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 HappyBappy
Not having spent much time in England, I'm open to be corrected on this BUT on the occasions I have driven to down to London from Glasgow, I can't help but notice that the majority of the journey seems to be through run down, economically depressed areas. I'm not pointing out specific towns, but let's just say there's a reason why they say it's "grim up north." I certainly don't spend my time thinking "'gee those Engerlish are a prosperous bunch, good job they're there to subsidize those ungrateful, peasant Scotch." I would even go so far to argue that if London were taken away from England, any per capita gdp advantage it has(if one does currently exist), would go away. I'm not Scottish, by the way.
Scotland is the most well-off region in the UK outside of London and the South East. There are of course, however, areas of considerable wealth in the north of England, just as there are areas of considerable deprivation in Scotland.
"Not having spent much time in England, I'm open to be corrected on this BUT on the occasions I have driven to down to London from Glasgow, I can't help but notice that the majority of the journey seems to be through run down, economically depressed areas. I'm not pointing out specific towns, but let's just say there's a reason why they say it's "grim up north." I certainly don't spend my time thinking "'gee those Engerlish are a prosperous bunch, good job they're there to subsidize those ungrateful, peasant Scotch." I would even go so far to argue that if London were taken away from England, any per capita gdp advantage it has(if one does currently exist), would go away. I'm not Scottish, by the way]"
That's because Motorways tend to run through Industrial area's. Drive through Birmingham on the M6 and you'd be forgiven thinking that it's like Sarejevo during the height of the civil war. Get off the Motorways and into the City and it's a vibrant, very green city. Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Cardiff, Belfast, LondonDerry, Glasgow et al are all the same. Edinburgh. A lovely city, still has it's bads parts though. Should these bad parts be improved, yes, and they have. But governments can't keep borrowing money in an unsustainable manner to make things look pretty. Every city has seen improvements in area's hampered by vandalism, fly tipping and theft. There's some less than lovely looking parts of cities in Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland. But as most people who post on these sites at most vist, and never stay that's all they remember. I rememeber driving through Toxteth in Liverpool a few months ago and thinking that it didn't look too bad. My Scouse friend however had a completly opposite viewpoint to me as he lived in the area.
The message of Nationalism is 'we want it all for ourselves.' I'd love to do that down at the Micro Level. After all, why should anybody else benefit from my tax and NI contributions. I've worked hard, so has my parents, I'm able to support myself........but then I realise that I wasn't brought up to be selfish and have no problem with my taxes being used for the graeter good. Otherwise we end up with a situation whereby the poorer parts of the UK need to fend for themselves.
Interstingly enough. In an independant Scotland how long do you think it would take for those with access to the oil money to start criticising those without for taking their oil money? The Peoples republic of Aberdeen versus Glasgow.
However Lib, having read you're previous threads I'd have to say that I'm in general agreement with you. We all benefit from this union, and as soon as this recovery starts back up I'm sure the SNP will disappear until the next economic crisis.
That's because Motorways tend to run through Industrial area's. Drive through Birmingham on the M6 and you'd be forgiven thinking that it's like Sarejevo during the height of the civil war. Get off the Motorways and into the City and it's a vibrant, very green city. Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Cardiff, Belfast, LondonDerry, Glasgow et al are all the same. Edinburgh. A lovely city, still has it's bads parts though. Should these bad parts be improved, yes, and they have. But governments can't keep borrowing money in an unsustainable manner to make things look pretty. Every city has seen improvements in area's hampered by vandalism, fly tipping and theft. There's some less than lovely looking parts of cities in Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland. But as most people who post on these sites at most vist, and never stay that's all they remember. I rememeber driving through Toxteth in Liverpool a few months ago and thinking that it didn't look too bad. My Scouse friend however had a completly opposite viewpoint to me as he lived in the area.
The message of Nationalism is 'we want it all for ourselves.' I'd love to do that down at the Micro Level. After all, why should anybody else benefit from my tax and NI contributions. I've worked hard, so has my parents, I'm able to support myself........but then I realise that I wasn't brought up to be selfish and have no problem with my taxes being used for the graeter good. Otherwise we end up with a situation whereby the poorer parts of the UK need to fend for themselves.
Interstingly enough. In an independant Scotland how long do you think it would take for those with access to the oil money to start criticising those without for taking their oil money? The Peoples republic of Aberdeen versus Glasgow.
However Lib, having read you're previous threads I'd have to say that I'm in general agreement with you. We all benefit from this union, and as soon as this recovery starts back up I'm sure the SNP will disappear until the next economic crisis.
(edited 11 years ago)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/scotland/9861379/Independent-Scotland-would-have-to-negotiate-entry-to-major-world-bodies.html An independent Scotland would be forced to renegotiate up to 14,000 treaties with world bodies including the European Union and the United Nations, legal experts have warned.
Amusing really. Seems the SNP was trying to say the opposite.
Amusing really. Seems the SNP was trying to say the opposite.
Original post by Aj12
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/scotland/9861379/Independent-Scotland-would-have-to-negotiate-entry-to-major-world-bodies.html An independent Scotland would be forced to renegotiate up to 14,000 treaties with world bodies including the European Union and the United Nations, legal experts have warned.
