Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Are you not aware that the UK has a TRILLION POUNDS plus national debt CREATED BY WESTMINSTER - NOT by Scotland, NOT by the SNP and NOT by Alex Salmond.

I think a lot of people are very confused. Are they keen on independence because they think it guarantees them (SNP) policies that suit what they voted for? It doesn't do that at all; Scotland could easily get rid of the party that brought them to independence and then vote for the parties they more traditionally supported, or even new ones.

Do they think it gives them a government more representative of how Scots vote? It seems, from the previous post, that the SNP is just as much a minority government as any British government (in terms of the popular vote), and regional minorities will always feel ignored by a central government. If the Scots feel ignored by Westminster, how will the Hebrideans feel about Edinburgh. Or the Orcadians, or the Shetlanders?

Do they think oil represents long-term security? It doesn't do that; a few decades of transitory wealth is nothing in the lifetime of a country (and the chance has already been lost to properly and effectively follow Norway's forward-thinking strategy of dealing with revenues).

Do they think independence gives them more local control of the Scottish economy? I don't think so: a key plank of economic control will be controlled by either the UK (if in the sterling zone) or Germany & France (if in the euro), neither paying a blind bit of attention to Scotland's needs (which, as an oil economy, are guaranteed to be different from everyone else's). How does this represent greater control?

Do they think the EU will provide a cosy place to stretch their newly-independent legs in? It won't be cosy; negotiations to join will be hard-nosed (with, perhaps, some oppposition from those with an axe to grind, like the Spanish who have one eye on the Catalans and precedents to set) and the one thing that is certain is that budget rebates won't be on offer. The only reason the UK still has them is because the Thatcher government did such a good job of negotiating them, in different times, to be permanent; those rebates are heavily resented now and won't be repeated.

No. I'm just saying SNP as it's easier to type than Yes Scotland. Anyway. That is the SNPs campaign anyway.

I'm not crying. I'm just dissapointed that you are unable to articulatley argue your point other than cutting and pasting from the Yes Scotland Website.

The only thing I blame the SNP for is stirring up division and tension when there's no need to, and portraying us as victims when we're not. I'm not a victim of anything. Are you?

You can talk about copying and pasting ahaha! And you haven't answered me about the 16year olds voting fair Dos you weren't "mature" enought mature student but if the goverment made it legal for 16 year olds to get married and have baby then why not make it legal for the vote? That is why I support SNP's because they are realistic and they are making points easier for scotland also if you are going to quote from this I would really like you to answer my question instead of dodging away from it , you have a real talent for that.

Once again. If you can supply any concrete evidence to back you're claim up I'd be rather interested in seeing it. The SNP have been quite clever at cherry picking certain legal information that supports their case rather than seeing the whole picture.

And who says they'll stay as part of the UK? You're claiming somebody else is stealing your goods. Whats stopping them saying the same in a seperate Scotland.

..

No. That has never been the claim on here, your reading comprehension is suffering.

The claim is that the Shetlands would be an independent entity on the same basis that Scotland would be, the argument is certainly not that Scotland would be independent from the UK, excluding Shetlands.

And why would they want to be part of Scotland or even the UK if they can have the oil in their EEZ for themselves (by Scotland's supposed EEZ argument)

You're certainly tying yourself into knots here trying to extricate yourself from the ridiculous position you have created for yourself.

I know you are going to say Scotland is part of the UK but its different considering its a union of countries

I don't copy and paste from a politically biased information source pushing a political agenda. We've gone over this. I use independendant media sources and independantly verified secondary infoprmation.

This issue of 16 year olds voting has been raised before so you should have a look through the thread and you'll see my previous answers on it. There's also other threads on the issue.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=75894&highlight=should+16+vote

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=262297&highlight=should 16 vote

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=41195333&highlight=16 should vote

I definitley remember an awful lot of 16 year olds saying that they were uncomfortable doing it. There was also an awful lot of 18 and 19 year olds saying that they realised how incapable of independent though they were at 16.

I'm undecided on the issue of 16 year olds voting. There is a concern that they haven't experienced enough of life to make an informed decision. I know that at 16 I just repeated back what others told me. So at 16 I was a socialist/communist, trade union orientated extreme left winger because that's what my father was. Several years later I've completly changed my mind and consider myself centre as I've been able to make my own decisions from my own experiences and observations. (I'll comment that I'm not against trade unionism now, but at that time it was extreme miltant 1970's style trade unionism and wish are trade Unions would take a
leaf out of the German trade Unionism group.)

