Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Scroll to see replies

Opinion polls over the last thirty years tell a different story though.

Poor little maths tutor. Living in a dream land.

Are YOU 100% sure that it will be a NO on 18th September 2014?

If you are, why are you spending your waking life on this thread?

Reply 4041

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by Maths Tutor

Are YOU 100% sure that it will be a NO on 18th September 2014?

Only an absolute nutter could have any delusions that the result of the referendum will be anything other than no. Not a single poll has shown otherwise. It'll be a miracle if the the no votes don't outnumber the yes ones by at least two to one.

Reply 4042

MatureStudent36

Original post by Maths Tutor

Are YOU 100% sure that it will be a NO on 18th September 2014?

If you are, why are you spending your waking life on this thread?

100% sure.

Not my waking life. Just when I have a few spare minutes. I only started doing this because I was sick and tired of reading bile from the cyberNat community, most of which is made up.

Reply 4043

L i b

Original post by 1tartanarmy

The fact is though that the typical stubborn no voter does not give the yes side a fair shot at informing them.

Cry me a river. Perhaps that's got something to do with Scottish independence being based on backward nationalism, advocated on the internet by a bunch of aggressive basement-dwellers and fundamentally divisive.

You go on to complain about how the UK is governed. I, for one, am far happier with it now that under the failed 1970s collectivist and socialist policies which seem to have an almost complete consensus behind them among nationalists.

Reply 4044

L i b

Original post by vespa

um, let it be. seriously, i don't think anybody is going to die because scotland completes the braveheart saga. i love scotland and if they want independence, they should have it. why argue? pass the referendum as soon as possible, as soon as each side has made its case, and then let the people decide.

No political groupings have argued against the referendum. Indeed, the UK Government enabled it to happen. As for when it should be, the date is already announced. You seem to be fighting problems that don't exist.

let's face it folks, northern ireland isn't exactly a stellar example of how good it is to force people to remain in the union.

Er, the UK Government has made it clear Northern Ireland can leave the UK whenever it wants.

Reply 4045

L i b

Original post by Choo.choo

I think a televised debate would swing it for a lot of people.
Cameron knows he would lose the debate, hence he is not agreeing to one with Alex Salmond.

It's a well worn political cliché - but generally true - that the people most desperate to have debates are the ones on the back-foot. I, for one, think Cameron would do very well against Salmond, because Salmond is parochial in his outlook. He'd try to nail down Cameron on tiresome Scottish nationalist shibboleths which are meaningless to the vast majority of Scotland, and certainly to undecided voters.

Original post by winchester69

In Scotland there is only 54MPs, only one of these is part of the conservative party, yet we have a conservative government. This just means that any time the Scottish MPs want to do something, they can be completely outvoted. For example, the introduction of the bedroom tax was voted against by 95% of Scottish MPs, but it went ahead anyway? Every election, the Scots vote for Labour or SNP candidates, but we managed to land ourselves a conservative government, which is completely unfair.

It's not remotely unfair - it's democracy.

The Scottish islands have consistently voted for the Lib Dems, yet they haven't been the main party of government for a very long time. In the Borders, Labour votes are few and far between. In the cities of the north of England, the Conservatives do terribly.

But that said, it is stupid to divide a democratic unit and complain about representation. If, say, Asian Britons all voted Labour yet there was a Tory landslide, does that make the government illegitimate? Of course not. If women vote differently from men, does that create a democratic deficit? No. So I am entirely comfortable with parts of the country voting differently from others - in fact, it's almost universally the case in every single country on earth, including within Scotland itself.

That statistic about the "bedroom tax" as you call it is completely misleading. 12 of Scotland's 59 MPs support it. If it was a proportional system, that figure would be much higher.

We shouldn't be forced into a position with a government we didn't vote for

You speak only for yourself there. I voted for them.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4046

FinalMH

Original post by Smack

Don't underestimate Alex Salmond. Look at the election in 2011 hardly any polls predicted a SNP majority.