Amusing really. Seems the SNP was trying to say the opposite.
Amusing really. Seems the SNP was trying to say the opposite.
The SNP have been saying a lot of opposite things. They'll say anything to retain power. Stand by for responses utilsing the word 'Scaremongering.' A typical CyberNat Trait. Belittle the messenger and do not question message.
Original post by Scott006
I have also come across this counter claim, but the reality is that £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.
LOL. Well done
"The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services."
As taken verbatim from paragraph six of this page http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public
The comments tear this apart. I particularly liked
"The attempted excuse that "...The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items..." is risible. If it were so easy, the author would have done it, and even if it were true, it would not alter the current inequity, and it is in any case contradicted by the later assertion that "...the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would...be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf".
and also
"Where is the evidence that there is "under-spending" in defence or other areas? And how much under spending? You obviously don't know. There are no real statistics or calculations here, just bar room argument stuff."
Original post by Scott006
You can twist numbers either way, but the reality is that Scotland is very viable as an independent nation. Again, I'll go back to the Treasury's worst case scenario for an independent Scotland in which every Scot would be £1 worse off. Doesn't quite match up to the predictions of economic catastrophe, does it.
You're the one twisting numbers. I've just shown you that Scotland receives a subsidy of £624 per person. Regardless of whether or not you believe that that is down to your second hand 'making up for decades of underinvestment' quote, the reality is is that come independence, Scotland would no longer be getting that 'investment' money and thus it follows that every Scot would be £624 worse off right from the bat before the Scots economy is even tested as a separate entity.
Original post by Scott006
Green energy potential, If Scotland really was producing a quarter of Europes electricity with only a tiny fraction of it's population then it would be an immensely wealthy nation. The point I was illustrating is that Scotland has a very bright future in the renewables industry that will be a nice and stable source of income and employment. I am not advocating that Scotland base its economy 100% on renewables. Scotland is a modern, diverse European nation that does not rely on one source of income and generous English subsidies, as much as you would like to think it does.
Green energy potential means nothing unless you put the infrastructure in place. And the rest, no matter what you might like to think or boldly assert without evidence does not make it true.
Indeed it smacks much like the wishful thinking nonsense that many pro-independence Scots nationalists have been spouting on this thread.
Original post by Scott006
Loose British citizenship, gain Scottish citizenship.. okay. Scotland would remain part of NATO so actually it would have the protection of the British, as well as the American, Canadian etc armed forces. And people would simply turn to the Scottish Consulate, or failing that the embassy of any other European nation as EU citizens.
Loose British citizenship, gain Scottish citizenship.. okay. Scotland would remain part of NATO so actually it would have the protection of the British, as well as the American, Canadian etc armed forces. And people would simply turn to the Scottish Consulate, or failing that the embassy of any other European nation as EU citizens.
Oh look who I am replying to again. I remember reading this a couple of days ago and thinking that it was utter nonsense, but I didn't bother replying then as I was busy. However just today I was reading the Metro, which seems to agree.
On page 6, Metro Home Digest, the headline of the piece is as follows:
Rejoin the club, Scots told.
An independent Scotland would have to re-negotiate up to 14,000 treaties and re-apply to join numerous key organisations, legal experts say. Under international law, it would be deemed a 'new state' and would need to join the EU, UN and NATO among many others.
An independent Scotland would have to re-negotiate up to 14,000 treaties and re-apply to join numerous key organisations, legal experts say. Under international law, it would be deemed a 'new state' and would need to join the EU, UN and NATO among many others.
You can check for yourself.
The Australian
seems to go into more depth. An article written a few hours ago (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/independent-scotland-faces-treaty-turmoil/story-fnb64oi6-1226575704398)SCOTLAND would have to battle its way back in to the EU, NATO and the UN should voters opt for independence, according to legal advice handed to the British government in Westminster.
The 57-page ruling, published yesterday, also says a newly independent Scotland would have to rejoin about 14,000 international treaties after breaking away from the rest of Britain.
The detailed legal advice is the first major weapon to be deployed by the British government as it seeks to dissuade voters from backing independence in next year's referendum. It will be followed by a series of other "analysis papers" outlining the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Two leading experts on international law were appointed by the British government to draw up a ruling on the consequences of a vote in favour of independence.
They found the "overwhelming weight" of international precedent suggested Scotland would become a "new state" and would therefore need to rejoin thousands of international agreements and bodies.
Digital Pass $1 for first 28 Days
James Crawford, of the University of Cambridge, and Alan Boyle, of the University of Edinburgh, found the "remainder of the UK" would be considered a "continuing state". As a result, it would not be thrown out of existing treaties.
Once outside the treaties, Scotland could face big problems in its quest to rejoin them, the experts said. Several countries facing similar internal calls for independence, such as Spain, would be reluctant to allow Scotland to opt back in.
Membership of the UN, the EU, NATO, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation would all have to be renegotiated.
"If Scotland became independent, only the 'remainder of the UK' would automatically continue to exercise the same rights, obligations and powers under international law as the UK currently does, and would not have to renegotiate existing treaties or reapply for membership of international organisations," Downing Street said in a statement.
