This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- how to study for national 5 English
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Dentistry Backups?
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- University Admissions Advice
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- is common law at Glasgow competitive?
Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Maths Tutor
What motive does Cameron have for 'celebrating' in 2014 the centenary of the START of a war that killed millions?
(For your information, the Scottish Independence referendum is scheduled for the AUTUMN of 2014.)
(For your information, the Scottish Independence referendum is scheduled for the AUTUMN of 2014.)
Surely because Bannockburn is one of the most celebrated victories against the English in Scottish history? The English massively outnumbered the Scots but Bruce still managed to win.
Original post by Maths Tutor
What motive does Cameron have for 'celebrating' in 2014 the centenary of the START of a war that killed millions?
Original post by L i b
It's rather odd that you would cast what is officially a commemoration as a celebration.
"Commemoration" of the START of a war that killed millions? Perhaps you could give some examples of the START of a war being 'Commemorated'?
Original post by L i b
Anyway, you'd be quite wrong if you thought the UK Government did that out of concern for the Scottish referendum.
So out of what "concern" in 2014 did Cameron / the UK Government come up with the idea of spending millions on the "Commemoration" of the START of a war that killed millions?
Not forgetting that it happened 100 years ago and is hardly of any concern to anyone today, and Westminster has better things to waste, I mean spend, money on, for example reducing the MORE THAN ONE TRILLION POUNDS NATIONAL debt.
Original post by L i b
The Lib Dems have a longer history of supporting an in/out referendum on the EU than the Conservatives do. It's also got nothing to do with the coalition - the commitment is made solely by the Conservative Party, after the next general election.
At least the Lib Dems - being pro-Europe - can say that a referendum on the EU would enhance its democratic legitimacy.
At least the Lib Dems - being pro-Europe - can say that a referendum on the EU would enhance its democratic legitimacy.
Are those the same 'Fib Dems' that refused to form a coalition with the SNP because they were opposed to a referendum on Scottish independence?
Are those the same 'Fib Dems' whose Scottish leader told the Scottish people before the 2011 Scottish election: If you want a referendum, vote for the SNP.
They weren't quite interested in 'enhancing the democratic legititimacy' of Scotland's union with England were they?
Original post by L i b
You can hardly call a majority government proportional if it was elected with less than half of the votes.
What % of the vote did the Tories get in 2010 and what % of the seats did that result in?
What % of the vote did Labour get in 2010 and what % of the seats did that result in?
What % of the vote did the SNP get in 2011 and what % of the seats did that result in?
Original post by marcusfox
Living in the UK, I have a right to consider how Scottish independence will affect me and my life as a citizen and resident of the UK. Indeed, the rest of the UK should have an equal say (ironically if anything, that would make Scottish independence more likely).
So you would accept that everyone living in the EU have a right to consider how English independence from the EU, or cherry picking the treaty parts they like, will affect them and their lives as citizens and residents of the EU?
So you would accept that indeed, the rest of the EU should have an equal say, in other words, be able to vote on the referendum on England's independence from the EU? ((ironically if anything, that would make English independence more likely)
Original post by Maths Tutor
Now that you know, could you find out the motive and post it here?
Motive for what? Celebrating the start of a war when that interpretation is only in your mind?
Original post by Maths Tutor
No I don't, but I know that June is not in the autumn.
True, it isn't. But you can be sure that that particular event will be fondly remembered and used to stir up nationalist hatred of the English in the run up to it, by the SNP no less.
Speaking of this referendum, how do you know it is scheduled for the autumn?
Original post by Maths Tutor
So you would accept that everyone living in the EU have a right to consider how English independence from the EU, or cherry picking the treaty parts they like, will affect them and their lives as citizens and residents of the EU?
So you would accept that indeed, the rest of the EU should have an equal say, in other words, be able to vote on the referendum on England's independence from the EU? ((ironically if anything, that would make English independence more likely)
So you would accept that indeed, the rest of the EU should have an equal say, in other words, be able to vote on the referendum on England's independence from the EU? ((ironically if anything, that would make English independence more likely)
No, this is a straw man. Considering that the EU is not a single country superstate like the USA. So you cannot compare secession from a country to secession from the European Union.
