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

Original post by Left Hand Drive

What Scotland be like if don't vote yes can we afford to risk that?

Yep, considering we'll be far more prosperous, outward-looking, financially stable, able to make decisions on the international stage, liberal, tolerant and fun than under the alternative.

That'll no doubt annoy all you neo-Calvinists in the nationalist movement who like everything to be mildly ****, the world to be controlled by lecturing elder-of-the-kirk types and that everyone should be broadly dependent on the state.

But we're going to be in the United Kingdom. An amazing country with a wonderful history and a bright future. I, for one, am looking forward.

Reply 4825

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Left Hand Drive

What Scotland be like if don't vote yes can we afford to risk that?

Can we afford the risk of voting yes? All of the evidence points to we can't. That's not withstanding the desire of many to remain in the UK.

There's a significant amount of grief whoring about the existing state of affairs. We are in a significantly stronger position now than many of our European friends.

The issue that many seem to forget is that pretty much everything that impacts on society is already devolved. Healthcare and education being the two main issues.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4826

Midlander

Tories secretly wanted to cut millions from Scottish budget

I am extremely tempted to go to Sturgeon's talk in St Andrews on Monday and directly ask her why her government has a bigoted stance on tuition fees in an independent Scotland.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4827

cowsforsale

15

Original post by Left Hand Drive

What Scotland be like if don't vote yes can we afford to risk that?

****ed.

Thatcher made ‘secret cuts’ to Scottish budget

Can't see this happening in the event of a No vote :rolleyes:

Reply 4828

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by cowsforsale

****ed.

Thatcher made ‘secret cuts’ to Scottish budget

Can't see this happening in the event of a No vote :rolleyes:

You may want to actually read the article you've quoted. It doesn't actually say that secret cuts were made.

However if your left quoting selectively released papers from before you were born as a reason. You must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

It may have missed you by, but cries of 'Maggie' tend to beast by a vocal minority who actually think most of us care about what a politician thought about doing 30 years ago will actually impact on today.

The SNP have promised me a positive campaign. All they've managed so far is bluster, bull **** and now trying to stir up some anti Tory bile that only gets the blood up of the extreme left wingers who are already in the SNP now.

theybe now recently been trying to say that we'll somehow be punished if we vote no.

Who's been getting called project fear again?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4829

cowsforsale

15

Original post by MatureStudent36

You may want to actually read the article you've quoted. It doesn't actually say that secret cuts were made.

However if your left quoting selectively released papers from before you were born as a reason. You must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You're free to draw your own conclusions from that articles, whilst the rest of us come to another. I merely copied the headline.

Mrs Thatcher rejected this level of cuts, but in a memo her Private Secretary Andrew Turnbull said she felt "it would be better... to trim Scottish programmes as and when opportunity arose rather than through a very conspicuous exercise".

BBC Scotland's Westminster correspondent Tim Reid reports on how George Younger's refusal to accede to bigger cuts disappointed Mrs Thatcher and sparked a cabinet row.

Link

I guess you disagree with those too?

It may have missed you by, but cries of 'Maggie' tend to beast by a vocal minority who actually think most of us care about what a politician thought about doing 30 years ago will actually impact on today.

Yawn
.

The SNP have promised me a positive campaign.

They promised you?
As opposed to Better Together? Go on then, what is the vision for Scotland in the even of a No vote? What is the vision for the rUK in the event of a No Vote?

I supposed you'd call this positive then?

[video="youtube_share;7FOGH-kw_aE"]http://youtu.be/7FOGH-kw_aE?t=4m29s[/video]

All they've managed so far is bluster, bull **** and now trying to stir up some anti Tory bile that only gets the blood up of the extreme left wingers who are already in the SNP now.

Go on then, was this SNP who broke the news?

Reply 4830

Good bloke

Original post by cowsforsale

.

Your whole argument is based on being indignant that a central government should want to bring spending (higher under the Barnett formula in Scotland for entirely political reasons) into line with that in England. How does this square with Scotland being the poor relation? And with Scotland currently having a bad deal?

Reply 4831

Midlander

Original post by cowsforsale

You're free to draw your own conclusions from that articles, whilst the rest of us come to another. I merely copied the headline.

Tories secretly wanted to cut millions from Scottish budget

Link

I guess you disagree with those too?

Yawn
.

They promised you?
As opposed to Better Together? Go on then, what is the vision for Scotland in the even of a No vote? What is the vision for the rUK in the event of a No Vote?

I supposed you'd call this positive then?

[video="youtube_share;7FOGH-kw_aE"]http://youtu.be/7FOGH-kw_aE?t=4m29s[/video]

Go on then, was this SNP who broke the news?

Your friend Choo Choo failed to answer the question so I will put it to you:

What do you think of the SNP proposal to discriminate against RUK students in an independent Scotland in defiance of EU law? How does it make Scotland a fairer society to do this?