The opinion gives four reasons for its conclusion. First, most cases in recent history worked on similar principles, such as Britain and Ireland in 1922, India in 1947, Singapore and Malaysia in 1965, Bangladesh and Pakistan in 1971, the Soviet Union in 1990 and Sudan and South Sudan in 2011.
Second, a majority of population and territory had been an important factor in such cases, and the "continuing" UK would have a majority of both population (92 per cent) and territory (68 per cent), said the legal opinion.
Third, Britain's "prominent role in the international order" - as one of five permanent UN Security Council members, a NATO member, a nuclear weapons state under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the EU - meant any change to its status would "cause huge disruption".
Finally, the British government had already ruled out agreeing to become a "new state" as well.
A Downing Street source said the unusual decision to publish the legal advice had been taken "to ensure there is as much clarity as possible so that the people of Scotland have the best available information". The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, said Scottish voters were "hungry for facts, evidence and expert opinion to help them make up their minds".
He added: "I have no time for those who say there is no way Scotland could go it alone. The real question is whether it should - whether Scotland is stronger, safer, richer and fairer within our United Kingdom or outside it."
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's Deputy First Minister, said Mr Cameron was "simply reminding people that he heads a government that Scotland didn't vote for".
"Independence is the only way to ensure Scotland always gets the government it votes for," she said.
The 57-page ruling, published yesterday, also says a newly independent Scotland would have to rejoin about 14,000 international treaties after breaking away from the rest of Britain.
The detailed legal advice is the first major weapon to be deployed by the British government as it seeks to dissuade voters from backing independence in next year's referendum. It will be followed by a series of other "analysis papers" outlining the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Two leading experts on international law were appointed by the British government to draw up a ruling on the consequences of a vote in favour of independence.
They found the "overwhelming weight" of international precedent suggested Scotland would become a "new state" and would therefore need to rejoin thousands of international agreements and bodies.
Digital Pass $1 for first 28 Days
James Crawford, of the University of Cambridge, and Alan Boyle, of the University of Edinburgh, found the "remainder of the UK" would be considered a "continuing state". As a result, it would not be thrown out of existing treaties.
Once outside the treaties, Scotland could face big problems in its quest to rejoin them, the experts said. Several countries facing similar internal calls for independence, such as Spain, would be reluctant to allow Scotland to opt back in.
Membership of the UN, the EU, NATO, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation would all have to be renegotiated.
"If Scotland became independent, only the 'remainder of the UK' would automatically continue to exercise the same rights, obligations and powers under international law as the UK currently does, and would not have to renegotiate existing treaties or reapply for membership of international organisations," Downing Street said in a statement.
The opinion gives four reasons for its conclusion. First, most cases in recent history worked on similar principles, such as Britain and Ireland in 1922, India in 1947, Singapore and Malaysia in 1965, Bangladesh and Pakistan in 1971, the Soviet Union in 1990 and Sudan and South Sudan in 2011.
Second, a majority of population and territory had been an important factor in such cases, and the "continuing" UK would have a majority of both population (92 per cent) and territory (68 per cent), said the legal opinion.
Third, Britain's "prominent role in the international order" - as one of five permanent UN Security Council members, a NATO member, a nuclear weapons state under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the EU - meant any change to its status would "cause huge disruption".
Finally, the British government had already ruled out agreeing to become a "new state" as well.
A Downing Street source said the unusual decision to publish the legal advice had been taken "to ensure there is as much clarity as possible so that the people of Scotland have the best available information". The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, said Scottish voters were "hungry for facts, evidence and expert opinion to help them make up their minds".
He added: "I have no time for those who say there is no way Scotland could go it alone. The real question is whether it should - whether Scotland is stronger, safer, richer and fairer within our United Kingdom or outside it."
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's Deputy First Minister, said Mr Cameron was "simply reminding people that he heads a government that Scotland didn't vote for".
"Independence is the only way to ensure Scotland always gets the government it votes for," she said.
[Slightly more legal advice there than Salmond has taken, that much is clear]
Oh and in future, if you want to make claims about staying a member of the EU or NATO, it is appropriate to provide a source.
Thanks...
Original post by marcusfox
LOL. Well done
"The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services."
As taken verbatim from paragraph six of this page http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public
The comments tear this apart. I particularly liked
"The attempted excuse that "...The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items..." is risible. If it were so easy, the author would have done it, and even if it were true, it would not alter the current inequity, and it is in any case contradicted by the later assertion that "...the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would...be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf".
and also
"Where is the evidence that there is "under-spending" in defence or other areas? And how much under spending? You obviously don't know. There are no real statistics or calculations here, just bar room argument stuff."
You're the one twisting numbers. I've just shown you that Scotland receives a subsidy of £624 per person. Regardless of whether or not you believe that that is down to your second hand 'making up for decades of underinvestment' quote, the reality is is that come independence, Scotland would no longer be getting that 'investment' money and thus it follows that every Scot would be £624 worse off right from the bat before the Scots economy is even tested as a separate entity.
