Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

do the Scottish get a huge advantage?

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sly Blade)
    Ok, i won't argue here, simply i can't, however possessions of the crown? i might be grasping at straws here but does that not include the commonwealth?

    I would have simply said Britain however i do not remember mentioning culture specifically. BUT if you went to any of these countries and asked their population to which country they belonged would they not state the corresponding country. As is similar in Scotland to my understanding the Majority of people in Scotland still choose to be called Scottish over British though i may be wrong however we are going horribly off topic in my eyes so i will submit the point.

    London does not have an assembly devoted to it? Nor does Cumbria? I apologise if i missed your point.

    Thank you the information you have actually taught me a few things which is always good.

    I agree i can't argue with this, But i feel it is over represented in comparison to Wales and N.Ireland, Not England. As England has the majority, it cannot be blamed on Scotland for them being indecisive instead of acting as a unit.

    I may be wrong but it is well established that Scotland would 'keep' the Queen

    That's confusing because i do know for a fact it has the power to overrule anything the Scottish Assembly try to pass.

    And one last thing you mentioned oil in another post, Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 as part of the devolved parliament of Scotland was Scotland not given (i think) 80%+ of the oil populated waters.
    No, the commonwealth is not a crown possession - it's a binding alliance of many countries which all recognise the Queen as head of state. Crown possessions are various small islands and chunks of land around the world still under direct governance from London (and then there are crown mandates, like Antigua & Barbuda, which are autonomous commonwealth countries but which London can still directly intervene in. Eg after a spate of massive corruption scandals the government of Antigua was replaced temporarily with a governor in London)

    Absolutely every Palestinian will claim to be Palestinian, and every Kurd will claim to be Kurdish! I missed out Tibet as well. They are more fiercely nationalistic than the most blue-face-painted Scot. But they are not separate countries. And the Scots have nothing on the Irish either, North or South.

    About London and Cumbria...actually they do! Although I don't believe the Cumbrian one has more power than a local council, the London Assembly has quite a bit of executive power, as does the Mayor.

    On representation in Parliament - Scotland is over-represented (8.3% population, 9% seats) London is under-represented (12% population, 11% seats) England overall is marginally over-represented (80% of population and 82% of seats including London, 68% population and 71% seats without) NI is the most under-represented (2.9% population, 2.7% seats) and Wales is most over-represented (4.8% population, 6% seats)

    Overall Scotland is better represented than England both as a whole and excluding London, England's representation including London is closest to an exact match for population to seats.


    Regarding who the HoS of a Scotland would be, nothing at all is established. That was just a hasty SNP statement around the time of the Jubilee when it was mentioned Independence may mean loosing the Queen - nothing has been formalised with regards to that. (Though it is, I'll agree, highly likely that Scotland would enter the Commonwealth on its creation. Scotland certainly has more Monarchists than England!)

    Regarding overruling - a veto is very different to executive power. It can veto, but equally it can't pass new legislation exclusively for Scotland without a vote in favour in the Scottish parliament.

    Regarding Oil - that would become invalidated under a separation, and so an equivalent treaty would need negotiating. (Because the waters it is describing would become in part the property of a different country. The treaty would then have to be ratified etc by both sides' parliaments.) Even so, SNP statistics always assume 100% of North Sea oil revenue, a 20% loss would be a huge dent in their budgets.

    Regarding the losses to Scotland - 3bn is a conservative estimate, and that is proportionally larger than England's deficit but is currently subsidised by the rest of the UK. It's also ignoring the debt repayments when certain parts of the national debt would be transferred (including I suspect the RBS liabilities) which would be higher than the UK pays as a whole on those debts because an independent Scotland will have a higher borrowing rate.

