Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

I could start by saying that the removal of Trident would free up a huge sum of money for Scotland to spend on things which we really need. Scotland currently spends a huge amount of money on nuclear weapons that we do not need. That would be the first thing. There are 28 countries in the world who have NATO membership. 25 out of 28 Nato member countries do not have nuclear weapons in their country. Fact.

Pish argument. The nuclear deterrent, in terms of our overall defence budget, is actually quite cheap - yet it provides a far greater defence for the country than virtually any number of conventional forces.

Trident is a substitute for a proper, domestic defence infrastructure. What you are arguing is that Britain be substantially less defended, and call it a saving. I call it a massive cut to the most vital public service the government provides.

If you want to 'free up' money, take it from health, education, welfare or whatever else. Then we can perhaps talk about defence cuts.

Reply 3781

Psyk

Original post by Choo.choo

More lies by Westminster just released:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/250-000-bill-mps-gym-upgrade-102418264.html#P3pxFxd

Vote 'Yes'.

So you think people should vote to separate because they're upgrading the gym in Westminster?

£250,000 sounds quite reasonable. And it's not like the gym is provided to MPs for free, they have to pay for it.

Reply 3782

Good bloke

Original post by Choo.choo

I could start by saying that the removal of Trident would free up a huge sum of money for Scotland to spend on things which we really need.

In the short term getting rid of Trident will cost Scotland a lot more than it saves, and the loss of jobs will be significant too.

What else?

Original post by Choo.choo

More lies by Westminster just released:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/250-000-bill-mps-gym-upgrade-102418264.html#P3pxFxd

Vote 'Yes'.

Why does refurbishment of a gym (a) indicate that lies are being told or (b) bolster an argument (or indeed have any relevance to) independence for Scotland?

You do realise Scottish MPSs have similar facilities, which cost about £1.5 million to fit out (thought that includes all the toilets in the building) in 2002?

Reply 3783

Choo.choo

Original post by L i b

Sorry, what?

Have you ever been to Scotland, or even the UK? I find it hard to believe anyone with even the faintest grasp of British politics could possibly make such a stupid suggestion.

So you believe that the Scottish people will only have the SNP to vote for if Scotland gets independence?

Original post by L i b

I disagree that changes badly need to happen. That you cannot win your arguments about change through a normal political process is a huge, glaring weakness.

I cannot see why you believe that?
Draw up a comparison of Westminster and the SNP since 2007 to see who has listened to the people of Scotland
I think you will discover that the SNP are in front of Westminster on that, in that they have done more good things.

Original post by L i b

Actually, they've invested it very well. In case you didn't realise, in the 1980s we transformed our economy to suit modern circumstances and provide us with solid national wealth for decades to come.

Why is there no money left in the Treasury coffers in London, then?
Where has the money gone?
Let's just say that you, as an individual collect an income that allows you to live 'comfortably', i.e. your income allows to pay all your living costs and you have a sum of money left either to save for the future, or to spend.
The London Government have spent it all, which has not made economical sense, since we would not be in the mess we are currently in, if they had spent that money wisely.

Reply 3784

Choo.choo

Original post by L i b

My post number 3792 explains why we do not need nuclear weapons in Scotland.

Reply 3785

Choo.choo

Original post by Good bloke

In the short term getting rid of Trident will cost Scotland a lot more than it saves, and the loss of jobs will be significant too.

What else?

The SNP are getting rid of Trident because it is what the people of Scotland want; not because of the jobs that will be lost, and the cost to move it.

Reply 3786

Good bloke

Original post by Choo.choo

The SNP are getting rid of Trident because it is what the people of Scotland want; not because of the jobs that will be lost, and the cost to move it.

Fine, then don't justify it as saving money as it won't for the time being.

What other changes would be enabled if independence came about? You said there are lots but have named only one.

Reply 3787

Choo.choo

The cost of removing Trident and the lost jobs will be a one-off cost for Scotland.
It will be a saving when it has been removed.

Reply 3788

Good bloke

Original post by Choo.choo

The cost of removing Trident and the lost jobs will be a one-off cost for Scotland.
It will be a saving when it has been removed.

Why don't you post more examples of things that need to change in Scotland that must wait independence?

Reply 3789

L i b

Original post by Choo.choo

So you believe that the Scottish people will only have the SNP to vote for if Scotland gets independence?

Er, no. There is no rational reason for you to ask that question.

The SNP's central objective is independence: it does not speak for the people of Scotland.

At least the Coalition government is doing things that the vast majority agree with: reducing the deficit, building economic growth, reforming the welfare system. In these vitally important areas, the SNP has been constantly out-of-touch.

It does indeed make economic sense. It has been spent on infrastructure to provide for a functioning economy in this country for generations. It was also 'spent' on keeping taxation low, attracting business to the UK - making us, for example, the financial services capital of the world.

But of course, tax money isn't simply spent to get tax money back. For this, we have people with jobs, businesses that operate - and a reduced role for the state. An oil fund, which the SNP wants, would require either substantially higher taxes, lower public spending on infrastructure or - as the SNP seems to suggest now - higher borrowing.

All for what? Investing in foreign companies rather than investing in Britain? That's politically daft. You may get a slightly larger financial return, but you're doing nothing to help your own economy.

Reply 3790

Choo.choo

Original post by Good bloke

Why don't you post more examples of things that need to change in Scotland that must wait independence?

How about the scrap of the very much unwanted 'Bedroom' Tax?
Three of this country’s main political parties – Labour, the SNP and the Scottish Greens – all agree that it should be scrapped.

bedroom-tax_1.png27.7KB

Reply 3791

Choo.choo

Original post by L i b

Er, no. There is no rational reason for you to ask that question.