However I agree though that other EU citizens should have a vote on the treaty re-negotiations (through their own elected representatives) when it comes to Britain attempting to renegotiate their position prior to the referendum.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by marcusfox
However it is absurd that I would not be able to hold an opinion on both, and the fact that you imply that I should butt out of something that is none of my business (using my location information provided to TSR) smacks of a childish ad hominem attack. Classy.
Anyone can have an opinion on anything. I don't have any problem with that.
But I am implying at the hypocrisy of the British / English nationalists who want to scaremonger about Scottish independence but think that English independence from the EU would be a good idea.
If you live in England, it is your concern how you and ENGLAND will be affected by Scottish independence. So it is total hypocrisy to demand an answer to the economic argument for Scotland - that is for the people of Scotland to decide. You are not concerned about Scotland out of benevolence are you?
What you are really concerned about is whether ENGLAND will be better or worse off after Scottish independence. Why can't you be honest about that?
Original post by marcusfox
I also like the way you use the phrase 'anti-Scottish Independence Axis' as in Axis of Evil, or even Axis powers (WWII) to demean those who hold an opinion different to yourself. Nice little bit of Godwin's Law too.
The Tories and New Labour, who are at each others' throats in England, 'bitterly' uniting with the Lib Dems who have had Scottish Home Rule as a policy for about a century to SCAREMONGER about Scottish Independence are aptly described as the anti-Scottish Independence Axis in my view!
Original post by ch0llima
Whereas I, as a Scottish person living in England, have no say. Rumour is they won't even allow postal votes for this referendum.
If you're living in Scotland you can be from England, Wales, Mozambique or Gallifrey and you get a vote as long as you're on the electoral roll. Scottish people living in these places don't get a word in edgeways, which is one thing I am extremely angry and concerned about.
If you're living in Scotland you can be from England, Wales, Mozambique or Gallifrey and you get a vote as long as you're on the electoral roll. Scottish people living in these places don't get a word in edgeways, which is one thing I am extremely angry and concerned about.
So in the referendum on England's independence from the EU, every Englishman / Englishwoman living anywhere in the world should have a vote?
But all those of non-English origin living in England should not have the vote in England's Independence referendum?
Original post by Maths Tutor
Anyone can have an opinion on anything. I don't have any problem with that.
But I am implying at the hypocrisy of the British / English nationalists who want to scaremonger about Scottish independence but think that English independence from the EU would be a good idea.
If you live in England, it is your concern how you and ENGLAND will be affected by Scottish independence. So it is total hypocrisy to demand an answer to the economic argument for Scotland - that is for the people of Scotland to decide. You are not concerned about Scotland out of benevolence are you?
What you are really concerned about is whether ENGLAND will be better or worse off after Scottish independence. Why can't you be honest about that?
But I am implying at the hypocrisy of the British / English nationalists who want to scaremonger about Scottish independence but think that English independence from the EU would be a good idea.
If you live in England, it is your concern how you and ENGLAND will be affected by Scottish independence. So it is total hypocrisy to demand an answer to the economic argument for Scotland - that is for the people of Scotland to decide. You are not concerned about Scotland out of benevolence are you?
What you are really concerned about is whether ENGLAND will be better or worse off after Scottish independence. Why can't you be honest about that?
I am in favour of the union remaining because I believe that the two economies together will be greater than the sum of those run separately, yes.
Just a question actually. Imagine for one moment Scotland is worse off economically. Who is going to look after them, the Scots government, or the UK government when they migrate south across the border in search of a better life and job prospects? Presumably there won't be any restrictions on the freedom of movement between the two countries?
After all, we've seen plenty of economic migration (not always to the benefit of the UK economy) from the EU and many other countries in the last 15 years.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Maths Tutor
The Tories and New Labour, who are at each others' throats in England, 'bitterly' uniting with the Lib Dems who have had Scottish Home Rule as a policy for about a century to SCAREMONGER about Scottish Independence are aptly described as the anti-Scottish Independence Axis in my view!
LOL, well 'your view' says a lot about you, to be honest.
Original post by marcusfox
I am in favour of the union remaining because I believe that the two economies together will be greater than the sum of those run separately, yes.