Green energy potential means nothing unless you put the infrastructure in place. And the rest, no matter what you might like to think or boldly assert without evidence does not make it true.
Indeed it smacks much like the wishful thinking nonsense that many pro-independence Scots nationalists have been spouting on this thread.
"The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services."
As taken verbatim from paragraph six of this page http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public
The comments tear this apart. I particularly liked
"The attempted excuse that "...The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items..." is risible. If it were so easy, the author would have done it, and even if it were true, it would not alter the current inequity, and it is in any case contradicted by the later assertion that "...the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would...be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf".
and also
"Where is the evidence that there is "under-spending" in defence or other areas? And how much under spending? You obviously don't know. There are no real statistics or calculations here, just bar room argument stuff."
You're the one twisting numbers. I've just shown you that Scotland receives a subsidy of £624 per person. Regardless of whether or not you believe that that is down to your second hand 'making up for decades of underinvestment' quote, the reality is is that come independence, Scotland would no longer be getting that 'investment' money and thus it follows that every Scot would be £624 worse off right from the bat before the Scots economy is even tested as a separate entity.
Green energy potential means nothing unless you put the infrastructure in place. And the rest, no matter what you might like to think or boldly assert without evidence does not make it true.
Indeed it smacks much like the wishful thinking nonsense that many pro-independence Scots nationalists have been spouting on this thread.
I represent the Ancient Kingdom of Mercia. I represent a people who number 5.5 Million people. 8.6% of the population.
The Evil Westminister Government has denied us the right to build any ships for the Royal Navy and as such, we demand that as we represent 8.6% of the population, 8.6% of all ship building for the Navy takes place in the Ancient Kingdom of Mercia. Unlike Scotlands TWO glasgow Ship Yards and ONE Rosyth Aircraft assembly and maintenance facility. We have none.
The people of the Ancient Kingdom of Mercia demand a fully functioing Subamrine base with an estimated £260 million future development to secure it's future. Not to dissimilar to Faslane.....which suprisingly will get rid of the subs, but stay open for conventional forces even though it's on the wrong side of the country for what a Scottish Defence Force Navy would need it for. (Fishery Protection)
The People of the Ancient Kingdom of Mercia demand more air bases than Just RAF Cosford with it's two Helicopters and technical training school and assault course for Air Training Corps Cadets.
The Ancient people of Mercia demand the relocation of Army Units to the the Mercia as we only have one Miltary base in the guise of RTC Lichfield and are therefore being hard done by.
Less money is spent in Scotland on Defence for one obvious reason. It's the same throughout the UK. We buy foreign equipment and as such, some money leaves the UK and you never get as much back.
I must comment on Green Energy. A pro SNP guy I was working with is salivating over this one. He feels that Green Energy will keep England Beholden to Scotland. Merely pointed out that 30% of UK spending on renewables goes into an area of 8.6% of the population and if Scotalnd goes then it's the Scottish Taxpayer footing that bill. He was also very upset when he couldn't hold the English to ransom last year by selling them water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
I'll stick with Nuclear thanks, a lot more reliable, less ugly on the local scenary and a hell of a lot more reliable, especially when it comes to base load.
It gets tedious playing the percentage game. Ill tell you what, Wales, Northern Ireland and North East England are quite poor and take a lot of resources away from other people? Shall we cut them off andkeep the money they get?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by rmpr97
So you want independence for political ideological reasons? London is a Labour stronghold, should London become independent?
I didn't say that at all, in fact if you just read what you quoted of me it answers your question. The current split between Scotland and England as a whole politically illustrates the point that Scotland has comparatively very little control over the make up of central government, I don't think that's right.
Original post by rmpr97
Is that why the SNP don't haven't shared anything about the viability of it yet? How shall you pay for a) your share of the national debt b) welfare c) healthcare d) free prescriptions e) free tuition f) education? The SNP are keeping very quiet about it. Currently Scotland get a subsidy for all of this, could you afford this without it?
Scotland is not subsidised by England. Scotland will pay for all that, because it can! I have reiterated time and time again that Scotland pays it's way, the Scottish Government has a balanced budget, the Treasury's worst case scenario for an independent Scotland is every Scot needing to pay £1 extra in taxes to fund everything you have listed, thats the worst case scenario right out of the mouths of London politicians. So please, stop with your completely unfounded claims.
In fact, the next time someone tells me Scotland is subsidised, I will demand that Scotland becomes subsidised. I'd happily support Scotland remaining in the union if it was bribed by the rest of the UK, but I'd want a substantial bribe. I want to be paying half the taxes of my English counterparts. Deal?
Original post by rmpr97
Okay, join the pound, however this means no EU, as EU law clearly states that new joining countries must take up the Euro. However what you've done is become independent so you can have economic power yet you've handed most of that back over because you'd have **** all say on the currency you use. You wont get a say on monetary policy. You can't become independent and keep all the perks. But fine, lets say you keep Stirling. It is very viable for a small, a not very influential, nation such as Scotland to be out of the EU? The Euro is 'an incredibly attractive prospect' now? Get your head out of the sand - or have you missed the whole Euro crisis that's still ongoing?
