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

Original post by Empire08

Most ridiculous comment ever. You get a 'measly' amount of MPs because the population of Scotland is about 10% of the UK. Therefore the seats in the commons reflect this.

Secondly I think you mean private school, not public school?

Also, please don't tell me you would vote for independence purely on the basis of not liking the tories?

Uh, probably meant public school. Places like Eton, Westminster etc are public schools.

Reply 62

Empire08

Original post by Jordan_1

Finally, if Scotland was such a burden to the UK why are the English so keen on keeping us part of their union?

What garbage. So it's US and THEM now is it?

Hint: It's OUR union, as in each of the four countries it comprises.

Reply 63

Scumbaggio

12

I don't know enough about it to do anything other than throw in my humble opinion.

From what I've read/seen many Scottish people mistakenly believe voting for independence is going to result in some kind of utopia without the tyranny of Westminster.

I think they'll reject it anyway.

Reply 64

I don't know how any Scot can decide to vote anything other than no, since the economics of the situation hasn't been decided.

Salmond needs to negotiate the position with the rest of the UK and Europe so everyone has a clear picture of what will come from independence, rather than 'wishful thinking' about how it is going to be. Currency, oil, Europe and student fees will be big issues, and much more. He has already been made to look an idiot on his position on Europe.

He is relying on an economic argument that revolves around Scotland taking with them practically all of the offshore oil reserves of the UK in order to support his economic projections, when the final position of what proportion of the oil share Scotland will finally have hasn't even been resolved.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 65

Maths Tutor

Original post by marcusfox

Salmond needs to negotiate the position with the rest of the UK and Europe so everyone has a clear picture of what will come from independence, rather than 'wishful thinking' about how it is going to be.

Out of all the countries that have become independent so far, starting with the United States, in which country did 'everyone have a clear picture of what will come from independence'?

In which country did everything go in accordance with the 'clear picture'?

How can Salmond negotiate anything with England or the EU when those two are refusing to talk about anything before Independence?

I am looking forward to seeing how Cameron is going to negotiate England's independence from the EU so that in England "everyone has a clear picture of what will come from independence, rather than 'wishful thinking' about how it is going to be."

Reply 66

Original post by Maths Tutor

Out of all the countries that have become independent so far, starting with the United States, in which country did 'everyone have a clear picture of what will come from independence'?

In which country did everything go in accordance with the 'clear picture'?

How can Salmond negotiate anything with England or the EU when those two are refusing to talk about anything before Independence?

I am looking forward to seeing how Cameron is going to negotiate England's independence from the EU so that in England "everyone has a clear picture of what will come from independence, rather than 'wishful thinking' about how it is going to be."

That's a straw man if ever I saw one. For one thing, the USA fought a war for independence and gained independence over 250 years ago... They are not in the slightest bit comparable.

Certainly hundreds of years ago, the Scots were oppressed in the same manner. They can no longer be considered to be so today.

It seems to me that many people who are arguing "Let's go for it, no country has ever had the clear picture of how economics will be until after the event" are less concerned with the economic position and more concerned with sticking two fingers up to the English and Westminster. Just like practically every other state that has seceeded from its parent entity without having the economic argument worked out.

Salmond is attempting to claim that Scottish independence is very little to do with anti-English nationalism and everything to do with the economic argument - that Scotland would be better off economically as a separate entity from the UK. So he needs to have the economic argument worked out if he has any credibility. I doubt many Scots will be happy after the event if it turns out their quality of life decreases, even if they are free from under the English yoke.

They aren't refusing to talk at all. In fact they are spelling out the situation to Scotland that it's not going to be exactly as they would like. Just go and read Barroso's comments which were so much at odds with Scotland's stated position on remaining as part of the EU come independence.

Cameron is pro Europe, so in no way is he going to 'negotiate independence from the EU'. He is going to (attempt to) renegotiate the treaty in order to get the best deal for the UK, and then hope that people in the UK are going to vote to stay in on those terms. That is, if it can be renegotiated. I have no doubt he will not be able to have everything his own way. If not, people will still get to have a say on whether we are in or out under whatever terms exist when the referendum is called.

You can bet that the Yes and the No camps will provide detailed arguments as to the economic arguments in each case. Again, this is hardly comparable with the Scottish situation. By the time of the UK's EU referendum, we will know exactly where we stand.