    Further it would have to cover all sorts of other additional costs - Scottish universities still receive a sizeable part of their funding from the UK research council, which the Scottish government would have to pick up, but is currently not counted in Scottish spending because it's dealt with by a UK-wide body, and there are other similar amounts of money not counted in those figures (What's the lottery money flow like? I suspect net into Scotland)

    And although I agree there are other things Scotland could give up, the question is what? Their additional healthcare services? Their arts funding? Infrastructure projects? Public sector jobs? Military spending? (I've seen the SNP mention that one, I'm not sure they've thought about how many Scots would be put out of work by that!)
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    That oil belongs to all the UK btw. Its not to fund someone's socialist agenda.
    If Scotland decide to go independent, who do you think
    The oil will belong to then? There is no way the UK can lay claim to it. I'm not disagreeing with you as I hate that Salamand or what ever name is
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norton1)
    On a pure technicality you're incorrect. Look up Sewel motions.
    What technicality is that? Under the Sewel motions the Scottish parliament has to ratify legislation passed by Westminster. Hence it can overrule.

    If you know anything about the law you know it's all a matter of opinion. Plus there's hardly an 'overwhelming' majority in England for Scottish independence. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ependence.html)
    International law is civil law, as opposed to English case law, so it's not a matter of opinion (not open to interpretations by judges)

    Different opinion poll to the one I saw, the yougov poll gave a much higher proportion of English voters in favour of Scottish independence.

    Happily, the overwhelming majority of Scottish people don't want independence. The fact that you make the comparison of a child at home would - I suggest - show your own immaturity rather than that of the independents. It's national politics, your jejune comparison doesn't do it justice.
    Wooo, go Freud. No, it's more a reflection of my opinion of the sort of DM reading people who hold that sort of confrontational attitude. As a matter of national politics and rivalries, jejune comparisons do more than justice. In fact if anything I was being rather complimentary.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    What technicality is that? Under the Sewel motions the Scottish parliament has to ratify legislation passed by Westminster. Hence it can overrule.
    Sewel motions are the referral of a devolved matter from the Scottish Parliament to Westminster. So the Scottish Government wouldn't be overruling anything. It is literally a case of Westminster legislating on a devolved issue. Plus, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means all your talk about 'overruling' is a little bit previous. If Westminster wishes to legislate, it can legislate, and the Scottish Parliament be damned.

    International law is civil law, as opposed to English case law, so it's not a matter of opinion (not open to interpretations by judges)
    Lord Bingham thought the Iraq war was illegal, both the US and UK governments have a battalion of lawyers who will tell you it was not. International law is not uncontested law.


    Different opinion poll to the one I saw, the yougov poll gave a much higher proportion of English voters in favour of Scottish independence.
    Please provide it.

    Wooo, go Freud. No, it's more a reflection of my opinion of the sort of DM reading people who hold that sort of confrontational attitude. As a matter of national politics and rivalries, jejune comparisons do more than justice. In fact if anything I was being rather complimentary.
    I'm not sure why you think I'm psychoanalysing you?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    No, the commonwealth is not a crown possession - it's a binding alliance of many countries which all recognise the Queen as head of state. Crown possessions are various small islands and chunks of land around the world still under direct governance from London (and then there are crown mandates, like Antigua & Barbuda, which are autonomous commonwealth countries but which London can still directly intervene in. Eg after a spate of massive corruption scandals the government of Antigua was replaced temporarily with a governor in London)
    as i said grasping at straws (me that is).



    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Absolutely every Palestinian will claim to be Palestinian, and every Kurd will claim to be Kurdish! I missed out Tibet as well. They are more fiercely nationalistic than the most blue-face-painted Scot. But they are not separate countries. And the Scots have nothing on the Irish either, North or South.
    That is diluting the Situation, the same can refer to towns and cities. Either way i surrendered the point. My definition is clearly outdated and we are going further and further off track.


    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    About London and Cumbria...actually they do! Although I don't believe the Cumbrian one has more power than a local council, the London Assembly has quite a bit of executive power, as does the Mayor.
    I must admit it was my poor wording that allowed you this. and now i'm sitting pondering on how to reply, because to a degree you are right however Neither Cumbria nor London (to my knowledge, actually thinking London might but that's besides the point) have been granted the 'status' of a greater constituent.


