Is Scottish independence a &#x27;good or bad&#x27; thing?

Original post by MelanieDickson

It's not representative though, is it? The vast majority of those in parliament have no personal (often not even second hand) experience with the Scottish legal, education or healthcare systems. I'd say those are pretty important things to understand fully in running a country.

That's probably why policies in those areas are devolved to the Scottish government, rather than being decided in Westminster.

Reply 182

Well as an English student I feel pretty damn annoyed that the Scots are getting a free ride funded by English tax payers when I'm going to be £60,000 in debt. Not that I blame Scotland for this but surely it isn't ethical. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is racist that I am worse off because of my sub-nationality in my own country. Also from an economic point of view wouldn't the English tax payer be better off if we didn't have to fund Scotland?

Reply 183

Original post by emmarussell55

Scotland has to become independent for the sake of is own economy! The measly 54 MPs elected from scotland will never make a difference in who gets in power considering from London and down further in the south east have 129 MPs! We are getting NO say in the way or economy is run cause our votes don't matter to the public school boys in downing st. The Tories are going to pass more and more legislation allowing the rich to get richer and poor to get poorer, even though its the multimillionaire bankers who caused this mess, not labour! Not to mention trying to convince us to get out of the EU and lose the best political and financial safety net in the world! Also, us Scots get given too much from Westminster? Do we hell! We put in more than we get back! Scotland will come out better in 2014, then we'll see how England, Wales and Northern Ireland do with a permanent Tory government that do not care about 90% of the population.
From here we can only go up ALBA GU BRATH!!!!!!

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Well you're certainly right about the Tories. They only care about making themselves richer and the poor poorer. "Call me Dave" Cameron is no more a friend to Scotland than he is to the working class Englishman.

Reply 184

py0alb

3

I was reading the other day about how an independent Scotland would no longer be able to issue their own bank notes. They'd either have to use English ones or join the Euro. Strange irony there.

Reply 185

Tycho

14

Original post by py0alb

I was reading the other day about how an independent Scotland would no longer be able to issue their own bank notes. They'd either have to use English ones or join the Euro. Strange irony there.

Source: the "Better Together" Facebook page. :rolleyes:

Reply 186

Tycho

14

Original post by Vadsi

Well as an English student I feel pretty damn annoyed that the Scots are getting a free ride funded by English tax payers when I'm going to be £60,000 in debt. Not that I blame Scotland for this but surely it isn't ethical. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is racist that I am worse off because of my sub-nationality in my own country. Also from an economic point of view wouldn't the English tax payer be better off if we didn't have to fund Scotland?

What a load of nonsense. As a Scottish taxpayer I feel pretty damned annoyed that your media are filling your heads full of this garbage. Scotland pays more in tax than it gets back. Don't blame Scotland for Westminsters ill-conceived spending plans. The Scottish government have their priorities right by funding education in this way. That it's not free in England isn't due to a lack of funds, but due to a lack of it being given a priority by your Tory government. Funny how they can always find money to bomb/invade X, Y and Z, don't you think? So don't turn your anger Northward, turn it towards your own government.

Reply 187

Tycho

14

Original post by Israaa

...it's obviously a ploy as this is the first time Scottish history has been discussed to such lengths in Modern Studies & History. That's too much coincidence to believe they've had a change of heart in the past year or two. & Modern Studies is about current affairs, counting back maybe 20 years. So to be teaching it in Modern Studies obviously highlights the fact that it's in relation to the Independence Referendum. :smile:

The use of the word "ploy" is incorrect, as it carries negative connotations. Why on earth would a government not want to teach the history of its country to its children? It can only be a good thing. Bizarre that a lot of pupils come out of Scottish schools knowing more about WWI, WWII and the Vikings than they do about their own history.

Reply 188

marcusfox

Original post by Tycho

What a load of nonsense. As a Scottish taxpayer I feel pretty damned annoyed that your media are filling your heads full of this garbage. Scotland pays more in tax than it gets back.