As it stands, the Scots referendum is next year, and the Scots have as yet no idea where they stand on currency, national debt, offshore oil and gas, student fees, healthcare and a whole lot more.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 67

Maths Tutor

Original post by marcusfox

Just like practically every other state that has seceeded from its parent entity without having the economic argument worked out.

"Practically every other independent state" has shown that there is much more than the "economic argument" to be independent.

The anti-independence campaign can scaremonger as much as it likes, but it is not rocket science to conclude that Scotland has much more than adequate resources for its 5 million residents to be better off than they are now.

But more important than the "economic argument", an independent Scotland will be able to apply policies which are desired by its people rather than unpopular policies forced upon us by Westminster.

It is a blatant lie to claim that the Scottish independence movement is anti-English.

Original post by marcusfox

Cameron is pro Europe, so in no way is he going to 'negotiate independence from the EU'. He is going to (attempt to) renegotiate the treaty in order to get the best deal for the UK, and then hope that people in the UK are going to vote to stay in on those terms. That is, if it can be renegotiated. I have no doubt he will not be able to have everything his own way. If not, people will still get to have a say on whether we are in or out under whatever terms exist when the referendum is called.

Cameron has been forced by the British / English nationalists in his party to hold a referendum for England to be independent from the EU.

My own view is that the rest of the EU will be delighted to get rid of England from the EU - they will not give in to its demands, except for token gestures. No doubt Cameron is preparing the "economic argument" for an independent England outside the EU in case the EU refuses to "renegotiate the treaty".

Scotland will have become independent with continuing membership of the EU from day 1.

Reply 68

Maths Tutor

Original post by marcusfox

If not, people will still get to have a say on whether we are in or out under whatever terms exist when the referendum is called.

The hypocrisy of the British / English nationalists!

When the SNP got the most seats in the Scottish parliament in 2006, the Lib-Dems refused to form a coalition with them because they were opposed to a referendum on Scottish independence. But now them and Cameron have no problem promising a referendum on England's exit from the EU although they are opposed to it!

When the SNP formed a minority government from 2006 to 2011, the anti independence Conservative - Labour - Lib-Dem 'Bitter Together' alliance refused to support a referendum on Scottish independence. But from the day the SNP won a majority in 2011 and a referendum became inevitable, they wanted a referendum to be held yesterday!

While being dead against a 3 year wait for the Scottish independence referendum to be held, they don't have any problems with a 5 year wait for a referendum on English independence!

Reply 69

Original post by Maths Tutor

"Practically every other independent state" has shown that there is much more than the "economic argument" to be independent.

The anti-independence campaign can scaremonger as much as it likes, but it is not rocket science to conclude that Scotland has much more than adequate resources for its 5 million residents to be better off than they are now.

Conclude? And how can they do that if the economic question has not been answered? Crystal ball perhaps?

Original post by Maths Tutor

But more important than the "economic argument", an independent Scotland will be able to apply policies which are desired by its people rather than unpopular policies forced upon us by Westminster.

It is a blatant lie to claim that the Scottish independence movement is anti-English.

Your first paragraph gives away how you and others in favour of independence feel about the English. You betray yourself with your own negative words. Doubly confirmed by Salmond choosing a particular date in June on which to hold the thing.

Original post by Maths Tutor

Cameron has been forced by the British / English nationalists in his party to hold a referendum for England to be independent from the EU.

The UK to be independent from the EU, I think you will find.

Original post by Maths Tutor

My own view is that the rest of the EU will be delighted to get rid of England from the EU - they will not give in to its demands, except for token gestures. No doubt Cameron is preparing the "economic argument" for an independent England outside the EU in case the EU refuses to "renegotiate the treaty".

Except he is pro-EU. The referendum offer is to stymie the likes of UKIP. Those in favour of EU independence are going to have to vote for the Conservatives now, because a vote for UKIP means it is more likely that Labour will win, and Labour have said they won't have a referendum.

Original post by Maths Tutor

Scotland will have become independent with continuing membership of the EU from day 1.

You wish. There is absolutely no basis for making that claim, apart from pie in the sky fantasy. Indeed, Barroso has explicitly said that Scotland won't have automatic membership come independence, and would have to re-apply.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 70

Original post by Maths Tutor

The hypocrisy of the British / English nationalists!