    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    On representation in Parliament - Scotland is over-represented (8.3% population, 9% seats) London is under-represented (12% population, 11% seats) England overall is marginally over-represented (80% of population and 82% of seats including London, 68% population and 71% seats without) NI is the most under-represented (2.9% population, 2.7% seats) and Wales is most over-represented (4.8% population, 6% seats)
    Overall Scotland is better represented than England both as a whole and excluding London, England's representation including London is closest to an exact match for population to seats.[/QUOTE]

    this is horribly confusing... I don't know or understand why you posted this. It merely supports my beliefs that England still maintains the Majority of power, Whilst... i felt Scotland was over represented compared to the N.Ireland and Wales but apparently i'm wrong its Wales who is most over-represented i'm learning a lot today.


    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Regarding who the HoS of a Scotland would be, nothing at all is established. That was just a hasty SNP statement around the time of the Jubilee when it was mentioned Independence may mean loosing the Queen - nothing has been formalised with regards to that. (Though it is, I'll agree, highly likely that Scotland would enter the Commonwealth on its creation. Scotland certainly has more Monarchists than England!)
    It would seem i imagined it my point, my apologies... I honestly can't say more than that, iwas pretty confident about something relating to that but best i can tell i dreamed it up entirely.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Regarding overruling - a veto is very different to executive power. It can veto, but equally it can't pass new legislation exclusively for Scotland without a vote in favour in the Scottish parliament.
    I would continue to argue but anything i do in an attempt to find evidence always returns to completely unrelated Scottish independence articles, i am sorry for my failure on this matter.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Regarding Oil - that would become invalidated under a separation, and so an equivalent treaty would need negotiating. (Because the waters it is describing would become in part the property of a different country. The treaty would then have to be ratified etc by both sides' parliaments.) Even so, SNP statistics always assume 100% of North Sea oil revenue, a 20% loss would be a huge dent in their budgets.
    Sorry to burst your bubble but don't take anything the SNP say at face value, chances are if Scotland becomes independent they won't have anything to do with the Shaping of the new Scotland, its a sad fact people seem to forget. Otherwise chances are separation would be along the borders in which case 80+% of the oil would belong to Scotland but cheaper trade agreements would be drawn up. Or the Agreement would my used to maintain control over the majority of oil populated waters.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Regarding the losses to Scotland - 3bn is a conservative estimate, and that is proportionally larger than England's deficit but is currently subsidised by the rest of the UK. It's also ignoring the debt repayments when certain parts of the national debt would be transferred (including I suspect the RBS liabilities) which would be higher than the UK pays as a whole on those debts because an independent Scotland will have a higher borrowing rate.
    Quite possibly. But i'm admittedly showing my lack of in depth knowledge to continue this Argument. I know of the elements but i don't know how they intercede exactly and do not wish to start tripping over myself.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Further it would have to cover all sorts of other additional costs - Scottish universities still receive a sizeable part of their funding from the UK research council, which the Scottish government would have to pick up, but is currently not counted in Scottish spending because it's dealt with by a UK-wide body, and there are other similar amounts of money not counted in those figures (What's the lottery money flow like? I suspect net into Scotland)
    Firstly that although true, is irrelevant the Cost of 3bn a year is including the funding. to my knowledge and i'm not going to go raiding through prior threads about Scottish independence just to find the link to prove otherwise, so i'll give you the point on this one. talking about the lottery aren't Scots some of the most avid ticket buyers?