Scotland currently has no control over its fiscal or monetary policy, it won't be giving up anything by joining the Sterling (well, technically remaining in the Sterling) or the Euro, it will be gaining control of it's fiscal policy which is a massive step forward and will allow the Scottish Government to improve the Scottish economy.
And I said the Euro could become an attractive prospect, and don't scoff at that, the main European economies are doing much better than London and it looks set to continue that way.
Original post by rmpr97
All that rhetoric is well and good about the UK Treasury benefiting from RBS but the fact of the matter is, the cost of the bailout cost more than Scotland gains in tax revenue.
An independent Scotland would only have had to bailout RBS, HBOS etc operations in Scotland, which would amount to no more than 5% of it's economy, which is very manageable. And this is not me making something up, as you have clearly taken the liberty of doing, this is according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow.
Original post by rmpr97
Fine, but if you join the EU, and the Schengen, you will have to put border controls in. And you'll have to do it regardless, unless you're going for an open door policy? And who's to say we wont shut ours? You're incredibly naive in thinking Scotland can leave the union yet still keep all the perks in the 'national interest' for all of us. Chances are these things will benefit us, if they do, only minutely.
The EU is flexible, many countries have opt-outs or special allowances on many issues. It's not the big bad evil organisation many people, particularly in England, view it as. And the existence of an outstanding treaty of free travel only strengthens the case for an exception.
And I'm not suggesting Scotland keeps all the perks of the union, but free travel is naturally in our mutual interest, not just economically but socially as well.
It's interesting that only the pro-Union people here are advocating a "pull up the drawbridge" approach to an independent Scotland, it just shows your childish attitude of acting out of misguided spite.
Original post by Scott006
The EU is flexible, many countries have opt-outs or special allowances on many issues. It's not the big bad evil organisation many people, particularly in England, view it as.
The EU is flexible, many countries have opt-outs or special allowances on many issues. It's not the big bad evil organisation many people, particularly in England, view it as.
Have you spoken to anyone from Greece recently? Or, come to that, Ireland?
Original post by Snagprophet
Aaaarrggghhh. But you are treated equally as any other Englishman, Welshman and Northern Irishman. You just want more power and to want 10 times the amount in influence an Englishman has. GRRRRRRR.
I was actually referring to equals as in two independent nations working in partnership. I don't feel like Scot's are treated as second class citizens in the Union (despite the incredibly ignorant bigoted views of some people here, insinuating that Scots survive on English subsidies), and I don't want more influence - that's precisely why I think independence is necessary. Scotland is an independent nation currently constricted into a union, it deserves to lead itself.
Original post by Snagprophet
Erm, it's not a separate member so it will surely have to apply and get approval from whoever runs that. Along with thousands of other treaties it has to apply for and sign, along with applying to become a NATO member state and to become an new EU member state as, you know, it's a new state, a fact which goes completely over the heads of the SNP when they try the 'Scotland is in the EU now, so why will there be a case where it isn't?' and bull****.
I replied to much of this in my previous post, but you brought up an interesting point.
So if Scotland leaves the union, the rest of the UK is the only successor state, inheriting all the treaties, membership etc as it is the only successor state.
In that case, as the only successor state, the UK will also inherit all of the national debt.
That isn't fair, is it? That's why I say the real situation lies somewhere in the middle, Scotland will not automatically be binded by all UK treaties etc, but nor will it be kicked out in the cold as if that piece of land north of the border never existed prior to a Yes vote. There will be a lot of renegotiation, but Scotland is hardly the first nation to become independent by referendum, it has been done before and it will be done again.
Original post by Midlander
Talk about blowing something well out of proportion. Problem is that the 'You killed our people 700 years ago' rubbish is still used as justification for Anglophobia in Scotland.
It's a nonsense that the SNP is well aware of and encourages through doing things like holding the referendum on the anniversary of Bannockburn.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
It's a nonsense that the SNP is well aware of and encourages through doing things like holding the referendum on the anniversary of Bannockburn.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
I'm not Anglophobic, my family and friends aren't. In fact, I've spent a lot of time here promoting a close friendship and cooperation between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK while many other people have spent just as much time talking about how the rest of the UK should act spitefully towards an independent Scotland.
And the SNP do no such thing, the only information on the date the referendum will be held is Autumn 2014, Bannockburn also happened in the Autumn, that is the only connection between the two that newspapers have for some reason decided to jump on. As a result of this, I think the anniversary of Bannockburn is in fact one of the least likely dates for the referendum now.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Lol, the SNP now define "claiming Scotland is subsidised" as "bigotry".
Hilarious stuff really.
Hilarious stuff really.
I'm not the SNP, nor is everything I say straight out of any SNP handbook. It may surprise you to know that support for independence in Scotland stretches past the SNP into those of different parties and importantly, those with no party affiliation at all.
Original post by Scott006
I'm not Anglophobic, my family and friends aren't. In fact, I've spent a lot of time here promoting a close friendship and cooperation between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK while many other people have spent just as much time talking about how the rest of the UK should act spitefully towards an independent Scotland.