When the SNP got the most seats in the Scottish parliament in 2006, the Lib-Dems refused to form a coalition with them because they were opposed to a referendum on Scottish independence. But now them and Cameron have no problem promising a referendum on England's exit from the EU although they are opposed to it!

Sorry, but the Lib Dems have no say in what what goes into the CONSERVATIVE election manifesto, much less what the CONSERVATIVES do in the next election, should Cameron get a majority.

Original post by Maths Tutor

When the SNP formed a minority government from 2006 to 2011, the anti independence Conservative - Labour - Lib-Dem 'Bitter Together' alliance refused to support a referendum on Scottish independence. But from the day the SNP won a majority in 2011 and a referendum became inevitable, they wanted a referendum to be held yesterday!

And of course Salmond has only a purely economic motive for choosing June 2014 :rolleyes:

Original post by Maths Tutor

While being dead against a 3 year wait for the Scottish independence referendum to be held, they don't have any problems with a 5 year wait for a referendum on English independence!

Erm, try again. UK independence. And given the five year wait, it is largely an electoral ploy.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 71

munchen102

Personally I wouldn't want independence but would like to see Scotland an individual nation in the Olympics and other sporting events. If it's allowed in the WC then I think it should be like that for other events.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 72

Stramala

1

There won't be a problem at all. While England will continue to fight against immigraiton ruining their job market in entire the wrong manner, by giving people who shouldn't be in employment jobs purely because of their nationality and thus ruining their economy, Scotland government's focus on education will ensure in the long term that Scots will gain employment on merit rather than because of where they were born. Reducing unemployment will reduce the need to pay money to people who are contributing nothing towards the economy. It doesn't matter if taxes go up, because the improvement in the standard of workforce will subsequently improve the output of our economy, making the country stronger and negating the effect of the tax increase over time.

I am bored by Unionist scaremongering. They've yet to come up with one argument as to why the Union has any redeeming features of its own, rather than just bashing independence talk. Stability? Yawn. The Queen? It would be great to get that thief off the tax bill. I hope Salmond does a u-turn and cuts ties with the royal family completely.

I would be happy paying higher taxes if it meant a better country to live in, where people who don't understand Scotland aren't allowed to meddle in our affairs. If the Conservatives were not the major force in politics right now things may be different, but as long as they dictate the direction the United Kingdom as a whole takes, I have no interest in being a part of it.

I don't want independence from England because something that happened centuries ago, I want it because the current situation doesn't suit us. We are being governed by a party that has little popularity in our own country, just because they can collect the majority of votes in the opposite side of the country to us. How is it fair to have an agenda forced upon us that we didn't vote for? That as a nation, we didn't vote for? I would at least like the freedom to choose who governs my country, rather than have the English choose for me. Think about it - how would you like it if the tables were turned, and voting patterns in Scotland decided who would be in charge of England? I don't imagine you'd be too pleased about it.

Reply 73

sevchenko

15

Original post by Stramala

There won't be a problem at all. While England will continue to fight against immigraiton ruining their job market in entire the wrong manner, by giving people who shouldn't be in employment jobs purely because of their nationality and thus ruining their economy, Scotland government's focus on education will ensure in the long term that Scots will gain employment on merit rather than because of where they were born. Reducing unemployment will reduce the need to pay money to people who are contributing nothing towards the economy. It doesn't matter if taxes go up, because the improvement in the standard of workforce will subsequently improve the output of our economy, making the country stronger and negating the effect of the tax increase over time.

I am bored by Unionist scaremongering. They've yet to come up with one argument as to why the Union has any redeeming features of its own, rather than just bashing independence talk. Stability? Yawn. The Queen? It would be great to get that thief off the tax bill. I hope Salmond does a u-turn and cuts ties with the royal family completely.

I would be happy paying higher taxes if it meant a better country to live in, where people who don't understand Scotland aren't allowed to meddle in our affairs. If the Conservatives were not the major force in politics right now things may be different, but as long as they dictate the direction the United Kingdom as a whole takes, I have no interest in being a part of it.

I don't want independence from England because something that happened centuries ago, I want it because the current situation doesn't suit us. We are being governed by a party that has little popularity in our own country, just because they can collect the majority of votes in the opposite side of the country to us. How is it fair to have an agenda forced upon us that we didn't vote for? That as a nation, we didn't vote for? I would at least like the freedom to choose who governs my country, rather than have the English choose for me. Think about it - how would you like it if the tables were turned, and voting patterns in Scotland decided who would be in charge of England? I don't imagine you'd be too pleased about it.