Reply 4047

anarchism101

Original post by L i b

It isn't the case everywhere though. In Northern Ireland, for example, it's accepted that for the Unionist majority to ride roughshod over the Nationalist minority would be wrong, and their constitutional arrangement reflects that, Similar arrangements are in place in Lebanon, Bosnia, and other divided countries. And that's without going into the constitutional requirements of various countries which require more than a majority vote for certain laws.

Reply 4048

Maths Tutor

Original post by MatureStudent36

Not my waking life. Just when I have a few spare minutes.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Original post by MatureStudent36

I only started doing this because I was sick and tired of reading bile from the cyberNat community, most of which is made up.

The "cyberNat community" doesn't post on this thread.

If you have the guts to debate with the "cyberNat community", start posting on http://wingsoverscotland.com/.

Or are you just a coward like Cameron?

Reply 4049

MatureStudent36

Original post by Maths Tutor

The evidence suggests otherwise.

The "cyberNat community" doesn't post on this thread.

If you have the guts to debate with the "cyberNat community", start posting on http://wingsoverscotland.com/.

Or are you just a coward like Cameron?

Wingsoverscotland have a habit a banning anybody who's not on message.

The nationalist community don't tend to like criticism.

Reply 4050

JordanPayne

This is my write-up (response to a yes voter) on various "no/bad" reasons for Scottish Independence. Wrote up in est. 20-30 minutes. Feel free to rip it apart where possible. I'd like to see counter-arguments.

No, no, no, the Scottish Independence debate is incredibly flawed regarding the "Yes" vote. Primarily, to become a truly independent state they would need their own currency, currently, this is an argument that Alex Salmond has yet to address. He has tossed and turned many an idea regarding an independent Scottish currency but the idea of such a move is scarce, it will not happen, Scotland do not possess the fiscal power to create an entire new currency while dealing with the transition costs to ensure the currency and thereby, ensure Scotland's economy stays afloat and does not crash. This means that they will have to tie themselves to Britain or Europe. As such, Salmond would have 3 routes to take regarding currency and anyone who believes this a marginal part of the bigger picture, you're in the wrong discussion. All options deteriorate Scotland's independent nation-statehood (if they do become independent):

1. An independent Scotland stay with the Sterling - Implications: The Bank of England run the Sterling's interest rates and can alter this figure as they see fit, moreover it would have an adverse effect on Scotland's tax revenue and Scotland would have less of a voice in the currency than they currently have at this time. Furthermore, if they did stick with the Sterling, the rest of the United Kingdom would have to bail Scotland out if they entered financial difficulties with banks such as RBS.
2. An independent Scotland could enact "dollarisation": Dollarisation is essentially the theory that Scotland could use the Sterling as Latin-American countries use the US-Dollar but hold no formal ties with the central bank (BoE). This would be an economic disaster for Scotland as they would again have no influence over the Bank of England. Furthermore, Scotland has a large amount of financial services relying on access to the central bank services, something they would not have if this were to happen.
3. If Scotland become independent, they will cease to function as a member of the European Union and therefore the European Monetary Policy. Alex Salmond has already stated he wishes to join the EU, however, this process takes a minimum of 3 years to come to fruition. There is a small possibility that Scotland could too come to use the Euro currency, however, he would need to pick one of the other options for the first 3 years and even then, how is it viable changing currency after 3 years? It is economic suicide.

There are his options, they are not rosy at the least and I paraphrase the famous economist John Maynard-Keynes, "He who runs the currency, runs the country."

Continuing, onto this argument regarding Scotland's oil reserves. One has to realise that Scotland's oil reserves are at best, very, very sporadic in their effect on the economy. Here are some figures:

In the 2008/09 fiscal year, oil accounted for 21% of Scotland's overall GDP.
In the 2009/10 fiscal year, oil accounted for just 12% of Scotland's overall GDP.

