotland being in the union), if they saw Scotland as a financial liability. Think about that for a minute.

Wrong again there mate. First of all you do not put more in, say what you like it's utter crap, I also see you fail to post any actual reports further confirming your speaking out of your arse.

And being anti-military, quite easy mate thanks. Severely reduce the size of our standing army, airforce and navy but keep the nukes. Simples

Would my London? Considering that only half of my family is from London and the other half is a mixture of Scottish and folks from Newcastle I have no idea what your talking about.

Oh and one more thing, Alex Salmond is rotten to the core as well. That must be why his party are doing cash for favors -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...nor-links.html

And cosying up to ol' Rupey Murdoch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rupert-murdoch

Oh and we want to keep you because our countries people actually tend to like each other. To be frank here mate, you obviously hate the English, so what you need to do is stop reading all of Alex Salmond's little speeches and think for yourself.

One more issue, the EU, so much for independence right? Alex wants to give up the Scottish Pound and any economic control over his own country to go rub up with the EU. How would you be any more independent again?

[TCD23]

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
Firstly, please calm down for a moment.

Regards this business with subsidies. It is indeed true that the per capita public spending in Scotland was £1,567 higher than then that in England, and £1,319 higher than the UK average (using the data from the 2007/2008 financial year).

However, this is not money coming from England. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax - which is roughly equivalent to about £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £527 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services (which are located in London - benefiting the South East of England of course).

I would also like to remind you that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's which is 9.8%, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would be much less than the UK - which has the 4th largest in the world, despite being the 7th largest economy in a pathetic attempt for it's political class to play superpower.

Your deficit is lower because you have less people mate. Also I would like to point out that London accounts for twenty percent of the GDP of the UK despite having a slightly larger population than Scotland. Do the math, it's London not Scotland subsidizing everyone.

[Tycho]

(Original post by navarre)
Scotland can't hold it's own economically, at least not with the social schemes it has in place. Stop kidding yourself. It's English money propping up Scottish schemes. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's unfair and unequal.
The SNP are a bunch of idiots- I'm not saying the politicians at Westminster aren't, but the SNP aren't exempt. Their only policy is independence, the same thing they've been droning on about for some time now, and when they finally have a chance, they delay the referendum in a desperate effort to muster up at least something close to a majority by 2014.

Precisely what "social schemes" do you refer to? There is no English money propping up Scotland, you're regurgitating pro-unionist propaganda. Scotland has a government which has its priorities in the right place, you do not. Do you seriously think that a London government (particularly a Tory one), would see more money going to Scotland than it was getting in return? The same Tories that absolutely decimated Scotland under Thatcher and co. Nonsense comes from your mouth like water over the falls of Niagra.

The SNP have a clear mandate to hold a referendum now. The time it has taken to get to this point has been long and depressing, so why not wait another couple of years to properly iron out all the issues? It's the unionists who are proclaiming all of this to be a very difficult thing to do, and yet they want to rush into the decision-making? It's the same nonsensical approach which - time and again - leads to poorly considered schemes that tend to leave some form of misery in their wake. No, the SNP are a party which cares about its people. They are considerate, maticulous, honest and successful. These are the facts.

[Entangled]

(Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
I propose a drinking game for every time the word 'oil' is mentioned in this thread.

Specifically shots of Brent crude. It's gonna be great.

[Tycho]

(Original post by TCD23)
Your deficit is lower because you have less people mate. Also I would like to point out that London accounts for twenty percent of the GDP of the UK despite having a slightly larger population than Scotland. Do the math, it's London not Scotland subsidizing everyone.

Do you know what a percentage is? It takes weighting into consideration, hence the "per" part. lol

[TCD23]

(Original post by Tycho)
Do you know what a percentage is? It takes weighting into consideration, hence the "per" part. lol

I see you have ignored Alex Salmond corruption. What's the matter, sad that your hero is a politician who will sell you out to the EU.

[Azog 150]

(Original post by Tycho)
No, the SNP are a party which cares about its people. They are considerate, maticulous, honest and successful. These are the facts.

Lets try not to get too carried away eh.