Source?

Reply 189

Original post by Tycho

What a load of nonsense. As a Scottish taxpayer I feel pretty damned annoyed that your media are filling your heads full of this garbage. Scotland pays more in tax than it gets back. Don't blame Scotland for Westminsters ill-conceived spending plans. The Scottish government have their priorities right by funding education in this way. That it's not free in England isn't due to a lack of funds, but due to a lack of it being given a priority by your Tory government. Funny how they can always find money to bomb/invade X, Y and Z, don't you think? So don't turn your anger Northward, turn it towards your own government.

I never said I was angry at Scotland. In fact I never said I was angry. I also said I didn't blame Scotland for England's lack of free education so please read my post before you reply next time. Also please provide a source for your claims as marcusfox said or go and calm down by watching a movie with Mel Gibson in it.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 190

Sorry I got this from the Daily Mail but they make a good point.

"The great irony is that under EU law, Scottish universities are not allowed to discriminate against members of other EU states. Were Miss Watts a Belgian, a Pole or a Greek, she would be entitled to free education at a Scottish university. But English? Forget it."

Reply 191

Midlander

19

Well, as an Englishman having lived in Scotland for the last 4 years out of 5:

1. The Scottish economy is heavily dependent upon a finite resource for its revenue-Aberdeen is the biggest contributor to the pot. With Westminster's funding gone, this dependency will be especially bigger and leaves the Scottish economy in a highly vulnerable position. Alex Salmond has pointed to Iceland and Ireland as examples of small nations able to prosper financially-this being before both crashed big time. Is this man fit to be trusted with Scotland's financial future?

2. Scots frequently complain about their inability to have a bigger say in the UK government. This is a reflection of Scotland's small population in relation to England's; were Scotland to be granted EU membership (a huge assumption), they would again be seen as minnows on the continental stage and its influence even smaller. Salmond is a fan of making vague statements assuming that things like EU membership will be a formality, when the EU itself has said things to the contrary. More to the point, England is the only nation lacking its own parliament-were English MPs allowed to vote on matters solely affecting Scotland I could see Mr Salmond being up in arms over it.

3. The 'independence' being sought by the SNP is one that attempts to preserve all the current perks of the union whilst making Scotland a separate political entity. This is total double standards (maintaining the sterling a prime example), and reinforces the reality that an independent Scotland is far weaker than one contributing actively to the UK. Alex seems to be talking purely about England in this debate and forgets that Wales and NI (which has far more reason to consider independence), are also in this union-just makes this whole agenda seem to be done to spite England more than actually benefit Scotland.

4. The attitude of most Scots I know is that on the one hand, they carry an inbuilt dislike of England (based on events which happened over half a century ago and are nothing to do with the current generation but hey), but also recognise that Scotland simply cannot realistically prosper by itself. My home city, along with many others in England, got bombed to smithereens by Germany barely 70 years ago, yet very few people I know, even those who grew up at the time, carry any serious grudge towards the country today. It is time that Scots got rid of the massive chip on their shoulder that leads them to see England as the cause of their problems.

To sum up: Independence is being argued for primarily on ideological grounds with little else of substance in support of it. Alex Salmond is a very shrewd politician indeed and seems able to dodge criticism for some serious faux pas he has made-if Scots choose to follow him into financial ruin and political obscurity, they will have only themselves to blame.

Reply 192

Midlander

19

Original post by Tycho

The use of the word "ploy" is incorrect, as it carries negative connotations. Why on earth would a government not want to teach the history of its country to its children? It can only be a good thing. Bizarre that a lot of pupils come out of Scottish schools knowing more about WWI, WWII and the Vikings than they do about their own history.

It's the way things are taught though. If all somebody is taught is that the English were oppressive tyrants who slaughtered innocent Scots, and that Scottish soldiers were sent into battle first to preserve English lives (my gf was taught that), it's no wonder there is a chip on Scotland's shoulder bigger than Wallace himself.