Just a question actually. Imagine for one moment Scotland is worse off economically. Who is going to look after them, the Scots government, or the UK government when they migrate south across the border in search of a better life and job prospects? Presumably there won't be any restrictions on the freedom of movement between the two countries?
After all, we've seen plenty of economic migration (not always to the benefit of the UK economy) from the EU and many other countries in the last 15 years.
Just a question actually. Imagine for one moment Scotland is worse off economically. Who is going to look after them, the Scots government, or the UK government when they migrate south across the border in search of a better life and job prospects? Presumably there won't be any restrictions on the freedom of movement between the two countries?
After all, we've seen plenty of economic migration (not always to the benefit of the UK economy) from the EU and many other countries in the last 15 years.
Why don't you put it honestly? Your concern is about ENGLAND, not Scotland.
You are SCAREMONGERING about Scottish independence because you think YOU (in England) will be worse off.
You have stated that Scottish independence would be more likely if England had a say. That implies that the English think they are FUNDING Scotland, because after all, according to you, the 'economic argument' is supreme.
But this majority view in England that England will be better off contradicts your point of the "two economies together will be greater than the sum of those run separately ".
As for economic migration into England, Westminster was 100% responsible for that. Unless you can manage some way of blaming Salmond and the SNP.
I cannot for one moment imagine that Scotland would be worse off economically after Independence. I am 100% sure that Scotland will be better off economically. But as I have indicated before, being economically better off has never been the top priority for ANY country wanting to be independent.
Original post by L i b
The Lib Dems have a longer history of supporting an in/out referendum on the EU than the Conservatives do.
Original post by L i b
At least the Lib Dems - being pro-Europe - can say that a referendum on the EU would enhance its democratic legitimacy.
The news on 28.01.2013:
"Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has warned that an EU referendum promise risks derailing the fragile UK economy"
"Mr Clegg said prime minister David Cameron’s promise of an in-out EU referendum if the Conservatives win the next election is ‘not in the national interest’"
"He denied his party had done a U-turn by opposing a referendum – having argued strongly for an in-out vote in 2008."
The Fib-Dems and "democratic legitimacy" indeed!
Original post by Maths Tutor
Why don't you put it honestly? Your concern is about ENGLAND, not Scotland.
You are SCAREMONGERING about Scottish independence because you think YOU (in England) will be worse off.
You have stated that Scottish independence would be more likely if England had a say. That implies that the English think they are FUNDING Scotland, because after all, according to you, the 'economic argument' is supreme.
But this majority view in England that England will be better off contradicts your point of the "two economies together will be greater than the sum of those run separately ".
As for economic migration into England, Westminster was 100% responsible for that. Unless you can manage some way of blaming Salmond and the SNP.
I cannot for one moment imagine that Scotland would be worse off economically after Independence. I am 100% sure that Scotland will be better off economically. But as I have indicated before, being economically better off has never been the top priority for ANY country wanting to be independent.
You are SCAREMONGERING about Scottish independence because you think YOU (in England) will be worse off.
You have stated that Scottish independence would be more likely if England had a say. That implies that the English think they are FUNDING Scotland, because after all, according to you, the 'economic argument' is supreme.
But this majority view in England that England will be better off contradicts your point of the "two economies together will be greater than the sum of those run separately ".
As for economic migration into England, Westminster was 100% responsible for that. Unless you can manage some way of blaming Salmond and the SNP.
I cannot for one moment imagine that Scotland would be worse off economically after Independence. I am 100% sure that Scotland will be better off economically. But as I have indicated before, being economically better off has never been the top priority for ANY country wanting to be independent.
I'd like you to make this argument then, preferably without using the word oil. Or at least have credible alternatives since basing the economic legitimacy on a finite resource is insane in the extreme. The second point that being economically better off is never the top priority for an independence movement is strange given that most Scots will be voting Yes or No in the referendum on the basis of how well they think Scotland will do economically once its independent, its a key issue to many voters.
Original post by Maths Tutor
Why don't you put it honestly? Your concern is about ENGLAND, not Scotland.
You are SCAREMONGERING about Scottish independence because you think YOU (in England) will be worse off.
You have stated that Scottish independence would be more likely if England had a say. That implies that the English think they are FUNDING Scotland, because after all, according to you, the 'economic argument' is supreme.