That is a massive swing for a single fiscal year and when you look at the bigger picture, if Scotland cannot effectively forecast how much oil will account for their yearly revenue, how will they make certain their public spending forecasts? As of now, the majority of public spending decisions are made at Westminster. However, if independence were to occur, it would be held at Hollyrood and imagine the economic disaster that an 8% miss of GDP would take on the Scottish economy? Scotland would be plunged into an economic crisis if they failed to correctly forecast what is a crazily sporadic market.

Furthermore, the SNP's entire economical argument is based on the assumption that Scotland would receive 90% of North Sea oil. Having been interested in this myself, I had a quick look at the company actually extracting and selling this oil. Centrica, the company that owns British Gas stated that only 14% of the North Sea oil reserves are actually definitively Scottish while the other 86% is shared amongst Norway, Holland and England. Furthermore, if these figures are actually wrong (I doubt they are) Scotland would still not reap the rewards for the oil industry because it isn't nationalised. All the revenue the Scottish will receive is the tax revenues and that would account to approximately 16% of their tax recipients which at 2012/13 was £10.8 billion. This is because the profit from the oil is not going to the UK treasury or the Scottish treasury, they are being paid out to those shareholders of whom have shares and assets in companies such as Centrica.

There is much more to grasp on the subject but generally speaking, the Scottish economic plan is a joke. Alex Salmond's vision of a land of milk and honey is a joke. Salmond wants to increase public spending while introducing tax cuts, this is simple economics, look at what happened in America, George W. Bush pushed through a method of fiscal conservative economics without increasing much of the public spending and he amounted a deficit of 439 billion dollars, although Scotland's would obviously be lower, Salmond has no idea on what he is actually doing.

Reply 4051

L i b

Original post by anarchism101

No, I think consociationalism is extraordinary and is only generally used in war-torn or deeply divided society, usually as an ostensibly temporary measure until people can stop trying to kill one-another. In some cases, it's the lesser of several evils, but it is not a normal or good way to run a country.

Reply 4052

L i b

Original post by FinalMH

Don't underestimate Alex Salmond. Look at the election in 2011 hardly any polls predicted a SNP majority.

Polls don't really do that, they give a national picture - they can attempt to translate them into constituencies and so forth, but that's not the polling, that's extrapolating figures from a poll. Obviously this doesn't apply in the case of a single, Scotland-wide referendum.

There's a bit of a nationalist myth used to warm the hearts of Yes supporters which suggests that polls did not predict the 2011 SNP victory. That's entirely wrong. The vast majority before the election had them well ahead. Indeed, people did predict a nationalist majority from that - but the electoral arithmetic is almost impossible in the AMS system we use.

Earlier polls did have Labour ahead - but I have no reason to down that was a true reflection of views at that time. Labour lost in 2011 as the result of a tragically bad campaign.

Reply 4053

Choo.choo

A reason why we Scotland should keep the British pound in the event of independence:
We don't want currency exchange with our biggest customer (both sides), which happens to be England. The pound is easier to work between the two countries.

Another reason:
The simplest route is use the pound and as it is and perhaps get a say in the monetary policy, as we already own a share of the Bank of England .

Another reason:
The interest rates would be the same in both countries. The finance ministers would meet to discuss borrowing policies etc.

Another reason:
It is common for a country to have a central bank which sets interest rates etc.

The better together team are saying that we would not be independent as we would have no control over interest rates..etc
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter, as we would want to keep interest rates low in any case, the same way we would with our own bank as lender of last resort.
It just means that their argument is pointless.

The argument is that we would not be independent as the Bank of England would control our interest rates , and limit government borrowing....
However it isn't an issue because WE would be wanting our government to keep interest rates low, and we would NOT want our government borrowing billions.. So the limits would be what we wanted for our government in the first place.

Reply 4054

Psyk

Original post by Choo.choo

Another reason:
The simplest route is use the pound and as it is and perhaps get a say in the monetary policy, as we already own a share of the Bank of England .

Just because Scotland as it is now has a "share" in the Bank of England (in the sense that it is the UK's national bank, and Scotland is a part of the UK), it doesn't necessarily mean it will continue to do so in the event of independence. The point of independence is that institutions are divided into new ones where appropriate.