And the SNP do no such thing, the only information on the date the referendum will be held is Autumn 2014, Bannockburn also happened in the Autumn, that is the only connection between the two that newspapers have for some reason decided to jump on. As a result of this, I think the anniversary of Bannockburn is in fact one of the least likely dates for the referendum now.
And the SNP do no such thing, the only information on the date the referendum will be held is Autumn 2014, Bannockburn also happened in the Autumn, that is the only connection between the two that newspapers have for some reason decided to jump on. As a result of this, I think the anniversary of Bannockburn is in fact one of the least likely dates for the referendum now.
I think you mean a "pretend we're independent" Scotland, since total independence will be impossible.
The pseudo-independent Scotland will retain (according to the SNP):
* The Queen - bit of a giveaway!
* The pound
* A less than fair share of the RBS debt burden
* And all the good bits, eg, all the oil.
Not quite clear why England should go along with this!
I would propose any such arrangement be immediately followed by immediate closure of the border to all trade, expulsion of Scotland from the Commonwealth and repossession of all oil-related equipment paid for by UK companies.
This would result in Scotland ceasing to exist as a viable country within weeks.
I guess the "independence" turns out to be quite an illusion.
Original post by Good bloke
This is perfectly true. Scotland could continue to use sterling. However, it seems odd to be seeking to gain a bigger voice in the world while giving up power and influence in the single most important factor in controlling your economy.
As things stand, the UK government makes decisions over sterling and the economy after taking account of the needs of the whole of the UK. If Scotland were independent but used sterling it would not have any account taken of its needs when the UK made decisions that directly affected Scotland. This is madness on the part of Scots.
If Scotland chooses the euro the needs of such a small fringe country would pale into insignificance when weighed alonside those of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
In fact, if Scotland re-joins the EU it would be committed to joining the euro at some point, though, following the example of Sweden, it could theoretically put this off indefinitely by simply not joining the ERMII. Unfortunately the ECB has stated that this option will not be available to new EU members, leaving Scotland with little choice but to use the euro.
As things stand, the UK government makes decisions over sterling and the economy after taking account of the needs of the whole of the UK. If Scotland were independent but used sterling it would not have any account taken of its needs when the UK made decisions that directly affected Scotland. This is madness on the part of Scots.
If Scotland chooses the euro the needs of such a small fringe country would pale into insignificance when weighed alonside those of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
In fact, if Scotland re-joins the EU it would be committed to joining the euro at some point, though, following the example of Sweden, it could theoretically put this off indefinitely by simply not joining the ERMII. Unfortunately the ECB has stated that this option will not be available to new EU members, leaving Scotland with little choice but to use the euro.
Scotland is not seeking a greater voice in the world, but independence does deliver that.
If you think an area with the population the size of Scotland, with only 1 MP in the ruling party, is able to disproportionately influence the foreign policy of the United Kingdom, then either you are slightly delusional or the United Kingdom is an incredibly undemocratic nation.
Examples being the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Nuclear Weapons, both of these have much higher opposition in Scotland yet are UK government policy.
Original post by Scott006
Scotland is not subsidised by England. Scotland will pay for all that, because it can! I have reiterated time and time again that Scotland pays it's way, the Scottish Government has a balanced budget, the Treasury's worst case scenario for an independent Scotland is every Scot needing to pay £1 extra in taxes to fund everything you have listed, thats the worst case scenario right out of the mouths of London politicians. So please, stop with your completely unfounded claims.
And I said the Euro could become an attractive prospect, and don't scoff at that, the main European economies are doing much better than London and it looks set to continue that way.
Scotland is not subsidised by England. Scotland will pay for all that, because it can! I have reiterated time and time again that Scotland pays it's way, the Scottish Government has a balanced budget, the Treasury's worst case scenario for an independent Scotland is every Scot needing to pay £1 extra in taxes to fund everything you have listed, thats the worst case scenario right out of the mouths of London politicians. So please, stop with your completely unfounded claims.
And I said the Euro could become an attractive prospect, and don't scoff at that, the main European economies are doing much better than London and it looks set to continue that way.
Indeed; Scotland is not subsidised by England. It's subsidised by London, as is the entirety of the UK. Seriously, why would it be sensible to lose that?
But the minor ones aren't, which is the position Scotland would be in.
Original post by Aj12
Seems if you discount the oil revenue Scotland would end up with a deficit similar to that of the UK. I'd be interested in what the SNP plan to do to sort this out for when the oil does run out.
Salmond has already demonstrated a less than rigorous fiscal approach, boosting public spending wherever possible (currently of course underwritten by UK taxpayer subsidy) and retaining numerous areas of spending now severely under pressure or cut in England & Wales. How he would get on in the Eurozone with regular visits from the German financiers and the ECB would be quite a question. So rather than risk that, he imagines a super-cool relaxed sterling situation, where he can run up massive debts against presumed oil and "green electricity" revenues (and let's not forget whisky - no doubt export duties would double!) and face no consequences.
