Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Blair and Brown being Scottish by nationality does not mean that they reflected the will of the Scottish electorate, it's merely their birthplace.
My point is that our current Prime Minister is a member of the Conservative party; only one Scottish constituency elected a Conservative MP, as opposed to 41 constituencies who voted Labour. If we're looking at the coalition Government, then Lib Dem have eleven Scottish seats. That's still a total of 12 seats (Condem) to 41 seats (Labour). So right now, Scotland is being represented by a Government it didn't choose.
I think we're roughly proportionate in terms of actual seats per head of population, I have no issue with that.

Broadly UKIP ( Uk should leave EU and shouldn't spend much-after all every penny the government gets it took by force)

Plus I'd bring in a prison tax- why should they get away (at an average expense of £40,000 per prisoner per year ...they should be fed porridge,bread and water rather than getting a menu of 5 choices with no item appearing more than once a month- these criminals are living a higher quality of life than a lot of people- without any work!

Cannot agree with this more, hopefully everyone else will finally acknowledge that UKIP exist now that the Conservatives are prancing around with the Liberal Democrats!

Hopefully Ukip & Conservatives will knock labour into 3 rd and lib dems into oblivion!

But Blair and Brown did reflect the will of the Scottish Electorate at the time.

A lot of people in England voted Conservative when Labour got in. Should they seperate when that happens again? What about Northern Ireland. We're never going to see a Sinn Fein or Ulster Unionist Government in Westminster.

Does the Independence referendum dissapear if they held a snap election tomorrow and Labour got back in?

I never voted for the SNP. Can I seperate? Can I have an independent nation in Edinburgh better reflecting my needs?

Westminster have no control over devolved matters.

Yes, Blair and Brown reflected the will of the Scottish electorate because they were members of the Labour party. Their nationality has nothing to do with it which was what you seemed to be suggesting.
I'm Suggesting it because I hear a lot of People saying that Westmister doesn't represent our views. If we have people in Westminster running it then they're representing our views especially when we've voted them in.
I don't know which election you're referring to when you say that a lot of people in England voted for Conservative and Labour got in to power.

Pretty Much every Election Post World War two with the exception of Labour Getting in in 97.

Under the first past the post system, there's barely ever a majority (i.e over 50% voted for them) government. It's the party with the most votes, i.e 32% to 28% that make the grade. Which is not proportionate or fair exactly, but the argument over the first past the post system is an entirely different debate. My point is that the Government who the Scottish electorate voted in favour of (by a very large majority) are not proportionally represented in Westminster.

But they are in Holyrood, which is where it counts. And we're not talking about PR. We're talking about seperation/Independencae/Divorce. Yes, it's first past the post, but even the minor parties can swing it as we live in a democracy and our MPs have a vote. Just look at how in-effective Holyrood is for an example of PR

I also don't get your point about "should they seperate?" are you suggesting that every constituency that votes tory or labour should be seperate from one another? How can that be likened to the Scottish independence debate?

Well you've claimed that we should seperate because we have a Party at Westminster representing 11 of the 59 Constituencies in Scotland. I'm merely pointing out that regions within the UK historically vote Labour, Regions throughout the UK historically vote Tory, and Regions within the UK historically vote Lib Dem. You've implied that as we have a non Labour Government in Westminster, we should seperate as we didn't vote for them. I'm merely highlighting that that argument stands for other area's in the UK. The North East of England is hardly a bastion of Conservative Party Support. Should they go as Westminster don't represent their views?

I think it's fairly obvious that we're never going to have a sinn fein majority in Westminster because they're not a party with universal interests and appeal to the rest of the UK. I don't get what you're trying to illustrate here either.

Some minor parties representing regional issues will not get into power in Westminster unless it's under a coalition.

The Independence referendum was a central part of the SNP manifesto, the SNP are currently in power so of course they have to follow through with their pledge. I cannot read into the future, so I don't know what would happen if a "snap referendum" were to happen tomorrow. It was a Labour Government who agreed to a vote on Scottish Devolution years ago, so it's difficult to call either way. I would assume the referendum would be put on hold however, as it would not be in the party's interest.

I was expanding on your earlier point that the majority of the Scottish electorate didn't vote for Conservative/Lib Dem. I was trying to say, that if Labour got back into power would this make the people of Scotland Happier about being in the UK?

