Is Scottish independence a &#x27;good or bad&#x27; thing?

Original post by Maths Tutor

How could the SNP have "done a lot of good things for Scotland" if they had been the same as the Labour-Lib Dem politicians that had been running Scotland until 2007?

'No Scotland' are desperately trying to fool the people into believing this falsehood, and thus voting NO - don't fall into their trap.

The SNP government has kept their manifesto promises as far as possible, despite having relatively few powers.

It even managed to get the UK government 'to allow' Scotland to hold a referendum.

Contrast this with what Labour do:

Before the 2011 election, Labour came up with a promise to freeze the council tax, as it had been a popular SNP policy, to win votes.

Immediately after the election, Labour started attacking the council tax freeze policy, leading to SNP taunts of Labour being the only party to do u-turns on their policies while in opposition!

The YES Scotland parties - SNP, Greens, Socialists are generally 'Conviction' polticians, believing in their principles and keeping to them.

The NO Scotland parties - Labour, Lib Dems, Tories are mostly 'Career' politicians, ultra ready to sacrifice their principles at the slightest scent of power and privilege.

So no, SNP politicians ARE NOT THE SAME as Labour-LibDem-Tory politicians. They are not perfect but they are a million times better than the rest whose only purpose seems to be talking down Scotland at every opportunity.

If you have any doubt watch the UNEDITED version of First Ministers' questions on the Holyrood website.

(The anti-SNP, anti-Independence BBC shows an edited version which is deliberately intended to show SNP politicians in a bad light and the opposition politicians in a good light.)

All I gather from FMQs is chief bigot Salmond going red in the face when anything about independence is asked and very calmly answering questions about anything not connected.

It shows he has a personal agenda to divide the union. What do the Scottish Greens make of his plan to rely on oil for economic sustainability?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3362

Midlander

Original post by Maths Tutor

Midlander claims that Choo.choo's attitude is :"they're all out to get us".

Midlander's own attitude, thoroughly well documented by himself on this thread is: 'The Scots are out to get the English' as well as 'The Welsh are out to get the English':

He challenges others' attitudes but doesn't like being challenged about HIS OWN ATTITUDE.

And that is, 'all that is wrong with 'No Scotland' / 'Project Fear' / 'Bitter Together' - the attitude that Scotland is the only country in the world that SHOULDN'T run its own affairs.

(They have grudgingly accepted that Scotland COULD run its own affairs but they are still doing their best to mislead the people of Scotland into believing it CAN'T.)

I'm quite transparent about what I think of Anglophobia in the Celtic nations and you'd have to be blind ignorant to say it doesn't exist in all of them.

Of course any region can declare itself autonomous. If they ran at a surplus, great. But countries like Scotland run at large deficits and that won't change a jot with independence, but expenditure will increase as Salmond seeks to maintain free education for Scots and RUK students once it gets EU membership.

He is pushing false hopes to satisfy his personal agenda.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3363

Snagprophet

17

Original post by Maths Tutor

It even managed to get the UK government 'to allow' Scotland to hold a referendum.

Maybe because they're the only ones interested in this?

Reply 3364

Quady

20

Original post by Midlander

They want to keep a loss making country on the books to steal its money?

Even the Treasury doesn't claim that Scotland has a higher deficit than the rest of the UK, they only contend its viability as a separate nation.

If they wanted to lose a loss making country they'd turn to Wales and NI first... or annex everything north of Birmingham.

Reply 3365

Midlander

Original post by Quady

Even the Treasury doesn't claim that Scotland has a higher deficit than the rest of the UK, they only contend its viability as a separate nation.

If they wanted to lose a loss making country they'd turn to Wales and NI first... or annex everything north of Birmingham.

Which was my point-economically Scotland wouldn't be missed. That Westminster are trying hard to retain it must be because they aren't conspiring against it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3366

Gordon1985

6

Original post by Midlander

All nationalists are the same. The BNP and UKIP in my view employ the same 'us and them' rhetoric which the SNP indulge in and so fall into the nationalist category. The difference with the No campaign I feel is that it tries to emphasise the inclusive nature of the UK relative to the exclusive rhetoric of the Yes campaign.

An inclusive nature which I assume stops at Dover, somewhere in the North sea and along the Irish border? You didn't answer the question. Of course, you could say that any nationalist is 'inclusive' about what's inside what they they consider to be their country and 'exlcusive' to what's outside. Your own argument doesn't even differentiate between the SNP and, for example, Labour in that respect.

With refernce to what nationalism actually means, why are the SNP more nationalist than the Labour or Conservative parties?

The Scottish Greens are a funny one-the Scottish Tories get more representation at Westminster and Holyrood (16 MSPs vs 2), yet according to Alex Salmond nobody in Scotland votes Conservative. Guess his proposal to put all of Scotland's economic hopes on oil will go down well as nobody votes Green either.

I seriously doubt he's ever said that. I think that's one of those things you've made up again.

Reply 3367

Choo.choo

12

Original post by Good bloke

That is completely wrong. Scotland runs a fiscal deficit, just like the UK, and has had a surplus in only one year (and then barely) since 1990-91.

http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_273150_en.pdf

Lies, damned lies and statistics - you should google that if you are unfamiliar with this expression.
How is it possible that Scotland has made a loss every year for 20 years - if a business like Starbucks or Amazon did that, they would not exist any more. It is nonsense that Scotland has made a loss every year for the past 20 years.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3368

Choo.choo

12

Original post by Midlander

They want to keep a loss making country on the books to steal its money?

Posted from TSR Mobile

It does not matter if Scotland makes a loss or not - Westminster wants our money.