It really is pie in the sky to imagine that Mark Carney is going to sit back in his chair at the B of E and allow all this to happen. I can imagine a situation where he simply denies further £ printing in Scotland beyond preset limits and prevents debt growth there by blocking credit at the banks. Unless Scotland proposes to set up a new generation of post-RBS banks with a fresh round of massive credit bubble risk.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Salmond has already demonstrated a less than rigorous fiscal approach, boosting public spending wherever possible (currently of course underwritten by UK taxpayer subsidy) and retaining numerous areas of spending now severely under pressure or cut in England & Wales. How he would get on in the Eurozone with regular visits from the German financiers and the ECB would be quite a question. So rather than risk that, he imagines a super-cool relaxed sterling situation, where he can run up massive debts against presumed oil and "green electricity" revenues (and let's not forget whisky - no doubt export duties would double!) and face no consequences.
It really is pie in the sky to imagine that Mark Carney is going to sit back in his chair at the B of E and allow all this to happen. I can imagine a situation where he simply denies further £ printing in Scotland beyond preset limits and prevents debt growth there by blocking credit at the banks. Unless Scotland proposes to set up a new generation of post-RBS banks with a fresh round of massive credit bubble risk.
It really is pie in the sky to imagine that Mark Carney is going to sit back in his chair at the B of E and allow all this to happen. I can imagine a situation where he simply denies further £ printing in Scotland beyond preset limits and prevents debt growth there by blocking credit at the banks. Unless Scotland proposes to set up a new generation of post-RBS banks with a fresh round of massive credit bubble risk.
I find the wanting to keep the pound and join the EU amusing. I very much doubt the EU are going to allow in another nation that has no intention of joining the Euro.
Original post by Scott006
I didn't say that at all, in fact if you just read what you quoted of me it answers your question. The current split between Scotland and England as a whole politically illustrates the point that Scotland has comparatively very little control over the make up of central government, I don't think that's right.
But that could equally be said about NE England, Wales, the Midlands, Northern Ireland? It's the concept of democracy. And lets remember that the Torys used to be a very strong party is Scotland. Not now, but that could change in the future once the bile that labour spouted out has been forgotten about by younger generations.
Scotland is not subsidised by England. Scotland will pay for all that, because it can! I have reiterated time and time again that Scotland pays it's way, the Scottish Government has a balanced budget, the Treasury's worst case scenario for an independent Scotland is every Scot needing to pay £1 extra in taxes to fund everything you have listed, thats the worst case scenario right out of the mouths of London politicians. So please, stop with your completely unfounded claims.
Under the Barnett Formula more money is spent per capita in Scotland than England. Fact. I don't have a problem with that. Scotland is less populated with large rural area's. These area's need more money for road up keep? Equally, although you state that Scotlands never listened to, two of the last three Prime Ministers and Chancellors have been Scottish.
I pay more in taxes than I take back. Can I have independence.
Incidentally, how much did you pay in taxes last year?
In fact, the next time someone tells me Scotland is subsidised, I will demand that Scotland becomes subsidised. I'd happily support Scotland remaining in the union if it was bribed by the rest of the UK, but I'd want a substantial bribe. I want to be paying half the taxes of my English counterparts. Deal?
We've already ascertained it is, huge chunks of the UK are subsidied. Even by the SNP's GERS numbers the numbers only Jive for one year when oil prices were artificially high, diminishing oil revenues not only in production but lower oil prices will make this situation worse. Equally, Scotland does have a high portion of public Sector workers. The argument goes they don't pay tax. They recyle it. Not a dig at Scotland or any where else in the UK. I just think we're top heavy with Public Sector
Scotland currently has no control over its fiscal or monetary policy, it won't be giving up anything by joining the Sterling (well, technically remaining in the Sterling) or the Euro, it will be gaining control of it's fiscal policy which is a massive step forward and will allow the Scottish Government to improve the Scottish economy.
And I said the Euro could become an attractive prospect, and don't scoff at that, the main European economies are doing much better than London and it looks set to continue that way.
Two ot of the last 3 chancellors were Scottish so I doubt you actually know what you're talking about on this one, just regurgitating what somebody has told you to say or what you've read. Salmond has promised to lower Corporation tax.Salmonds been trying to use the flawed and failed Ireland example on that one for a long time. So knowing that the everywhere in the UK spends more than it earns, how are yoproposing to pay for a increasingly ageing population with lowered Corporation Tax? Salmonds been banding this low tax, socialist Utopia for years. IT DOESN'T WORK.
So having Brussels set your fiscal policy does help? Ask the Greeks that. 5 million in 65 million, or 5 million in 503 Million.
I'm guessing Salmond wants to join the EU gravy train.
An independent Scotland would only have had to bailout RBS, HBOS etc operations in Scotland, which would amount to no more than 5% of it's economy, which is very manageable. And this is not me making something up, as you have clearly taken the liberty of doing, this is according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow.
Registered in Scotland. Therefore Scottish Liability. This has been blown away numerous times before. NEXT
The EU is flexible, many countries have opt-outs or special allowances on many issues. It's not the big bad evil organisation many people, particularly in England, view it as. And the existence of an outstanding treaty of free travel only strengthens the case for an exception.
