Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

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.

If you think an area with the population the size of Scotland, with only 1 MP in the ruling party

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!

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.

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:



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)



[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...

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.

Just how the hell are Scots treated as Second class citiziens? Blair and Brown may not have helped the Scottish case, but they made it to PM status. Did anybody turn around and say 'don't vote labour as they'll give us a Jock PM?' You're mis representing comments about insular SNP supporters as anti Scottish. You are Joan MacCalpine and I claim my £5

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.

I get my information from as many sources as I can find, I don't simply assume or make things up as many people here seem to be doing.
Examples of UK Government underspending on things that aren't split up by region, have you been to London? The headquarters of every ministry is there, that's not cheap and provides a great deal of employment.
But if what you were saying is true, that Scotland is subsidised by England, then I'd take that as a reason for independence. Scotland has a brilliant education system, amazing natural resources and a diverse economy. There is no reason why Scotland can't fund itself, our welfare is nowhere near as extensive as in scandinavian countries who manage to do well economically. I'd argue that Scotland needs independence to get control of the fiscal levers necessary to drive our economy forward.
But of course, what you are saying is not true, again I'll go back to the Treasury's worse case scenario that every Scot would be £1 worse off.

Yes that is a lot of treaties. And?
You are talking as if no country has ever become independent before, the Scottish Government have set out a timeline of roughly two years from referendum to independence which when you look at examples set in the past, is actually quite a generous amount of time.

But really, when the argument stoops to "look at all that work, wouldn't it be easier just not to become independent." I know it's going well for the Yes campaign, what do you expect me to say? Oh that does look like a bit of work, meh lets just leave it be.
Really?

The Bannockburn reference was to the year, not the exact date-I'm 99% sure that Salmond himself has said that was his intention.

If you hold no Anglophobic views then good, but I'm afraid the same can't be said for a lot of your fellow Scots. Indeed, it's so irritating that I have absolutely zero wish to live or work here beyond my graduation, and several parts of the media have highlighted how few English graduates stay north of the border for this precise reason. It's a crying shame as Scotland really is a lovely country, but with people who can't get over medieval wars.

As for acting spitefully towards an independent Scotland, it's just realism. You cannot surely expect to sever ties with the UK but still preserve all of the current perks? Scots would have no right to expect support, financial or otherwise, for abandoning the union it has gained so much from.

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.

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.

Apparently there are a number of villages and even individual properties that straddle *both sides* of the border. Imagine the tax evasion possibilities! Also people from London will be trying to snap up every address in Scotland, pushing house prices out of the reach of most Scots.

That is ridiculous, and says a lot about your attitude to Scotland.

But really, when the argument stoops to "look at all that work, wouldn't it be easier just not to become independent." I know it's going well for the Yes campaign, what do you expect me to say? Oh that does look like a bit of work, meh lets just leave it be.
Really?

The only counter argument to this is that the UK provides a bigger "voice" for Scotland. I ask you, what Scottish person see's David Cameron as their voice to the world? In fact, on these big issues that Scotland is expected to be grateful to have the UK for, Scotland is in fact known for being out of step with the Westminster view, examples being the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and nuclear weapons.

Great, another Slab Murphy situation. Where's the evidence that people from London are buying up property?

This seems to be a CyberNat wet dream again. Having power over the English

To meet the aspirations of independence-minded Scots and Welsh (and ignoring for the moment the problem of Northern Ireland) it would be better to have a Federal Britain, with three (4?) Parliaments (we have those already - apart from the glaring exception of one in England!) and a central "UK Assembly" voted for by the national Parliaments. (To meet presumably at a rotating location in each country.)

This federal system under the Queen would then offer genuine country rights and democracy to all and a genuine Sterling zone and Bank supervision.

The current mess proposed by the SNP would leave everything in an unstructured heap, with massive constitutional changes that the English will never have voted for, leave England effectively unrepresented other than by an institution designed to rule the entire UK and a completely unsustainable and intolerable position regarding Scottish use of Sterling and all the risks of banking collapse and debt spirals associated with no fiscal control.

The Federal plan could be voted on by the entire UK, not just leave the proposed pseudo-independent (but not properly Federal, even whilst having many of the trappings of Federalism) Scotland doing its own thing and breaking up the Union without all agreeing.

The more major point is it shows how much Salmond is just making up as he goes along.

Also, I'm surprised nobody's bringing up the fact the EU would likely not be in favour of an independent Scotland (or allowing anything to be easy for it), due to the precedent several EU powers would rather not be set.

They aren't buying it up yet. I was talking about a situation where Salmond announces a radically lower set of tax rates in Scotland than exist in England. Unless he plans to also opt out of the EU and the WTO besides and prevent well-off English people from purchasing Edinburgh?

The Bannockburn reference was to the year, not the exact date-I'm 99% sure that Salmond himself has said that was his intention.

If you hold no Anglophobic views then good, but I'm afraid the same can't be said for a lot of your fellow Scots. Indeed, it's so irritating that I have absolutely zero wish to live or work here beyond my graduation, and several parts of the media have highlighted how few English graduates stay north of the border for this precise reason. It's a crying shame as Scotland really is a lovely country, but with people who can't get over medieval wars.

As for acting spitefully towards an independent Scotland, it's just realism. You cannot surely expect to sever ties with the UK but still preserve all of the current perks? Scots would have no right to expect support, financial or otherwise, for abandoning the union it has gained so much from.