It is a rational counter-argument in response to your comments.

Original post by L i b

The SNP's central objective is independence: it does not speak for the people of Scotland.

The central objective of the SNP is to do right by the people of Scotland.
They have demonstrated this by getting a referendum for us to decide on the future of Scotland, and the good things they have done since they came to power in 2007.

Original post by L i b

At least the Coalition government is doing things that the vast majority agree with: reducing the deficit, building economic growth, reforming the welfare system. In these vitally important areas, the SNP has been constantly out-of-touch.

The SNP want to give the public what they want - and they have done.

Austerity? And you believe that people are happy about the deep cuts to public services? You remember the outrage when the Coalition told people that cuts would be implemented?
Austerity has not yet worked. We are still heavily in debt.

Original post by L i b

Disagree with that. They are imposing policies that people do not want.
It will be "same old" if Scotland does not get independence for generations to come.

Reply 3792

Quady

Original post by Choo.choo

Austerity has not yet worked. We are still heavily in debt.

I think you must have missed the point...

Austerity is to slow the rate the debt increases, not reduce debt. That was always the plan. The Tories wanted it to top out at 80% debt:GDP, Labour 90% in 2014 (at predicted before the 2010 election. Looks like it will top out 12-18 months later and more like 90%, which some will blame on the eurozone melt down in the first couple of years of the Parliament, others on the cuts.

Or are you someone who confuses debt and deficit?

Also you realise the SNP decided to back end their cuts rather than front end them? Some have suggested thats been to sweeten the election. If you read Scotland on Sunday today, there is comment the fiscal decisions are starting to creek.

Reply 3793

Choo.choo

Original post by Quady

Austerity has been the economic plan by the Coalition to pay down the huge deficit

Reply 3794

Quady

Original post by Choo.choo

Austerity has been the economic plan by the Coalition to pay down the huge deficit

You can't pay down a deficit....

You can reduce or increase a deficit, but you can't pay it down.

You can pay down a debt, not a deficit.

Edit:
Don't believe me, the first google result for 'pay down':
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paydown.asp

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3795

Yi-Ge-Ningderen

Original post by Choo.choo

You are very ill-informed. 
The Labour MSP's in Scotland are in favour of independence for Scotland so they can get rid of Westminster, and prevent them imposing policies that people do not want. 
YesScotland.net is your friend. 
Read that website and you will change your vote to 'Yes'.

What? You have completely misunderstood what I typed.

Reply 3796

Psyk

Original post by Choo.choo

How about the scrap of the very much unwanted 'Bedroom' Tax?
Three of this country’s main political parties – Labour, the SNP and the Scottish Greens – all agree that it should be scrapped.

Why is independence the only way to get rid of the Bedroom Tax? You could just vote Labour, they have a pretty good chance of winning the next general election.

Some Scottish nationalists only seem to have very short term memories. They appear to only remember the last 3 years. They seem to think the UK government always has been and always will be controlled by the Conservatives.

Reply 3797

Choo.choo

Original post by Psyk

It does not matter which party is running this country (at Westminster, I mean).
The way the government at Westminster run things will never change.
The government of Scotland will be the government elected by Scotland. That is the power of independence - the people of Scotland will always get the government they vote for.
Independence is also not just about scrapping the bedroom tax, but it is an example of an unwanted policy imposed on the Scottish people.

Reply 3798

L i b

Original post by Choo.choo

It is a rational counter-argument in response to your comments.

It's an entirely stupid question to which the obvious answer is 'no'. If you think asking stupid questions is a counter-argument, then so be it.

The central objective of the SNP is to do right by the people of Scotland.

The SNP want to give the public what they want - and they have done.

No they haven't. They've ignored the settled will of the Scottish people and have driven huge resources into breaking up the country that the overwhelming majority of Scots want to be a part of.

Austerity? And you believe that people are happy about the deep cuts to public services? You remember the outrage when the Coalition told people that cuts would be implemented?
Austerity has not yet worked. We are still heavily in debt.

Er, we haven't had anything which could be remotely described as 'austerity' - in case you haven't noticed, every year the state spends billions more than it raises in taxation revenue.

However the deficit did need to be addressed and will be - both through sensible reductions in public spending and economic growth. Every mainstream political party in the UK has recognised that. The SNP, of course, hasn't - because they don't have to deal with it now, and suggesting policies for later would leave them with difficult choices to make.

It appears you don't just want to secede from Britain, but also to secede from reality.

Original post by Choo.choo

How about the scrap of the very much unwanted 'Bedroom' Tax?
Three of this country’s main political parties – Labour, the SNP and the Scottish Greens – all agree that it should be scrapped.

The SNP could effectively scrap it already in Scotland using current devolved powers. They've decided to only put £20m into it, which

Actually, the underoccupancy charge is relatively popular. It polls well, because it's sensible. And as for your figure - it's misleading. Over 20% of Scottish MPs support the policy.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3799

L i b

Original post by Choo.choo

It does not matter which party is running this country (at Westminster, I mean).
The way the government at Westminster run things will never change.

The worst sort of nationalist, anti-British hogwash.

In case you haven't lived through the last 30 years, Britain has changed extraordinarily in political terms. We've got devolution, a human rights act, European citizenship, a supreme court, fixed-term parliaments, a referendum on AV. The UK has been extraordinarily open to constitutional change in modern times.

The reason people don't like your ideas is not because they are inflexible, but because they are bad ideas.