Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

We imported £165m of coal last year and as far as I'm aware we still drive cars. Not the sign of industries which were dead in the 80s-they were just run very poorly. Nothing was done to make improvements-and as a result we import everything.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Why don't the welsh campaign to be represented in the Union flag then? I know the Welsh language was put on a even footing with English in the 1990s, but I was always taught that those Acts were still live. If they have been repealed, more bad schooling for me.....

What you really mean is that, since you cannot attack the donation, you must make a personal attack on the donor.

Well I apologise for the stereotype. To be honest i got 3 pages in at the start of this thread and just gave up and skipped to the end. The majority of what i saw seemed to follow that stereotype.

There are many positive reasons for independence ranging from financial (not just north sea oil) we have a massive chemical and green energy in this country and alone we are producing 125% of our power requirements aswell as a higher average income per capita than the rest of the UK. There are also many political reasons under our own government we are far less likely to be under the rule of another Thatcher or Blair or Cameron. Leaders who couldnt give a rats arse about our country or the views of its people.

And to be honest the "we are abandoning England" viewpoint for anti-independence is just silly. Us leaving will reduce the total rUK budget by ~9.8% however it will reduce the rUKs spending by ~8.9% meaning a total loss of 0.9% of the budget, these numbers im citing are circa 2010 but i think they are still valid.

But I do understand your voting for SNP without support of independence even if that is the parties main mandate since they are one of three well known parties that are actually based in Scotland (SNP, SSP & Scottish Greens) "Scottish" labour/tories/libdems are all based in northern England and the majority of MSPs fielded by them are the Westminster rejects who couldn't secure a seat down south. And hell if people like you continue to vote for SNP it just increases the chance of us getting independence in future regardless of if we fail in 2014.

But just remember this, the Scottish people voted yes for independence in 1979 and got nothing, we voted yes in 1999 and got our Scottish Parlament, we vote yes in 2014 and we get everything.

Leaders who couldnt give a rats arse about our country or the views of its people.

Very good points for which you have been awarded a negative point.

As you said previously, "Mate it really isn't worth arguing your point on this forum at all."



I would prefer to be poorer in an independent Scotland than being lorded over by such 'leaders', and Scots being called 'scroungers' and 'subsidy junkies' by our union partners.

Perhaps one or more of the 'civilised' anti-independence posters can clearly state whether or not they believe Scotland is being subsidised by England, re 'free' prescriptions, 'free' university education etc.

"But Vitol was accused of “immoral” trade and “backing corrupt regimes” by John Mann MP, a Labour member of the Treasury Select Committee, who demanded that the Tory party hand back the “dirty money” it had received from Mr Taylor."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9569231/Vitol-faces-questions-on-trade-with-Iran.html

"Former [Labour]first minister Henry McLeish has voiced concerns over a �500,000 donation to the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK from oil trader Ian Taylor amid criticism of his firm's past dealings.

Mr McLeish said there needs to be "absolute transparency" from the Better Together group about the money given to it by Ian Taylor, who is president and chief executive of Vitol.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/mcleish-voices-concern-over-500000-donation-to-better-together.1365958910

Obviously you didn't know but, Labour MP John Mann, Former [Labour]first minister Henry McLeish, The Telegraph and The Herald are all very much ANTI-INDEPENDENCE.

For hypocrites, "Dirty Money" has suddenly become 'Clean Money'.

Firstly, the Midlands forms a distinct entity by itself. Secondly, we don't all sit on our arses gleefully taking London's money. Third and finally, Thatcher destroyed the economy north of Watford and it has taken till now for the regions to recover.

For once, I have to agree with you.

You might not agree with me, but the real enemy of the common people throughout the union are Westminster politicians. There is now hardly any difference left between the Blue Tories, the Red Tories and the Yellow Tories as their only aim is power at all costs. That is NOT GOING TO CHANGE - there is no way the whole UK political system can be reformed. See how the Fib- Dems betrayed their long held belief (or was it pretence?) in proportional representation (which is not at all the same as what was presented and rejected).

Fortunately in Scotland we have a real alternative in the SNP government, which was rewarded with a majority for governing very well even as a minority government despite the best efforts of the BITTER opposition.

In just a few years, we saw improvement. More in 4 years than in the last 50 years of Labour dominance over Scotland, including 13 years of New Labour control at Westminster.

Scottish independence will not only create a fairer and more equal society in Scotland, it will present an unique opportunity for a rethink towards that direction by the common people of England.

Who really benefits from the outer glory of 'Great Britain'? The common people or the ruling classes? As a member of the Labour party, whose side are you on? Does Miliband have a single thing in common with the working classes?

After independence, it is very likely that a real Scottish Labour party will come to power, with policies to suit the people of Scotland, unlike the current London based New Labour which only cares about 'Middle England' to come to power reducing 'Scottish Labour leader' Johann Lamont to attacking 'something for nothing' 'free' prescriptions in Scotland, which are very popular with the common people of Scotland.

If those industries were economically viable without state subsidy, which the WTO outlaws, they'd still be here.

Yet there were MASSIVE SUBSIDIES for the banks which had been operating like casinos.