As part of a balanced approach though I should say that I've met people in theor 40's who have been unable to process their surroundings and make informed decisions. This may go some way to explain voter apathy resulting in low turnouts for elections in general.


You've mentioned the age of marriage as being 16 in Scotland as if this has some relevance.


Scotland is the only part of Europe that allows 16 year olds to marry without parental consent. Scotland is the only area of the UK that allows 16 year olds to marry without parental or court consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#Africa

That means that either Scotland is ground breaking in trusting it's youth. Or more likely Scots law has been unable to keep up with the changes in international law and culturally accepted norms and practices.

After all, even the United Nations states that anybody under the age of 18 as a child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

I do see the problem though. 16 to 18 year olds are stuck in a twilight zone scenario.


They can work, pay tax, get married etc. But they can't smoke, Drink Alcohol or be sent off to war. Remember as well, you need to be 17 to drive and 21 to do Jury Service.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/01/09133400

So as you can see, there are inconsistencies in age limits that Holyrood already has powers to change in many cases.

I would personaly be in favour of normalising the age to 18. And that's not just to vote. With todays modern environment, it's important that people leave school with the required skills and training to better prepare them for the work place. So I'd be happy to raise everything including school leaving to 18.


My other worry is that allowing 16 year olds to vote will result in Political parties to trying to influence people under the age of 16. Politics is no different to marketing or having a bank account. The secret is to get them young, as studies show that people will be less likely to change there habits at a later date. For example, many people are unhappy with their banks, but are unlikely to change as they've banked with them since they were a kid.

I'm just worried about the politicisation of young minds. Young minds need to grow and develop by themselves without external influences. When ever this has been pushed by a political party it's never really for the good of the electorate, but for that party believing that they will have more influence over that age group. That's why smaller parties always seem to push it.

I suppose what I'd ultimatley like to see is everybody having to complete a short course and a test to demonstarte they understand the basics of politics, government, the judicary etc etc. If they did that, I'd have no problems with 16 year olds voting as we'd be able to stop the 30 and 40 year olds who don't understand what they're voting for barred from voting as well. A much farer system you'd agree.

You're the one claiming if they wanted independence they would get it so I believe it's you who has the burden of evidence.

Look it up and stop just denying everything

this was honestly quite interesting to read however I disagree entirely on what you have said.

And therefore SNP? Who say's I'm even an SNP supporter?



And how did it effect your future?




You mean someone in the SNP from 60 odd years ago? Quick call off the referendum!!!!

They sure do. I don't like it. From either side. But the unionist method is particulary disgusting.

There is still a year. Hopefully people stop reading the lies

When the friends down south help bankroll your lifestyle (FREE uni , FREE hospital parking and FREE prescriptions) when the southern friends don't have that- you sound like the person who's biting the hand that feeds them

i do wish you'd stop going on about the English. All your doing is enforcing the image of the typical SNP activist being a whinging, xenophobic isolationist.

I am challenging the claims that England is bankrolling Scotland and the Scots are biting the hand that feeds them.

Learn to read and understand before making your wild claims: As a xenophobic isolationist yourself, you think that England= the English. Unlike you, I know the difference between the two.

Sorry for poor phrasing of the question, but I'm about to start an essay on Scottish Independence and I'm having the "blank paper" problem. I'm writing the essay in terms of fiscal policy but I am not sure what my opinion is. So that's why I want to know, what do the general public (or at least a load of intellectual, opinionated students) think about this? Even if anybody doesn't have anything to offer for my essay - in terms of fiscal policy - it may be quite an interesting debate. So all opinions regardless of the relevency to my work would be interesting. Thankyou - (Nothing rude please, there's no need for it).

England's deficit would be bigger because its population is over 10 times bigger than Scotland's.

I don't understand what you mean by "Not by Scotland" ? The Scottish people have contributed to the debt of the United Kingdom (fact), just as much as any other country in the United Kingdom.

To suggest only the SNP are the voice of the Scottish people is absurd (Not by the SNP).

I think you need to understand the majority of the people in Scotland did not vote for SNP government, however based on the elector system provided them with more MPs. The SNP had 876,421 votes and against the SNP were 927,240 (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats).

Wasn't the question wouldn't the shetlanders be allowed to stay as part of the UK? Because they are a part of Scotland. I know you are going to say Scotland is part of the UK but its different considering its a union of countries