Of course it's possible that the Bank of England could be reconstituted as a shared institution between two states, but that requires the agreement of both states. Independent Scotland would not be able to unilaterally declare it as a shared institution. Since the UK would have the bigger economy, it seems to me that Scotland would have more to gain from this currency union than the UK. Which means the UK would have a bargaining chip, and could potentially flat out refuse to enter a formal currency union where Scotland has some control of the central bank.

Reply 4055

Choo.choo

Original post by Psyk

That is the argument from the Better Together camp, which you are clearly in, so I am choosing not to answer your point for that reason.

Original post by Psyk

Of course it's possible that the Bank of England could be reconstituted as a shared institution between two states, but that requires the agreement of both states.

Really? We would not have guessed that.

Original post by Psyk

Independent Scotland would not be able to unilaterally declare it as a shared institution. Since the UK would have the bigger economy, it seems to me that Scotland would have more to gain from this currency union than the UK.

How though? The point of the currency union is to benefit both sides. A biased view, in my opinion.

Reply 4056

Psyk

Original post by Choo.choo

That is the argument from the Better Together camp, which you are clearly in, so I am choosing not to answer your point for that reason.

So you are refusing to answer that point because I'm on the other side of the debate? :confused:

Are you saying you'll only debate with people who already agree with you?

Original post by Choo.choo

How though? The point of the currency union is to benefit both sides. A biased view, in my opinion.

Well I agree it probably would benefit both sides. However it would benefit Scotland much more so than it would the UK. The UK's trade with Scotland would make up a smaller part of their overall economy than the other way round. So the UK would have more to bargain with when setting the terms of the union.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4057

Choo.choo

I have presented my arguments for a shared currency.
It is not about having separate things because we are independent; it is about what works for the parties involved, and I believe that a shared currency will benefit both England and Scotland.

Reply 4058

Choo.choo

As for people who wonder why Salmond wants Scotland to be a member of the EU.
Two possible reasons (and there are others):
A lot of farmers rely on EU subsidies. And we would be cutting off a large market for our products.

Reply 4059

Maths Tutor

Original post by MatureStudent36

Wingsoverscotland have a habit a banning anybody who's not on message.

The nationalist community don't tend to like criticism.

You don't have the guts to debate with the "cyberNat community".

Just like the Prime Minister of the UK comes to Scotland to scaremonger but doesn't have the guts to debate the issue with the First Minister of Scotland.

And since you didn't know, Alex Samond is NOT the head of 'YES Scotland'.

The head of 'YES Scotland' is Dennis Canavan, an ex-Labour MP.

The head of 'NO Scotland', Alistair Darling, an opposition backbench MP, doesn't have the guts to debate with his counterpart at 'YES Scotland'.

http://wingsoverscotland.com will only ban you if you keep on repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Like your favourite piece of nonsense:

Original post by MatureStudent36

Westminster rules over Scotland like it rules over Wales, Yorkshire or Chipping Norton. You
choose to have a parochial outlook and will therefore always see yourself as a victimised minority. There's people throughout

Scotland that see themselves as a victimised minority in Holyrood.

You seem to forget that we've produced two out of the last three PMs. Hardly a case of a far off distant parliament of foreigners telling us what to do.

Original post by Maths Tutor

That NONSENSE yet again?

Are Scottish Prime Ministers biased towards Scotland?

Are English Prime Ministers biased towards England?

Are Welsh Prime Ministers biased towards Wales?

Are Irish Prime Ministers biased towards N. Ireland?

Original post by MatureStudent36

Thank you for demonstrating to me that nationalists seem to be driven by a xenophobic streak.

Every part of the UK gets treated equally

Original post by Maths Tutor

That can't be true. Two of the last three prime ministers were SCOTTISH. By YOUR perverted logic, that was great for Scotland as the SCOTTISH prime ministers must have been 'more equal' to Scotland than rUK.

Since you seem so ignorant about it, let me inform you.

Scottish independence is NOT about the ethnicity of the Prime Minister.

It is about bringing an end to Westminster rule over Scotland.