The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Good bloke
One problem is they can't agree among themselves. The finance minister, Swinney, says one thing while Salmond says another.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/7038128/SNP-ministers-split-over-spending-cuts.html


You know the Scottish government get a 'bloc grant' to spend. They can't increase or decrease that amount.
Original post by Gordon1985
You know the Scottish government get a 'bloc grant' to spend. They can't increase or decrease that amount.


You know that I was discussing the inability of SNP leaders to agree on whether cuts are needed, and not budget allocation procedures? I merely used that article to source the disagreement.

The relevant paragraph is the second:

He [Salmond] has suggested Scotland should spend its way out of the recession, but John Swinney, his finance minister, yesterday (weds) told MSPs cuts are necessary “to put the budget on a sustainable footing in the medium term”.


What is more important is whether an SNP government would make cuts in an independent Scotland. I reckon they will have no choice, for all Salmond's bluster, and Swinney knows that, as proved by the leaked document.
Original post by Good bloke
You know that I was discussing the inability of SNP leaders to agree on whether cuts are needed, and not budget allocation procedures? I merely used that article to source the disagreement.

The relevant paragraph is the second:



What is more important is whether an SNP government would make cuts in an independent Scotland. I reckon they will have no choice, for all Salmond's bluster, and Swinney knows that, as proved by the leaked document.


Yes, that's fair enough. For what it's worth, I agree with Swinney I think. Some cuts are just the sensible thing to do. It's really just a matter of where and how they're done.
Original post by Gordon1985
You know the Scottish government get a 'bloc grant' to spend. They can't increase or decrease that amount.



Holyrood have existing tax raising powers which they've chosen not to use. And had hardly forced any council tax freezes on anybody. It's best for the SNP to ignore that and continue to portray us as hard done by victims......which we aren't.


any comments on this one?
http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-60-of-teens-say-no-1-2952284
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36


What is there to comment on. All the polls sauggest the No vote will win and if I was betting on it, that's where I'd put my money.

I don't buy into the triumphalism of many No supporters or the obvious denial of many Yes voters.

I think it would be good for Scotland to vote for independence. If that's not what people want, I can accept that. I almost certainly won't be living here when the vote takes place anyway.
Original post by Gordon1985
What is there to comment on. All the polls sauggest the No vote will win and if I was betting on it, that's where I'd put my money.

I don't buy into the triumphalism of many No supporters or the obvious denial of many Yes voters.

I think it would be good for Scotland to vote for independence. If that's not what people want, I can accept that. I almost certainly won't be living here when the vote takes place anyway.



I'd give you a thumbs up if I had any left.
Original post by Joeman560
It's bad. Nothing good will come of it, especially for Scotland. Also I dislike Alex Salmond.

Salmonds campaign is based on nothing but lies and fudged figures, he hates England so much he would destroy his own country to be away from it. He is openly racist and gets away with it and even encourages racism in his supporters.



lol wut

show me evidence of his racism

and evidence of all the lies too if you please
Original post by L i b
I hope to God this is a parody. If not then I'm afraid I question not only your intellect, but your sanity. You might as well have thrown in something about William Wallace from that film you saw, or how Margaret Thatcher actually thought Scotland was in Lancashire...


scotland unanimously votes left, england votes right

england therefore dictates the next british government or scotland does...either way is bad for democracy. scotland does not want to be run by a London centric conservative government, so why should they get to dictate policy up here when scotland unanimously votes labour and has widely different opinions on major matters. why not allow england to run itself and scotland to run itself...thus a fair representation.
why cant we just have a big debate on tv on this, i'd like to see margo macdonald tear the "No to Independence" campaign to shreds




(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by robin22391
scotland unanimously votes left,


This isn't true at all. In fact it is complete rubbish.

why should they get to dictate policy up here when scotland unanimously votes labour


Why should the good people of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale have policy dictated to them by left wing governments imposed on them in an independent Scotland by people who don't live in their area?
Reply 2310
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Original post by robin22391
scotland unanimously votes left, england votes right


Trolololol.
Original post by robin22391
lol wut

show me evidence of his racism

and evidence of all the lies too if you please



legal advice on our entry into Europe.