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    And although I agree there are other things Scotland could give up, the question is what? Their additional healthcare services? Their arts funding? Infrastructure projects? Public sector jobs? Military spending? (I've seen the SNP mention that one, I'm not sure they've thought about how many Scots would be put out of work by that!)
    Military spending simply, Btw i don't like the SNP they either lied to me or changed their policies either way i no longer agree with them. However you neglect to realise that the British Armed Forces will remain, the 'Scottish' members won't just up and leave. The upkeep cost would then rely on The remaining UK to keep them employed or to fire them. (not fair admittedly but fact).
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandyflower)
    If Scotland becomes independent, it loses EU membership and will have to apply again.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...embership.html

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...t-scotland-eu/

    The reality may very well be that Scotland will continue to be in the EU, but although some commentators think the reapplication is a formality, the renegotiation of terms will not be, i.e. it is highly likely it would have to adopt the euro as all new members do. A lot of people within the Eurozone countries really do not like the fact that Britain has the pound.

    So a) I wouldn't take that for granted and b) the reality is the tuition fees in Scotland would shoot up; one reason being that they'll lose the same terms of trade with the rest of Europe as they have now.



    As far as the oil goes, some Scots claim 'it's Scotland's'. There are studies, it seems, which suggest that it may be mostly English, some which suggest that it may largely go to Scotland. The reality will be that Scotland will get to keep precious little of the depleting supply. Westminster just won't allow it.
    I know it's not automatic, but talking to British and some Scottish MEPs they seemed to think it was highly unlikely the other countries wouldn't allow a newly independent Scotland to join and with terms whose only sticking point would be the Euro, which admittedly split opinion between those who thought the Euro's current weakness would allow them to get out of it if they wanted and those who thought it was likely to be enforced in full. Tell me about it, amongst various continental stagiaries/assistants etc. (who are more europhile than normal admittedly) and the ERASMUS students it was a distinct gripe about the 'Anglo-Saxons'!

    I'm not particular familiar with Scottish domestic politics to be honest, so I'm not sure how up for discussion tuition fees are so they could shoot up.

    Imagine so, though be interesting whether they may trade some for their portion of the nuclear capability. In the event they can't thrash it out I suppose it'll go to Hamburg but could take forever to get through there and we may well ignore the ruling anyway.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norton1)
    Sewel motions are the referral of a devolved matter from the Scottish Parliament to Westminster. So the Scottish Government wouldn't be overruling anything. It is literally a case of Westminster legislating on a devolved issue. Plus, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means all your talk about 'overruling' is a little bit previous. If Westminster wishes to legislate, it can legislate, and the Scottish Parliament be damned.
    They still need a vote in the devolved Parliament, under the 2005 amendment. Sewel motions may be created in Westminster, but Hollyrood still needs to ratify them.

    Lord Bingham thought the Iraq war was illegal, both the US and UK governments have a battalion of lawyers who will tell you it was not. International law is not uncontested law.
    In civil law both sides are allowed to make a case, it's just that the wording of the law is not open to interpretation when a verdict is reached. So when there is a civil law case, the cases are made that their side is factually correct according to the law (an argument over what the facts are, rather than how the law should be understood.) What the law says and means is not a matter of opinion in civil law.

    So cases over who should get what waters would, under international law, come down to arguments over the presence of ridges of islands that may be exposed at very low tides connected to either mainland, or exactly where the border runs as it hits the sea and whether in fact low or high tide should be used etc

    Also they'll tell you it was "justified", not "legal". They deflect from the "legal" point.

    Please provide it.
    It was YouGov, as I said.

    I'm not sure why you think I'm psychoanalysing you?
    That's what it sounds like you were doing. Re-read your post.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sewel motions are created in Holyrood.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    In civil law both sides are allowed to make a case, it's just that the wording of the law is not open to interpretation when a verdict is reached. So when there is a civil law case, the cases are made that their side is factually correct according to the law (an argument over what the facts are, rather than how the law should be understood.) What the law says and means is not a matter of opinion in civil law.

    So cases over who should get what waters would, under international law, come down to arguments over the presence of ridges of islands that may be exposed at very low tides connected to either mainland, or exactly where the border runs as it hits the sea and whether in fact low or high tide should be used etc
    Can you please clarify whether you mean civilian legal systems or civil law? A distinction which is, anyway, somewhat moot as we're talking about international law.