You may not have voted for the SNP, but the majority of the Scottish electorate did, which makes this referendum entirely legit.

Agreed that the referendum is legite, but your argument is you didn't vote Tory, and have ended up with a Tory Government in Westminster. I didn't vote SNP, but I've ended up with a SNP government in Holyrood. It's democracy deal with it. We can't keep crying every time we don't get our way.


And as for "Westminster have no control over devolved matters", I don't get where you're going with this. Of course they don't have control over devolved matters. The debate is over how far these devolved powers should go.

I'm pointing out that the matters that affect our day to day lives are controlled here in Scotland. The statement about having more powers involves and affects all of the 63 Million people that make up the UK, not just the 5 Million people living in Scotland. We've got our chance to leave, but I think it's a little unfair to start dictating terms to the other 58 Million by throwing a hissy fit and saying we're being victimised/penalised/feel hard done by. I'd much rather we change Westminster to benefit all people and not be selfish and just try and get the best deal for ourselves.

Pretty Much every Election Post World War two with the exception of Labour Getting in in 97.
There have been two elections in history where percentage wise a party with lesser votes (once tory, once labour) have won a general election, so this is wrong.

But they are in Holyrood, which is where it counts. And we're not talking about PR. We're talking about seperation/Independencae/Divorce. Yes, it's first past the post, but even the minor parties can swing it as we live in a democracy and our MPs have a vote. Just look at how in-effective Holyrood is for an example of PR
I actually think the PR system in Holyrood is much more effective than the Westminster system

Well you've claimed that we should seperate because we have a Party at Westminster representing 11 of the 59 Constituencies in Scotland. I'm merely pointing out that regions within the UK historically vote Labour, Regions throughout the UK historically vote Tory, and Regions within the UK historically vote Lib Dem. You've implied that as we have a non Labour Government in Westminster, we should seperate as we didn't vote for them. I'm merely highlighting that that argument stands for other area's in the UK. The North East of England is hardly a bastion of Conservative Party Support. Should they go as Westminster don't represent their views?
I'm not saying that is the sole reason for Scotland becoming an independent nation. It's just overwhelmingly blatant in Scotland as a region.

I was expanding on your earlier point that the majority of the Scottish electorate didn't vote for Conservative/Lib Dem. I was trying to say, that if Labour got back into power would this make the people of Scotland Happier about being in the UK?
I think if whatever party the scottish electorate voted for (be it greens, labour, lib dem) were the majority government in Westminster the majority of the electorate would be slightly happier as they're being represented more equally. But then again, they might not care either way, I don't want to generalise a whole nation's feelings.

Agreed that the referendum is legite, but your argument is you didn't vote Tory, and have ended up with a Tory Government in Westminster. I didn't vote SNP, but I've ended up with a SNP government in Holyrood. It's democracy deal with it. We can't keep crying every time we don't get our way.
It has nothing to do with who I personally voted for, it's the electorate that I'm talking about. Evidently it's a difference of opinion, I think political representation of a nation is pretty important. Considering that Westminster reserves the most important powers like defence, it's pretty unreasonable to me that the Scottish electorate aren't being heard. That's my view.

I'm pointing out that the matters that affect our day to day lives are controlled here in Scotland. The statement about having more powers involves and affects all of the 63 Million people that make up the UK, not just the 5 Million people living in Scotland. We've got our chance to leave, but I think it's a little unfair to start dictating terms to the other 58 Million by throwing a hissy fit and saying we're being victimised/penalised/feel hard done byt. I'd much rather we change Westminster to benefit all people and not be selfish and just try and get the best deal for ourselves.
The difference is that the English electorate have a vast majority compared to Scotland, they can show their discontent by voting in a different Govt at the next general election. And I don't think it's selfish at all to want to leave the UK.

We've see have seen an increase in anti English violence.

he's not a racist , but his rhetoric does get the blood up of the none to bright in society. (Normally seen talking about historic events 300 Years ago, jabbering on about some percentages and likening us to anybody other than ourselves.normally not well travelled either)

Scotland would be unwise to lose ties with London. Who would fund Scotland's poorer regions (or to stop Glasgow been the murder capital of Europe?!- making London look good!)?