Why? Because the ruling classes and their rich friends would have lost out if they had not been bailed out.

Of course the same did not apply for the millions of the working classes whose lives, and those of their next generation, were destroyed. Money was more important than saving society, after all there was no such thing as society.

I would prefer to be poorer in an independent Scotland than being lorded over by such 'leaders', and Scots being called 'scroungers' and 'subsidy junkies' by our union partners.

Perhaps one or more of the 'civilised' anti-independence posters can clearly state whether or not they believe Scotland is being subsidised by England, re 'free' prescriptions, 'free' university education etc.

You might not agree with me, but the real enemy of the common people throughout the union are Westminster politicians. There is now hardly any difference left between the Blue Tories, the Red Tories and the Yellow Tories as their only aim is power at all costs. That is NOT GOING TO CHANGE - there is no way the whole UK political system can be reformed. See how the Fib- Dems betrayed their long held belief (or was it pretence?) in proportional representation (which is not at all the same as what was presented and rejected).

Fortunately in Scotland we have a real alternative in the SNP government, which was rewarded with a majority for governing very well even as a minority government despite the best efforts of the BITTER opposition.

In just a few years, we saw improvement. More in 4 years than in the last 50 years of Labour dominance over Scotland, including 13 years of New Labour control at Westminster.

Scottish independence will not only create a fairer and more equal society in Scotland, it will present an unique opportunity for a rethink towards that direction by the common people of England.

Yet there were MASSIVE SUBSIDIES for the banks which had been operating like casinos.

Why? Because the ruling classes and their rich friends would have lost out if they had not been bailed out.

Of course the same did not apply for the millions of the working classes whose lives, and those of their next generation, were destroyed. Money was more important than saving society, after all there was no such thing as society.

Why don't the welsh campaign to be represented in the Union flag then? I know the Welsh language was put on a even footing with English in the 1990s, but I was always taught that those Acts were still live. If they have been repealed, more bad schooling for me.....

Had the banks collapsed, I think it's far to say we'd be in a much worse position than we are now.

Obviously you didn't know but, Labour MP John Mann, Former [Labour]first minister Henry McLeish, The Telegraph and The Herald are all very much ANTI-INDEPENDENCE.

If the country's banks fell apart, the whole economy of the country would also fall apart. Ignoring failing banks is just not an option.

How would we be in a worse position? Or rather who would have been in a worse postion? All those 'wealth creating' billionaires and millionaires who feed the working classes in drips?

The greatest shame of it is that Scottish Labour Westminster politicians bailed out the rich at the expense of the poor. A complete betrayal of Scottish Labour values.

The working classes only had small amounts in banks which would have been fully covered by legal guarantees. They are now facing severe cuts after having been forced to subsidise the rich.

And we were left in a much better position after the livelihoods of millions of working class people were destroyed? After whole communities were devastated?

The overall cost to society in all terms would have been much much lower if so many people had not been sacrified at the high alter of Thatcherism.

You seem to be one of those who know the prices of everything but the values of nothing.

We're a member of the World Tarde Organisation and the EU so subsisidy isn't allowed.

NO. The whole economy would not have collapsed. The BILLIONAIRES AND MILLIONAIRES would have collapsed. We would all then have really been in it together, all equal. But Scottish Labour politicians, ruling from Westminster saved them.

The working classes would have lost almost nothing. But now having 'saved' the rich, they are facing destruction by a Tory government at Westminster.

You ARE an English Tory aren't you?

To a certain extent I'd agree with you. The working classes would've been insured with their savings. The problem you have, and this is the big problem is the companies work for them.

Option 1. Employer has enough cash in the bank to pay wages. Bank goes under, they loose their money, so the end result is no wages at the end of the month, No means of payement of suppliers and the whole system falls down.

Option 2. Employer doesn't have enough money in the bank to pay wages so it borrows money on a short term loan basis to meet cash flow requirements. Bank goes under, employer has no means of borrowing money. No wages paid at the end of the month.

No wages = no money being spent in shops, so very quickly society as you and I know it collapses on itself.

You're option, which I think you're angling for is a socialist utopia where everybody works for the state. In an environment like that, you get no investment from companies wishing to employ people unless you do something like pay really low wages such as in China and North Korea. Basically you promote a degree of slave labour. Also, States need to borrow money from banks, so if the banks go under, then the state can't pay it's workers either.


You can bang the drum about Thatcherism all you like. People of our age never really lived throu it so don't care about it that much. Suprisingly the age group you're taking about. 60+ are more anti seperation than anybody else.

Cut out your long philosophy.

The working classes of Scotland AND England would have used their initiative to keep businesses running without billions being creamed off them by parasites.

But as long as Westminster rules, it is OK to subsidise the rich at the expense of the poor, but it is NOT OK to subsidise the poor at the expense of the rich.

The SNP government in Scotland has proved that it is possible to protect the poor by way of universal 'free' prescriptions etc, while at the same time not unduly tax the better off.

What is wrong about the better off also getting 'free' prescriptions or 'free' travel passes which they have helped to subsidise in part? At least the ones who really need them will not suffer the indignity of means testing, which anyway costs more money than it saves?