    Also they'll tell you it was "justified", not "legal". They deflect from the "legal" point.
    Please provide evidence for that statement. As the whole point is that it is legal as oppose to justified I suspect they would not.

    It was YouGov, as I said.
    You said it showed an overwhelming majority of English people support Scottish independence. I've had a look and can't find it. This is why I ask. If you're unable to provide it I shall assume it doesn't exist
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shomberlon)
    If Scotland decide to go independent, who do you think
    The oil will belong to then? There is no way the UK can lay claim to it. I'm not disagreeing with you as I hate that Salamand or what ever name is
    Its a complicated issue. I suspect the reserves would be split proportionally, as would the national debt. So not much would change tbh.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sly Blade)
    'status' of a greater constituent.
    What do you mean by this?

    this is horribly confusing... I don't know or understand why you posted this. It merely supports my beliefs that England still maintains the Majority of power, Whilst... i felt Scotland was over represented compared to the N.Ireland and Wales but apparently i'm wrong its Wales who is most over-represented i'm learning a lot today.
    Just some stats to help get to the bottom of the matter - the concept of democracy requires that all people receive equal representation or say in the legislation procedure.

    England does hold the majority of power, but that's because it's the majority of people and that should always be the case. Equally you could take Scotland, Wales, Ireland and everywhere north of Essex, call them "the north" (as we do in the south) and talk about how it holds the majority of power. But again it should, because it contains the majority population.

    I think what you've missed out on thus far is just how many people live in England. Scotland is less populous than London. It's what proportion of representation that people receive in different places which determines whether the distribution of seats is fair or not.

    It would seem i imagined it my point, my apologies... I honestly can't say more than that, iwas pretty confident about something relating to that but best i can tell i dreamed it up entirely.

    I would continue to argue but anything i do in an attempt to find evidence always returns to completely unrelated Scottish independence articles, i am sorry for my failure on this matter.
    I do recall the SNP mentioning something RE the monarchy so you haven't entirely imagined that, but nothing formalised let alone legislated regarding the issue.

    Sorry to burst your bubble but don't take anything the SNP say at face value, chances are if Scotland becomes independent they won't have anything to do with the Shaping of the new Scotland, its a sad fact people seem to forget. Otherwise chances are separation would be along the borders in which case 80+% of the oil would belong to Scotland but cheaper trade agreements would be drawn up. Or the Agreement would my used to maintain control over the majority of oil populated waters.
    Well yes, of course civil servants would deal with most of that. But the most that Scotland could possibly hope for is to keep it at 80%, even that might be hard to get past the English who would be, tbh, pretty bitter - a government that wasn't seen to fight over that would be likely signing their own death certificate.

    Quite possibly. But i'm admittedly showing my lack of in depth knowledge to continue this Argument. I know of the elements but i don't know how they intercede exactly and do not wish to start tripping over myself.
    haha, no one knows exactly where all which what money and debt is!

    Firstly that although true, is irrelevant the Cost of 3bn a year is including the funding. to my knowledge and i'm not going to go raiding through prior threads about Scottish independence just to find the link to prove otherwise, so i'll give you the point on this one. talking about the lottery aren't Scots some of the most avid ticket buyers?
    I strongly, strongly doubt that. It will likely include direct government funding, but it will almost certainly neglect indirect funding. (The whole reason governments do indirect funding is so they can neglect it from that sort of figure)

    The Scottish are some of the largest buyers, but there is also a lot of lottery funding awarded to Scotland. No idea what the net flow is.