But this majority view in England that England will be better off contradicts your point of the "two economies together will be greater than the sum of those run separately ".
As for economic migration into England, Westminster was 100% responsible for that. Unless you can manage some way of blaming Salmond and the SNP.
I cannot for one moment imagine that Scotland would be worse off economically after Independence. I am 100% sure that Scotland will be better off economically. But as I have indicated before, being economically better off has never been the top priority for ANY country wanting to be independent.
You are SCAREMONGERING about Scottish independence because you think YOU (in England) will be worse off.
You have stated that Scottish independence would be more likely if England had a say. That implies that the English think they are FUNDING Scotland, because after all, according to you, the 'economic argument' is supreme.
But this majority view in England that England will be better off contradicts your point of the "two economies together will be greater than the sum of those run separately ".
As for economic migration into England, Westminster was 100% responsible for that. Unless you can manage some way of blaming Salmond and the SNP.
I cannot for one moment imagine that Scotland would be worse off economically after Independence. I am 100% sure that Scotland will be better off economically. But as I have indicated before, being economically better off has never been the top priority for ANY country wanting to be independent.
Er, no you are right, I am not particularly concerned about how Scotland does post independence, my concern is about the UK (not England)
Just like Scotland, there are a large number who do not understand the economic arguments, but additionally, there will be a percentage who have schadenfreude at their neighbours, a percentage who believe that it will shut up their whinging and a percentage who believe that there is a subsidy towards Scotland and would see the rest of the UK as better off.
Your post implies that you think that Scotland will be better off because they put in more than they get out, so how about posting the figures you are basing that on?
I am referring to economic migration after the event of course. With Scottish independence, Scotland will take a not inconsequential chunk of the UK economy with them, but in the event large numbers of them move to the UK in the event of an economic collapse, it will be the UK that has to support them, without that additional economy contributing anything.
LOL. You are 100% sure that Scotland will be economically better off, but even if they aren't, it doesn't really matter because we will have gotten away from the English. Also known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Maths Tutor
Pearl Harbor Day, the US commemoration of the start of the Korean war (http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45243), the joint US-Canadian-Native commemoration of the first battle of the War of 1812 (http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/article/commemorating-the-beginning-of-the-war-of-1812-on-mackinac-island-122718) - all recent examples. Trying to politicise a commemoration of the First World War really is the lowest of the low.
So out of what "concern" in 2014 did Cameron / the UK Government come up with the idea of spending millions on the "Commemoration" of the START of a war that killed millions?
Not forgetting that it happened 100 years ago and is hardly of any concern to anyone today
Not forgetting that it happened 100 years ago and is hardly of any concern to anyone today
You really are an absolute animal, aren't you? Scratch the surface of many Scottish nationalists and you'll find the most revolting opinions imaginable.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Maths Tutor
Are those the same 'Fib Dems' that refused to form a coalition with the SNP because they were opposed to a referendum on Scottish independence?
Are those the same 'Fib Dems' whose Scottish leader told the Scottish people before the 2011 Scottish election: If you want a referendum, vote for the SNP.
They weren't quite interested in 'enhancing the democratic legititimacy' of Scotland's union with England were they?
Are those the same 'Fib Dems' whose Scottish leader told the Scottish people before the 2011 Scottish election: If you want a referendum, vote for the SNP.
They weren't quite interested in 'enhancing the democratic legititimacy' of Scotland's union with England were they?
They didn't need to.
Original post by Maths Tutor
Anyone can have an opinion on anything. I don't have any problem with that.
But I am implying at the hypocrisy of the British / English nationalists who want to scaremonger about Scottish independence but think that English independence from the EU would be a good idea.
But I am implying at the hypocrisy of the British / English nationalists who want to scaremonger about Scottish independence but think that English independence from the EU would be a good idea.
Except of course for that being simply British nationalism rather than a sub-state nationalism and the circumstances being entirely different?
Original post by Maths Tutor
The news on 28.01.2013:
"Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has warned that an EU referendum promise risks derailing the fragile UK economy"
"Mr Clegg said prime minister David Cameron’s promise of an in-out EU referendum if the Conservatives win the next election is ‘not in the national interest’"
"He denied his party had done a U-turn by opposing a referendum – having argued strongly for an in-out vote in 2008."