Also, the Scottish Tories have three times as many MSPs as the Lib Dems. I thought Scotland was full of socially aware Good Samaritans and all the evil Tories lived 'doon sooth'?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4832

Original post by Good bloke

Your whole argument is based on being indignant that a central government should want to bring spending (higher under the Barnett formula in Scotland for entirely political reasons) into line with that in England. How does this square with Scotland being the poor relation? And with Scotland currently having a bad deal?

Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament. South of the border, the UK government are privatising everything. So yes, I agree with you that spending is higher for a reason. Independence will protect Scotland from the outrageous actions of the UK Government.

Reply 4833

Original post by Midlander

I am extremely tempted to go to Sturgeon's talk in St Andrews on Monday and directly ask her why her government has a bigoted stance on tuition fees in an independent Scotland.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It will be free for people "who live and work" in Scotland. I don't see how that is discriminatory. The people "who live and work" in Scotland are only getting a vote in the referendum. Is that discriminatory too?

Reply 4834

Sorry, I meant to say "protection from privatisation" in my post.

Reply 4835

L i b

Original post by Choo.choo

Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament. South of the border, the UK government are privatising everything. So yes, I agree with you that spending is higher for a reason. Independence will protect Scotland from the outrageous actions of the UK Government.

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense.

The Scottish Government's spending is set by the UK Government. It is given a block grant. That the Scottish Government chooses to spend this in certain ways is irrelevant to the overall quantum of spending.

As for the NHS - I think you've managed to find a rather poor one to go on there. The UK Government is increasing NHS spending above inflation projections for every year of this parliament. Spending is going up. This resorts in Barnett consequentials, giving even more money to the Scottish Government - which they had to be shamed into spending on health.

Original post by Choo.choo

It will be free for people "who live and work" in Scotland. I don't see how that is discriminatory. The people "who live and work" in Scotland are only getting a vote in the referendum. Is that discriminatory too?

It's got nothing to do with "work", it's residency based alone. It will also apply to everyone resident in any other EU country - aside, it seems, from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That's why it's discriminatory. Absurdly so, in fact.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4836

Original post by L i b

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense.

The Scottish Government's spending is set by the UK Government. It is given a block grant. That the Scottish Government chooses to spend this in certain ways is irrelevant to the overall quantum of spending.

As for the NHS - I think you've managed to find a rather poor one to go on there. The UK Government is increasing NHS spending above inflation projections for every year of this parliament. Spending is going up. This resorts in Barnett consequentials, giving even more money to the Scottish Government - which they had to be shamed into spending on health.

Yes, the Scottish Government gets a block grant from the UK Government (hence Independence for full fiscal autonomy), but it is the Scottish Government that decides what it spends that money on.

Reply 4837

Original post by L i b

It's got nothing to do with "work", it's residency based alone. It will also apply to everyone resident in any other EU country - aside, it seems, from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That's why it's discriminatory. Absurdly so, in fact.

As I said, people who "live and work" in Scotland are getting it free. Those who don't have to pay. Why should we hand out free tuition fees to people who don't live and work here?

Reply 4838

cowsforsale

15

Original post by Good bloke

Your whole argument is based on being indignant that a central government should want to bring spending (higher under the Barnett formula in Scotland for entirely political reasons) into line with that in England. How does this square with Scotland being the poor relation? And with Scotland currently having a bad deal?

"From GERS we know that in 2010-11 the total budget attributed to Scotland by Westminster (ie both the Scottish block grant and the money spent by London “on Scotland’s behalf”) was just under £64 billion, including all debt repayment and other costs. The total tax revenue raised in Scotland over the same period when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included was £53 billion, which left Scotland with an estimated net fiscal balance deficit of £10.7 billion (or 7.4% of GDP).

In 2010-11, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue was a deficit of £136 billion (or 9.2% of GDP). This means that Scotland pays for itself better than the UK as a whole.

But it has an extra burden to carry too. Scotland was allocated a share of that UK deficit, which was added to the nation’s debt balance, on a per-capita basis rather than being related to Scotland’s own finances. The per-capita share amounted to £11.4 billion, whereas as we’ve seen the actual Scottish deficit was £10.7 billion. In other words, £730 million that was not spent by or on Scotland has been added to our share of the UK’s crippling debt, in just one year.

This is an invisible annual subsidy by Scotland to the rest of the UK. It’s a bit like going out to lunch with your friend and getting a £9 main course, while your friend gets one that costs £11. When the bill comes your friend insists you split the bill at £10 each, thereby charging YOU £1 for the meal THEY ate." - Link

"Scotland paid £27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to £31bn" - Link

This is also a good read. Notice how everything is kept on the hush hush?? Scotland could have been as prosperous as Switzerland

Reply 4839

L i b