Ever heard of a institution called the Scottish parliament. Don't act as if the Scots don't have a say in their own nation. Most Scots would vote to stay in the Union, I'm positive about that

Reply 74

Stramala

1

Original post by sevchenko

Ever heard of a institution called the Scottish parliament. Don't act as if the Scots don't have a say in their own nation. Most Scots would vote to stay in the Union, I'm positive about that

Oh, so we're just supposed to be happy that Westminster has given us permission to make decisions on a few things? We should be happy that we have anything at all and remain under control of a group of people we voted against?

Scotland are England are two different nationalities. We have different points of view. The overall political picture is radically different up here compared to down there.

Lets say for example the Scottish independence referendum fails. And then the EU referendum for the whole of the UK comes along. Say that 65%-70% of Scotland votes in favour of remaining. But 55% in the entire UK votes to leave. The majority of those votes will have come from England, as it is by far the highest population centre in the United Kingdom. Scotland will be forced to go along with a decision it voted against. Where is our say in a scenario like that?

People are tentative and aren't huge fans of massive change. It seems to be ingrained in British culture. It just requires people to take a chance, but I'm not sure how many people are comfortable changing the status quo. Not everyone who votes against independence will do it because they strongly believe in the union. If you look at opinion polls, the majority prefers to meet in the middle and go with DevoMax instead of going fully independent or staying fully committed to the union. People like a safety net, but I hope more people are willing to put their fear aside and take this opportunity.

Reply 75

Swanbow

Let's hope that Scotland stays in the Union for the sole reason of ensuring enough politically diversity in Westminster so that the Conservatives will not become the de facto one state party of the new 'Un-tied Kingdom'. With no Scottish seats in the Houses of Commons then Labour would never be able to gain enough seats to win another general election without heavily skewered boundary changes in England towards their favour. Also the Lib-dems might see their only remaining presence in their Scottish strongholds come 2015.

Edit: Made the post a long time ago and I have since done some more research on whether or not Labour would be able to win the general election without Scottish seats. It isn't impossible, but would require a swing like we saw with the 1997 landslide Labour victory. At any rate the boundaries would need to be redrawn to give Labour a chance. Better yet, maybe it will herald some kind of electoral reform and we can see a more proportional system being used.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 76

L i b

Original post by Maths Tutor

"Practically every other independent state" has shown that there is much more than the "economic argument" to be independent.

The anti-independence campaign can scaremonger as much as it likes, but it is not rocket science to conclude that Scotland has much more than adequate resources for its 5 million residents to be better off than they are now.

I assume you're implying ramping up taxes in your independent utopia. Believe it or not, left-wing economics rarely do much good for anyone. Equally, of course, these arguments could be applied to the UK as much as to Scotland.

But more important than the "economic argument", an independent Scotland will be able to apply policies which are desired by its people rather than unpopular policies forced upon us by Westminster.

I think you'll find the United Kingdom already does that.

It is a blatant lie to claim that the Scottish independence movement is anti-English.

A bit like saying grand apartheid wasn't anti-black. Perhaps technically seeking to separate from another people may not be in direct opposition to them, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate an open desire for co-operation with them.

Cameron has been forced by the British / English nationalists in his party to hold a referendum for England to be independent from the EU.

My own view is that the rest of the EU will be delighted to get rid of England from the EU - they will not give in to its demands, except for token gestures. No doubt Cameron is preparing the "economic argument" for an independent England outside the EU in case the EU refuses to "renegotiate the treaty".

It's funny how the Nationalists seem to revel in this nonsense. In reality, most people in the UK want to be in Europe, just with a looser bond to it.

If Scotland was independent and the UK withdrew from the EU, it would be an utter disaster for Scotland. Possibly taking it to a level where we could seriously talk about the state collapsing. Our main export market is the rest of the UK and we depend on a common market with them.

Scotland will have become independent with continuing membership of the EU from day 1.

I'm quite comfortable these days with saying that is beyond a fringe theory, it's nothing short of a false assurance. A lie, essentially. EU law as it stands permits membership negotiations only after an application. An application can only be made by a European state. Scotland, before it is independent, is not a European state.

The European Commission's refusal to meet with the Scottish Ministers is clear enough indication that the idea of a post-independence negotiated entry is a non-starter.