And I'm not suggesting Scotland keeps all the perks of the union, but free travel is naturally in our mutual interest, not just economically but socially as well.
It's interesting that only the pro-Union people here are advocating a "pull up the drawbridge" approach to an independent Scotland, it just shows your childish attitude of acting out of misguided spite.
But that could equally be said about NE England, Wales, the Midlands, Northern Ireland? It's the concept of democracy. And lets remember that the Torys used to be a very strong party is Scotland. Not now, but that could change in the future once the bile that labour spouted out has been forgotten about by younger generations.
Scotland is not subsidised by England. Scotland will pay for all that, because it can! I have reiterated time and time again that Scotland pays it's way, the Scottish Government has a balanced budget, the Treasury's worst case scenario for an independent Scotland is every Scot needing to pay £1 extra in taxes to fund everything you have listed, thats the worst case scenario right out of the mouths of London politicians. So please, stop with your completely unfounded claims.
Under the Barnett Formula more money is spent per capita in Scotland than England. Fact. I don't have a problem with that. Scotland is less populated with large rural area's. These area's need more money for road up keep? Equally, although you state that Scotlands never listened to, two of the last three Prime Ministers and Chancellors have been Scottish.
I pay more in taxes than I take back. Can I have independence.
Incidentally, how much did you pay in taxes last year?
In fact, the next time someone tells me Scotland is subsidised, I will demand that Scotland becomes subsidised. I'd happily support Scotland remaining in the union if it was bribed by the rest of the UK, but I'd want a substantial bribe. I want to be paying half the taxes of my English counterparts. Deal?
We've already ascertained it is, huge chunks of the UK are subsidied. Even by the SNP's GERS numbers the numbers only Jive for one year when oil prices were artificially high, diminishing oil revenues not only in production but lower oil prices will make this situation worse. Equally, Scotland does have a high portion of public Sector workers. The argument goes they don't pay tax. They recyle it. Not a dig at Scotland or any where else in the UK. I just think we're top heavy with Public Sector
Scotland currently has no control over its fiscal or monetary policy, it won't be giving up anything by joining the Sterling (well, technically remaining in the Sterling) or the Euro, it will be gaining control of it's fiscal policy which is a massive step forward and will allow the Scottish Government to improve the Scottish economy.
And I said the Euro could become an attractive prospect, and don't scoff at that, the main European economies are doing much better than London and it looks set to continue that way.
Two ot of the last 3 chancellors were Scottish so I doubt you actually know what you're talking about on this one, just regurgitating what somebody has told you to say or what you've read. Salmond has promised to lower Corporation tax.Salmonds been trying to use the flawed and failed Ireland example on that one for a long time. So knowing that the everywhere in the UK spends more than it earns, how are yoproposing to pay for a increasingly ageing population with lowered Corporation Tax? Salmonds been banding this low tax, socialist Utopia for years. IT DOESN'T WORK.
So having Brussels set your fiscal policy does help? Ask the Greeks that. 5 million in 65 million, or 5 million in 503 Million.
I'm guessing Salmond wants to join the EU gravy train.
An independent Scotland would only have had to bailout RBS, HBOS etc operations in Scotland, which would amount to no more than 5% of it's economy, which is very manageable. And this is not me making something up, as you have clearly taken the liberty of doing, this is according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow.
Registered in Scotland. Therefore Scottish Liability. This has been blown away numerous times before. NEXT
The EU is flexible, many countries have opt-outs or special allowances on many issues. It's not the big bad evil organisation many people, particularly in England, view it as. And the existence of an outstanding treaty of free travel only strengthens the case for an exception.
And I'm not suggesting Scotland keeps all the perks of the union, but free travel is naturally in our mutual interest, not just economically but socially as well.
It's interesting that only the pro-Union people here are advocating a "pull up the drawbridge" approach to an independent Scotland, it just shows your childish attitude of acting out of misguided spite.
Some countries USED to get opt outs. New countrys don't. How is free travel in our mutual interest if Salmond tries to turn Scotland into a tax haven? Sadly, even my Scottish relatives understand thats never going to happen and as with any divorce it'll get messy and closed borders may be a nice little bargaining tool. Most of the pro Union members are Labour supporters, and they've given no such promise for a vote on the EU.Equally, it may have missed you by, but support for seperation of Scotland is rarely above 30%. Support for a referendum on Europe, not the word referendum, not withdrawl from has recently been polled at over 50%. Unlike Scotland though, the EU doesn't have democratic elections that are representative of the population and from what I can see there's only Germany that seem to be doing alright at the moment, actually down to the fact that the Euro is so depressed is manufacturing based economy benefits from a weak Euro.
It's Our Oil will still be the war cry of the SNP after they've got into Europe as guess what. The EU wants to not only just run your fishing waters, it wants the Sea bed as well
Original post by Aj12
I find the wanting to keep the pound and join the EU amusing. I very much doubt the EU are going to allow in another nation that has no intention of joining the Euro.
I believe it's not even allowed. This is something that the SNP keep denying, but all of the other newer members of the EU are on programmes designed to gradually bring them to the point where they become Euro-friendly.
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 9 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 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 9 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 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?