    Military spending simply, Btw i don't like the SNP they either lied to me or changed their policies either way i no longer agree with them. However you neglect to realise that the British Armed Forces will remain, the 'Scottish' members won't just up and leave. The upkeep cost would then rely on The remaining UK to keep them employed or to fire them. (not fair admittedly but fact).
    You're probably right. Chances are we would fire them, it wouldn't be feasible either financially or logistically to keep them and move everything (families and support staff as well) down bellow the border, and to keep them where they are would require huge concessions from Hollyrood (and likely still not be affordable). All the defence industry stuff would have to move too because that's all classified. That would be very harmful for Scotland's economy, a lot of people would be out of work.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    What do you mean by this?
    Sorry this is me being tired and trying to find easier ways to explain my points. A greater Constituent would be England, N.Ireland, Wales and Scotland a minor constituent would be moray or the highlands sorry can't think of any others off the top of my head.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Just some stats to help get to the bottom of the matter - the concept of democracy requires that all people receive equal representation or say in the legislation procedure.

    England does hold the majority of power, but that's because it's the majority of people and that should always be the case. Equally you could take Scotland, Wales, Ireland and everywhere north of Essex, call them "the north" (as we do in the south) and talk about how it holds the majority of power. But again it should, because it contains the majority population.

    I think what you've missed out on thus far is just how many people live in England. Scotland is less populous than London. It's what proportion of representation that people receive in different places which determines whether the distribution of seats is fair or not.
    You are confusing my point i'm afraid, i'm aware that the population of London is more than Scotland in its entirety and that Scotland is less than a tenth of the total British population. Though my own points being less valid through the same process that yours does. Going by the figures you presented, Wales is the biggest issue. And England if they wanted something being the Majority should and could vote in favour (favor? bah...) of it overwhelming the Scottish percentile.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    I do recall the SNP mentioning something RE the monarchy so you haven't entirely imagined that, but nothing formalised let alone legislated regarding the issue.
    I was convinced the Queen had stepped forward and made an informal statement on it but i can't find hide nor hair of it

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Well yes, of course civil servants would deal with most of that. But the most that Scotland could possibly hope for is to keep it at 80%, even that might be hard to get past the English who would be, tbh, pretty bitter - a government that wasn't seen to fight over that would be likely signing their own death certificate.
    Legally Scotland is in a strong position to hold onto the of sea oil field things, The standard form of drawing borders (to my understanding) would require most of the oil fields to belong to Scotland, legally England's best chance is to try and lay claim to outer fields (i know its in the water not a field). I also believe but of course could be completely wrong but there was murmur of support from other EU countries to Scotland keeping the Majority of the fields but since i can't be bothered finding the evidence i'm only pointing it out for discussion sake.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    I strongly, strongly doubt that. It will likely include direct government funding, but it will almost certainly neglect indirect funding. (The whole reason governments do indirect funding is so they can neglect it from that sort of figure)
    I'm afraid i'm but a middle man in this a friend whom is an economist of sorts did the math (informally so no thesis to present sorry.) But its fair enough not to take my word on it. I suppose true costs will only come to light if Scotland acquires independence(voted or forced).

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    The Scottish are some of the largest buyers, but there is also a lot of lottery funding awarded to Scotland. No idea what the net flow is.
    Aye... and generally we aren't very good at looking after it.... what we buy with that money it is, but i have no idea either so there's no point furthering this.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    You're probably right. Chances are we would fire them, it wouldn't be feasible either financially or logistically to keep them and move everything (families and support staff as well) down bellow the border, and to keep them where they are would require huge concessions from Hollyrood (and likely still not be affordable). All the defence industry stuff would have to move too because that's all classified. That would be very harmful for Scotland's economy, a lot of people would be out of work.
    This is where it starts getting complicated. and a lot of it relies on what plans are drawn up, what segments of the Armed forces will belong to Scotland etc etc. Also there are other issues such as Nuclear weapons, i can see an Independent Scotland refusing to keep them here without England paying a fee of some description. But i can't see England taking them back either. But either way we are hugely off topic considering this thread started with clearance dates and tuition fees.