Glasgow isn't murder capital of Europe. It was all blown out of proportion and the fact the same year it 'won' murder capital of Europe it also recieved an award for being the friendliest city in Europe. What does that say about it?
Would Scotland get a bail out from rest of UK/England if the government overestimated oil revenues and overspent by too much?

Scotland would follow a similar route as Norway where they kept the oil funds to help the country for the future. There is still a trillion dollars worth of oil left in the north sea.

What would happen with the monarchy -would the Queen be Queen of Scotland ?

Similar to what Australia has with the Queen

Would Wales,Northern Ireland and eventually England declare independence?

Most unlikely

Would would happen to the beloved GREAT British pound? I don't want the euro! (If we got a chance to have an EU referendum I'd be glad!)

Scotland could still keep the pound or create its own currency. Positive and negative aspects of both.

How much of the national deficit would Scotland take on?

Most likely use the Barnett formula

What would happen to the BBC? Would it split into SBC, WBC and EBC? Would it just be privatised and the TV license (effectively a TV tax) be abolished?

No.

Would I need my passport to go to Glasgow 2018 youth games (if they win)??

Open border and many who travel to Scotland from England take their passport with them anyways.


Scotland would still have to rely on England for military protection

Defence from whom? I'm pretty sure Scotland won't be getting attacked from Norway, Ireland or Iceland? Scotland would have a small military force similar to Norways who would be apart of NATO.

-also would Scotland be able to afford to maintain public services such as the NHS when the in the North sea( some say England could have a claim on some portion of the revenues).Also the North of England (Lanchasire) has a lot of shale gas which just been discovered and is said to be worth billions!

Yes because we would no longer be subsidising the rest of the UK and all the North Sea income would be flowing to Scotland. Scotland also has many other prosperous industries such as Renewables, Whiskey etc..

England have a very small portion of the North Sea and 90% of the oil is in Scottish waters which England could not touch.

Also London arguably could have a better chance of thriving alone (with a higher population than Scotland and possibly even has a bigger economy).

London could thrive but the rest of England will continue to get shafted.

http://scotspolitics.com/uncategorized1/why-im-voting-no-for-scottish-independence (intresting viewpoint from a scottish lady)

Interestingly England is the only part which doesn't have it own parliament/assembly so it would be good to see this addressed- after all the English get the worst deal with tuition fees!

Scotland is given an 'Allowance' by westminister and chooses to spend it on tuition fees while England does not. This is not Scotlands fault

Are people insinuating that Salmond is racist againsn't the English? Last time I checked English is not a race, it's a nationality

Most likely use the Barnett formula

I'll be voting for independence.

It's not even about SNP ., it's about whoever gets elected in 2016, that they'll have more say on matters in scotland.

Take for example with the recent bedroom tax issue, as far as I'm aware, only 4 scottish mps voted for it, yet it's getting rolled in scotland.

"Humza Yousaf" is a leading SNP politician, dedicated to preserving the Scottish identity, history and nation.

You're having a laugh aren't you ?

I'll be voting for independence.

It's not even about SNP ., it's about whoever gets elected in 2016, that they'll have more say on matters in scotland.

Take for example with the recent bedroom tax issue, as far as I'm aware, only 4 scottish mps voted for it, yet it's getting rolled in scotland.

Are people insinuating that Salmond is racist againsn't the English? Last time I checked English is not a race, it's a nationality

What doesn't devolution offer but plenty of autonomy? The only country in the UK lacking such powers is England.


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

Hi.

As far as I'm aware, devo max wasn't an option because of the unionists. And even if it was offered and was chosen by the majority, westminster would still be in charge? Is it asking for much for Scotland to have more rights on the going ons in Scotland, especially when you see images like this?

To be honest, I don't think three options would have been viable anyway, how could they ever put forward full independence vs a wee bit of independence but not really.

I'm actually new to this whole thing and have been quite ignorant on the matter, so if you have any sources of worth from the oppoiste side then that'd be great. I've glanced over stuff like the McCrone report and bits of the mainstream media. Stuff like this just makes me think that independence wouldn't be that bad in all honesty.



Linky.

I'm all for getting rid of trident too.

Even a nobel winning economist think the Scottish should go independent.

And I normally don't care about neg rep, but to those that have done so, could you please explain? Despite making my mind up, I'm really keen on viewing this from all angles.

I quite like your approach to knowing the full facts

Tbh Salmond won't be happy unless he becomes the first PM of Scotlnad