Reply 3369

Original post by Choo.choo

Lies, damned lies and statistics - you should google that if you are unfamiliar with this expression.
How is it possible that Scotland has made a loss every year for 20 years - if a business like Starbucks or Amazon did that, they would not exist any more. It is nonsense that Scotland has made a loss every year for the past 20 years.

They aren't lies. Not only has Scotland made such a loss, but so has the UK as a whole.

Reply 3370

Choo.choo

12

Original post by Good bloke

They aren't lies. Not only has Scotland made such a loss, but so has the UK as a whole.

And if the document is unbiased, you don't think that Scotland should stop spending money it does not have?
The point about the articles and fiscal deficits/surpluses was to point out that one says one thing and the other the opposite....how to lie with statistics to suit your purpose.
Of course, we should balance revenues and expenditures so choices will have to be made....just as you and I make choices about how we spend our limited incomes.

As for Faslane and defence jobs, some jobs will be lost if nuclear subs are banned from Faslane for example...but some would argue that it is a price worth paying. It would be foolish for anyone to suggest that all defence jobs will go. We will have our own defence forces paid from our taxation revenues.

Why did the SNP gain a majority vote in the last election if people are 'so' against independence?
Do you not think it is telling you something that the SNP are winning more votes?

The debate will 'rage' for the next year.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3371

Original post by Choo.choo

And if the document is unbiased, you don't think that Scotland should stop spending money it does not have?
The point about the articles and fiscal deficits/surpluses was to point out that one says one thing and the other the opposite....how to lie with statistics to suit your purpose.
Of course, we should balance revenues and expenditures so choices will have to be made.

Then you should vote for a party that advocates either considerable austerity (far more than we are undergoing now) or taxation high enough to pay for government's needs (which none of your fellow tax-payers will want).

It would be foolish for anyone to suggest that all defence jobs will go. We will have our own defence forces paid from our taxation revenues

Leaving the Scottish defence industry with a 100% share of a market one tenth the size of the current market instead of a one-third share in the bigger market.

Reply 3372

Original post by Maths Tutor

Believers in democracy had voted for Lib Dems BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. The Lib Dems BETRAYED them.

Original post by Good bloke

How can you say that? We had a referendum, instigated by the LibDems, on the matter and overwhelmingly rejected it.

Are you that ill-informed, or are you deliberately misleading?

We had a referendum on AV, which Clegg himself described as "a miserable little compromise".

AV is NOT Proportional Representation and is probably even more undemocratic and un-representative than what we have now.

For example, both Tory voters and Labour voters could give the Liberal Democrats their 2nd choice, thus electing a candidate who had come 3rd.

YOU were accusing me of being ill-informed a few days ago. So if YOU know the answer, can YOU provide it:

Who owns the nuclear weapons that are currently sited in Scotland:

- the UK?

- the USA?

- NATO?

- anyone else?

Reply 3373

asianhistorynerd

Scotland is still dependent to the rest of the UK and there is a fear that businesses will just leave scotland and invest in the UK. If the Scottish want to become independent i believe that they should be granted more autonomy first such as separate economic policies and if they are doing well then that is the time for scotland to leave but right now i dont think they are ready.
Furthermore in my opinion the Scottish will gain their power to govern only to then cede it to the EU where the vast majority of economic registrations are being made and other major legislation.

Reply 3374

Original post by Gordon1985

I seriously doubt he's ever said that. I think that's one of those things you've made up again.

Midlander heard it from his girlfriend who had heard it from a reliable drunk in the pub, so it must be absolutely true.

Seriously, Midlander doesn't give a damn about Scotland.

Regarding Wales, this is what he has said:

"If it were severed from Britain I wouldn't bat an eyelid"

If he has a shred of honesty, he should admit that he is against Scottish Independence because he believes that England would be worse off if it happened.

That would be a perfectly understandable viewpoint from someone who hates being in Scotland (said it himself on this thread) and seems to hate the Scots ("Angophobia is rife in Scotland").

Again if he said Anglophobia exists in Scotland, that wouldn't be challenged, but RIFE?.

EVERYONE (in Wales) hates England with a burning passion???

Reply 3375

Original post by Good bloke

They aren't lies. Not only has Scotland made such a loss, but so has the UK as a whole.

Is Scotland subsidised by England? YES or NO?

What is YOUR opinion, not The Daily Mail's or The Scotsman's.

Reply 3376

Original post by Maths Tutor

Is Scotland subsidised by England? YES or NO?

What is YOUR opinion, not The Daily Mail's or The Scotsman's.

Who was talking about subsidy?

Reply 3377

Original post by Maths Tutor

Who owns the nuclear weapons that are currently sited in Scotland:

- the UK?

- the USA?

- NATO?

- anyone else?

The UK. Why do you ask?

Reply 3378

Original post by Midlander

The central UK government subsidises all 4 constituent states because they all run at a loss. Scotland loses billions even with the SNP oil claim and so needs subsidising by Westminster.

The same deficit will still be there in Salmondland however the Scottish government are the ones who will have to seek credit to cover it. Choo Choo thinks that whiskey can solve the nation's problems so it's fine.

Who has the BIGGER deficit - Scotland or rUK?

Independent Scotland will not squander money on nuclear weapons and illegal wars among other things, lowering or even eliminating its deficit.

Which independent country in the EU is currently not running on a deficit?

What about the USA?

Why would Scotland not be able to finance a budget deficit? Because it won't have the UK's Triple A rating? Well, that Triple A rating the UK was boasting about DISAPPEARED under Westminster (mis)rule if you didn't know.

Reply 3379