The Fib-Dems and "democratic legitimacy" indeed!
"Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has warned that an EU referendum promise risks derailing the fragile UK economy"
"Mr Clegg said prime minister David Cameron’s promise of an in-out EU referendum if the Conservatives win the next election is ‘not in the national interest’"
"He denied his party had done a U-turn by opposing a referendum – having argued strongly for an in-out vote in 2008."
The Fib-Dems and "democratic legitimacy" indeed!
You were the ones suggesting that if they supported an EU referendum they would be hypocrites. Presumably you now believe they're not hypocrites...
Original post by Maths Tutor
The Tories and New Labour, who are at each others' throats in England, 'bitterly' uniting with the Lib Dems who have had Scottish Home Rule as a policy for about a century to SCAREMONGER about Scottish Independence are aptly described as the anti-Scottish Independence Axis in my view!
I am in no way "bitter" about uniting with Labour and the Lib Dems in defending a common cause. In fact, it's rather enhanced my social circle. It seems you're the one who's bitter about it.
Original post by Aj12
I'd like you to make this argument then, preferably without using the word oil. Or at least have credible alternatives since basing the economic legitimacy on a finite resource is insane in the extreme.
I have already made the argument that Scotland has more than adequate resources for its 5 million population to be better off. The plural word RESOURCES means I am talking of more than one resource.
It will also help that Scotland will not be wasting billions on weapons of mass destruction and illegal wars. And it will not need to contribute funds for upgrading London's sewage system.
Unless you can openly state here that you believe Scotland is being subsidised by England, Scotland has seen great improvements in the last 6-7 years due to a government whose top and only priority is Scotland. If this was done with 'pocket money' and limited powers, I have no doubt whatsoever that Scotland will be better off after independence when 100% of Scottish revenues will be spent on the needs of Scotland.
I am neither a politician nor an economist. I am giving my own view and am not under any obligation to show 'credible alternatives'. I can see the situation on the ground and that will be the position of the vast majority of Scottish voters in the Independence Referendum.
I can also point out to you that under Westminster rule, the UK has accumulated a National Deficit of more than ONE TRILLION POUNDS and is about to go into a triple-dip recession. So where are all those "credible alternatives" then? On what resources will ENGLAND base its "economic legitimacy" on when Scotland becomes independent?
Original post by Aj12
The second point that being economically better off is never the top priority for an independence movement is strange given that most Scots will be voting Yes or No in the referendum on the basis of how well they think Scotland will do economically once its independent, its a key issue to many voters.
If that is the case, what do you think of marcusfox's and others' arguments that:
a. the date of the referendum has been deliberately chosen to coincide with the anniversary of a famous Scottish victory against the English?
b. The Scottish Independence movement is based on anti-English racism?
I do not believe that economics will be the "key issue" when Scotland votes. The key issue will be creating a fair and equitable society and having a government whose policies will be in tune with the wishes of the people.
If being economically better off had been a "key issue", there would have been very few countries which would have wanted to be independent.
Finally what is YOUR opinion on this: Are the posters from England who claim that Scotland will be worse off after independence saying that out of benevolence towards Scotland or because they are worried that ENGLAND will be worse off after Scotland becomes independent?
Original post by Maths Tutor
I am neither a politician nor an economist.
I am neither a politician nor an economist.
Clearly.
Original post by Maths Tutor
Finally what is YOUR opinion on this: Are the posters from England who claim that Scotland will be worse off after independence saying that out of benevolence towards Scotland or because they are worried that ENGLAND will be worse off after Scotland becomes independent?
Finally what is YOUR opinion on this: Are the posters from England who claim that Scotland will be worse off after independence saying that out of benevolence towards Scotland or because they are worried that ENGLAND will be worse off after Scotland becomes independent?
Mostly, based on the fact that this kind of medium almost never changes people's minds, they're probably just expressing their opinion, not out of benevolence or malevolence. Personally I've seen nothing credible to suggest independence would be wise, and most of the pro-independence support I've seen boiled down to anti-Englishness.
Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- how to study for national 5 English
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Dentistry Backups?
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- University Admissions Advice
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- is common law at Glasgow competitive?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