    The issue then arises that Tuition fees to my understanding is an Advantage if compared to English but not to anyone else in Europe. And probably one of the main reasons England hasn't got something similar is down to its large population and the horrendous wasted expenditure Westminster do from time to time.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trailblazer)
    Yes they do gain a massive advantage in a number of ways. First and foremost they don't have to pay £9000 in fees, which is very significant.

    But it goes even further. In terms of governance, Scottish people get more public money spent on them than anywhere else in the country, both Westminster and Holyrood end up coining money for Scots. I think I remember it as being something like 1/3rd more public money money spent per head than those across the border in County Durham.

    The Scottish also have a disporportianate influence in our Parliament, when us English now have no say in theirs - the West Lothian question

    *why the negs? They are plain and evident political facts which point toward a distinct advantage, especially in the area of education
    Yawn!!!

    I wish people would check the facts without making these bigoted and uneducated comments.It is true that scottish people get more money spent on them than any other nation in the UK.....But it is justified,such as Scotlands oil contributes to 11% of the britains GDP alone! and scotland receives 8% of public money from the UK purse.It doesnt take a mathematician to work out if thats fair,going by this alone we should receive more,but i guess we'll have to wait until independance! The blame is with the westminster goverment,if Scotland and Northern Ireland can afford to fund their education system,then surely England can too.Its not Scotlands fault you voted in the tories!

    I may also add,im Scottish and studying in England so will also be paying £9000 a year fees just like you guys.
    • 23 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't get why people get all prissy about Scots having some good things, fair play to them. Its what their government chooses to spend their money on, that's the effect of devolution.

    The Scots contribute plenty to the UK and lets hope they don't get stupid ideas and try and go it alone as it will be worse for both of us....lets make the union stronger.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rotterdamhibs)
    Yawn!!!

    I wish people would check the facts without making these bigoted and uneducated comments.It is true that scottish people get more money spent on them than any other nation in the UK.....But it is justified,such as Scotlands oil contributes to 11% of the britains GDP alone! and scotland receives 8% of public money from the UK purse.It doesnt take a mathematician to work out if thats fair,going by this alone we should receive more,but i guess we'll have to wait until independance! The blame is with the westminster goverment,if Scotland and Northern Ireland can afford to fund their education system,then surely England can too.Its not Scotlands fault you voted in the tories!

    I may also add,im Scottish and studying in England so will also be paying £9000 a year fees just like you guys.
    Please care to inform me with all your omniscient wisdom how what I said was "bigoted" and "uneducated"; when the three facts are essentially true, and were put forward without malice nor prejudice. I also notice you failed to mention the West Lothian question, because lets face it you are banged to rights on that one.

    And for your information if I could have, I would not have voted for the tories in 2010, nor will I in 2014.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trailblazer)
    Please care to inform me with all your omniscient wisdom how what I said was "bigoted" and "uneducated"; when the three facts are essentially true, and were put forward without malice nor prejudice. I also notice you failed to mention the West Lothian question, because lets face it you are banged to rights on that one.

    And for your information if I could have, I would not have voted for the tories in 2010, nor will I in 2014.
    You do have a point and ofcourse its true Scottish MP's have a big say at westminster,but that is the fault of your own government.Scottish people would be quite happy to let the english rule their own country.There is too much negativity towards Scotland from the english because of there being large number of Scottish MP'S at westminster,but would it not be simple enough for westminster to allow english MP's to govern english issues? It is incredible that a nation governs another country,I guess that has never happened before! ;-)
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Happydude)
    I'm ashamed to say I live in his constituency...
    Gave you a +ve rep because I do too (and I go to Dundee too, hello!)

    (Original post by rawragee)
    I think this is true, they want more and more UK applicants instead of Scottish so are restricting the places available for us. For example, the difference between the list of vacancies available here http://www.dundee.ac.uk/clearing/scottish_eu/ and here http://www.dundee.ac.uk/clearing/rest_of_uk/ at Dundee Uni is massive it feels like it's going to become like the divide between UK/EU applicants and Internationals tbh.
    Holy hell I've never seen that before.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 31, 2012
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.