Claim that Scottish taxpayers are subsidising the new London sewage system.

Nhs Scotland's waiting times.

second oil boom.

we'll be able to increase public spending.


Is that enough lies for you that salmond has been caught telling? I could go on.
Reply 2312
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Original post by Gordon1985
What is there to comment on. All the polls sauggest the No vote will win and if I was betting on it, that's where I'd put my money.

I don't buy into the triumphalism of many No supporters or the obvious denial of many Yes voters.

I think it would be good for Scotland to vote for independence. If that's not what people want, I can accept that. I almost certainly won't be living here when the vote takes place anyway.


To an extent, the issue with referendum matters is that they'll always be seen through the prism of public popularity. The AV referendum saw electoral reform soundly defeated - although that's not to say it's not a legitimate idea or one drawn of real concerns.

Ultimately I suppose everyone seems fairly unprepared for what happens after the referendum. If a 'no' vote is likely, what do the pro-Union parties want to do, politically speaking, with their victory? Particularly given an SNP government (albeit probably down to a minority) remains the most likely outcome of the 2016 elections.

Perhaps it was always going to be so, but it seems both are throwing themselves into the campaign and forgetting about the political environment which they operate in and which will - largely - continue to exist regardless of the referendum outcome. Without sounding partisan, the Tories are possibly the only main party that stands to gain here, having used the unionist cause to rile up their supporters like never before.

Labour, on the other hand, stands to lose the most if they can't reposition themselves. Another period in opposition in the Scottish Parliament would, I think, seriously break the Scottish Labour Party. Some might argue that's a good thing, crushing their perceived right to rule here. I'm not so sure...
Reply 2313
Avatar for L i b
L i b
19
Original post by Piprod01
Austerity is characterised by cuts in public services, that's something I find less likely in an independant scotland. I still don't really give many ****s about what the SNP says about after independence because that's not their decision to make. When I see labor and the SNP fighting over corporation tax, it's a much better future than having the Conservatives arguing that public services need to be cut.


I see significant cuts in public spending being hugely more likely under independence. The Yes/SNP groups have put forward largely fantasy economics to try to explain a post-independence scenario.

The reason the SNP don't advocate spending cuts is because they don't have to. The Scottish Parliament is completely fiscally irresponsible. It doesn't have to raise the money it spends - so why on earth would it ever support cuts to public spending?

Corporation tax is a red herring. The SNP needs a pro-business policy, but realistically the cut is not significantly more than what the UK Government is currently doing. It won't have an enormous effect either way.

Yet, as one current SNP cabinet secretary once observed, this overspending in Scotland is crippling us in many ways and has been for at least a generation.

I'd much prefer to live in a country where Labour gets twice the % of votes than Conservatives, than in one where Conservatives get a higher % than Labor.


I wouldn't, but hey-ho.
Original post by L i b
To an extent, the issue with referendum matters is that they'll always be seen through the prism of public popularity. The AV referendum saw electoral reform soundly defeated - although that's not to say it's not a legitimate idea or one drawn of real concerns.


In principle, I really like referenda. In practice, I think they're usually pretty marred by public ignorance and prejudice. And this probably goes for all sides and all topics. Ultimately, I'd be thouraghly happy if we could have an intelligent, honest debate where everyone who votes feels that they're in solid possession of the facts and have been exposed to the best, most positive arguments from both sides. The sad reality is, we're incredibly unlikely to get that. Both sides feel there's too much to lose and I think both will probably be too scared to truly trust the public to make the right decision. In some ways they're justified, in most ways that's just depressing.


Ultimately I suppose everyone seems fairly unprepared for what happens after the referendum. If a 'no' vote is likely, what do the pro-Union parties want to do, politically speaking, with their victory? Particularly given an SNP government (albeit probably down to a minority) remains the most likely outcome of the 2016 elections.