Reply 193

Psyk

Original post by Tycho

The use of the word "ploy" is incorrect, as it carries negative connotations. Why on earth would a government not want to teach the history of its country to its children? It can only be a good thing. Bizarre that a lot of pupils come out of Scottish schools knowing more about WWI, WWII and the Vikings than they do about their own history.

But WWI, WWII and Vikings are a part of Scottish history.

Although I do agree that there are usually massive holes in history education. At least in England there is. You'd think they'd teach students about the Acts of Union for one thing, as that's an important event regardless of which side of the debate you fall on. They should know how their country came to be the way it is.

Reply 194

Midlander

19

Original post by Maths Tutor

Have you ever visited Scotland and experienced anti-English racism? Your repeated claim that Scottish Independence is due to anti-English racism is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

If after more than 300 years of union with England, a significant proportion of Scots are anti-English, then the Union has obviously failed. Surely the English should hold a referendum to end the union with Scotland in that case?

Um, yes. And 'Your ancestors killed ours 600 years ago' is the justification. The union was formed because Scotland bankrupted itself trying to create its own empire and needed England to shore up its economy and give it greater political influence.

Scotland needs the union more than the union needs it-fact.

Reply 195

Slumpy

Original post by Tycho

The use of the word "ploy" is incorrect, as it carries negative connotations. Why on earth would a government not want to teach the history of its country to its children? It can only be a good thing. Bizarre that a lot of pupils come out of Scottish schools knowing more about WWI, WWII and the Vikings than they do about their own history.

To claim WWI and WWII aren't a vital part of Scotland's history is stunning.

Reply 196

Kaiser MacCleg

11

Original post by Vadsi

Well as an English student I feel pretty damn annoyed that the Scots are getting a free ride funded by English tax payers when I'm going to be £60,000 in debt. Not that I blame Scotland for this but surely it isn't ethical.

In what moralistic system is ensuring that young people get a free education of the highest standard possible unethical?

In fact, I would go as far as to say it is racist that I am worse off because of my sub-nationality in my own country.

The policy pursued by Holyrood is based upon residency, not nationality. Whether you are eligible is not dependent upon some accident of birth and what nation you identify with, but upon where you live. English people can benefit from the policy too - just not by living in England. Accusing the Scottish Government of racism here is more than a little bit ridiculous.

I'd also like to remind you that the UK isn't comprised of a mere two nations. As a Welshman, I'd also have to pay fees if I went to university in Scotland.

Also from an economic point of view wouldn't the English tax payer be better off if we didn't have to fund Scotland?

Well, not really. The conclusion we'd come to depends, of course, on whether North Sea oil is taken into account or not. In 2010-11, total public expenditure in Scotland (including the UK gov's share) came to 9.3% of the UK's total expenditure. By contrast, only 8.3% of the UK's revenue was raised there. Put a geographic share of North Sea oil into the equation, however, and that figure rises to 9.6%.

Scotland runs at a deficit, if North Sea oil isn't taken into account. But in that respect, it is pretty unremarkable among western countries. The UK itself runs at a deficit, which is why it is rather silly to claim that England "subsidises" Scotland, when expenditure in England itself has to be topped up by government borrowing every year. The deficit in Scotland is larger than the UK, with North Sea oil out of the equation - 15% as opposed to 9% as of 2010-11, but the net transfer to Scotland is still very small.

Source is GERS.

Reply 197

py0alb

3

Original post by Tycho

Source: the "Better Together" Facebook page. :rolleyes:

Never heard of it mate.

Source: my economics textbook

Reply 198

Methuselah2012

One aspect of cessation and the end of union is that Scotland does provide lots of labour seats, has even provided two pms in the last decade. Although the west Lothian principle is undemocratic, I would not like an English parliament to stand alone. In essence I am saying that I am glad the Scottish mix it up a bit.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 199

marcusfox