Reply 77

L i b

Original post by Stramala

Oh, so we're just supposed to be happy that Westminster has given us permission to make decisions on a few things? We should be happy that we have anything at all and remain under control of a group of people we voted against?

Last time I checked I still vote for the UK Government, so kindly cease that utterly facile argument.

[quScotland are England are two different nationalities. We have different points of view. The overall political picture is radically different up here compared to down there.

The first point is objectively false. The second point is true insofar as individuals all have different points of view. As for politics being "radically different", I simply don't accept that. There's an extra party, but in general there are very similar electoral trends and - when polling is done on actual political viewpoints on different issues - they are virtually identical between Scotland and England.

Not that any of this matters, of course. I'm sure a Glaswegian would be far more justified in emphasising the political difference between his city and rural Aberdeenshire. It doesn't mean that he will be a Glasgow separatist.

Lets say for example the Scottish independence referendum fails. And then the EU referendum for the whole of the UK comes along. Say that 65%-70% of Scotland votes in favour of remaining. But 55% in the entire UK votes to leave. The majority of those votes will have come from England, as it is by far the highest population centre in the United Kingdom. Scotland will be forced to go along with a decision it voted against. Where is our say in a scenario like that?

Your say is equal to any Englishman's. Just as a black person's say is equal to a white person's, or a woman's say is equal to a man's. I'm not sure why you don't understand simple democracy.

If you look at opinion polls, the majority prefers to meet in the middle and go with DevoMax instead of going fully independent or staying fully committed to the union.

Supporting a more devolved political framework does not mean you are any less committed to your country or its unity. The United States is far more decentralised than the UK - yet I doubt anyone there arguing for the status quo would see themselves as any less American for doing so.

Reply 78

Original post by Stramala

There won't be a problem at all. While England will continue to fight against immigraiton ruining their job market in entire the wrong manner, by giving people who shouldn't be in employment jobs purely because of their nationality and thus ruining their economy, Scotland government's focus on education will ensure in the long term that Scots will gain employment on merit rather than because of where they were born. Reducing unemployment will reduce the need to pay money to people who are contributing nothing towards the economy. It doesn't matter if taxes go up, because the improvement in the standard of workforce will subsequently improve the output of our economy, making the country stronger and negating the effect of the tax increase over time.

You mention education? Free tuition fees would be the first thing to go, in order to 'negate the effect of the tax rises'.

The rest is a very wishful thinking economic argument, every country attempts to 'improve the output of the economy', and it's not as simple as you claim.

Original post by Stramala

I am bored by Unionist scaremongering. They've yet to come up with one argument as to why the Union has any redeeming features of its own, rather than just bashing independence talk. Stability? Yawn. The Queen? It would be great to get that thief off the tax bill. I hope Salmond does a u-turn and cuts ties with the royal family completely.

Yes, you've nailed your colours to the mast with that one your motivations for independence are nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the anti-English chip on your shoulder. In any case, the monarchy is a net contributor to the UK economy.

The monarchy costs the tax payer ~£8m p.a. of which £231m was delivered to the Treasury by the Crown Estates leaving a £223m profit. Not a bad deal I would have thought.

Original post by Stramala

I would be happy paying higher taxes if it meant a better country to live in, where people who don't understand Scotland aren't allowed to meddle in our affairs. If the Conservatives were not the major force in politics right now things may be different, but as long as they dictate the direction the United Kingdom as a whole takes, I have no interest in being a part of it.

Smacks of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Most people don't want to pay more tax. Last years poll should tell you everything you need to know.

Should Scotland quit the UK. (Survation)
Scotland says: Yes 26% No 46%
England and Wales says: Yes 29% No 40%

Original post by Stramala

I don't want independence from England because something that happened centuries ago, I want it because the current situation doesn't suit us. We are being governed by a party that has little popularity in our own country, just because they can collect the majority of votes in the opposite side of the country to us. How is it fair to have an agenda forced upon us that we didn't vote for? That as a nation, we didn't vote for? I would at least like the freedom to choose who governs my country, rather than have the English choose for me. Think about it - how would you like it if the tables were turned, and voting patterns in Scotland decided who would be in charge of England? I don't imagine you'd be too pleased about it.

Even if Scotland chooses, they are more than likely to say no. Not because of any nationalist position, but purely because of the economic one.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 79

L i b