I think a lot depends on the manner of the victory. I think No is definitely more likely to win but the SNP (and probably by extension, Yes Scotland) have shown themselves to be very good campaigners. Labour had a healthy lead in the polls only months before the 2011 election and the SNP ended up tanking them. This is different of course but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see the polls tighten up as we get closer and the campaign 'proper' begins.

I think a narrow victory will probably force the unionist parties into considering further devolution at least. A crushing one will do serious damage to the SNP and Slamond.


Perhaps it was always going to be so, but it seems both are throwing themselves into the campaign and forgetting about the political environment which they operate in and which will - largely - continue to exist regardless of the referendum outcome. Without sounding partisan, the Tories are possibly the only main party that stands to gain here, having used the unionist cause to rile up their supporters like never before.


Very difficult to say really but an interesting question. I thought Ruth Davidson was a poor choice for leader. Murdo Fraser at least offered a serious change, which I think the right in Scotland is in dire, dire need of. Ruth just seems determined to hold steady, both in terms of the party and constitutionally speaking, which might keep the core vote happy but is very unlikely to catch the imaginations of people who haven't voted Tory before/for a while. They'll still be dragged down by a Westminster govt who'll be unpopular.


Labour, on the other hand, stands to lose the most if they can't reposition themselves. Another period in opposition in the Scottish Parliament would, I think, seriously break the Scottish Labour Party. Some might argue that's a good thing, crushing their perceived right to rule here. I'm not so sure...


There's no doubt the SNP have benefitted from the opposition here being particulalry useless over the past few years. Labour seem to pick awful leader after awful leader and completely lack direction. The Lib Dems took a pretty fatal blow last time which will take them a long time to recover from, if they ever do. I think you're right in that Labour certainly can sink lower. If there's a no vote but it's close and the SNP run a good campaign and handle the defeat well, another SP win is certainly on the cards.
Original post by Good bloke
This isn't true at all. In fact it is complete rubbish.



Why should the good people of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale have policy dictated to them by left wing governments imposed on them in an independent Scotland by people who don't live in their area?


most people would accept that scotland itself would be the main unit....but yes you are quite right...they shouldnt have...but there wouldnt ever be an independence movement there, in an independent scotland.
Original post by robin22391
but there wouldnt ever be an independence movement there, in an independent scotland.


Why not? And, more likely, why not one in the Orkneys, or Shetland?

My point, though, is that there will always be people in any large selection that aren't getting what they may want in terms of government, no matter what the electoral method is and no matter where the seat of government is. The argument about Scots not getting what they want becasue their views are drowned by the English is not a good one, and only applies while Scotland is, generally, out of step with the rest. It isn't very long ago since Scotland was a sea of blue.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by robin22391
most people would accept that scotland itself would be the main unit....but yes you are quite right...they shouldnt have...but there wouldnt ever be an independence movement there, in an independent scotland.


Northern Ireland was formed out of a desire for those living in Ulster to stay in the union. It's just as plausible that other parts of Scotland would wish to do the same.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Midlander
Northern Ireland was formed out of a desire for those living in Ulster to stay in the union. It's just as plausible that other parts of Scotland would wish to do the same.


Posted from TSR Mobile





It's not going to be needed as the SNP are going to loose hands down. Even if the partitioned the country, oil is in Lib Dem territory.


My only concern now is how much unnecessary internal conflict the SNP have created long term with their myopic, divisional, navel gazing claiming to speak for all of us.
Reply 2319
Avatar for Kj91
Kj91
6
Original post by MatureStudent36
It's not going to be needed as the SNP are going to loose hands down. Even if the partitioned the country, oil is in Lib Dem territory.


My only concern now is how much unnecessary internal conflict the SNP have created long term with their myopic, divisional, navel gazing claiming to speak for all of us.


Please explain what you mean by this? Are you referring to the situation that if Shetland and Orkney wanted to remain with the U.K instead of an independent scotland. That the U.K will have a claim to Scottish oil? Why do you assume that the oil belongs to the Shetland islands and assume they will want to remain with the U.K in the event that Scottish independence was voted for?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you