Scotland should pay for brexit

Scroll to see replies

You have more help for the homless, free prescriptions, Scottish students get free university tuition while students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland have to pay to study north of the border!

There are others but thats off the top of my head!

I'll agree with most of that except the help for the homeless part but I'm just gonna be honest with you. We choose how we spend our money. We chose to spend it on free education and prescritptions. Other things suffer instead. Your government chose to make sure secondary and primary schools were well-supplied. Ours chose to make higher education free for us. Yours chose to have you pay for prescriptions. We have parts of Scotland where there is one GP for 10,000 people because we can't afford more. It's all about allocation of resources.

Reply 41

Burton Bridge

Original post by DaDoodleQueen

Mate it's true does not matter if you agree, it's simple facts.

Scotland and the Scottish should be proud they rejected the Conservatives and have reaped the benifits of it. The Barnett formula helps you're funding a little mind you however ultimately you are correct you voted the right way and that's why you have not been hammered like we have.

I think we agree on far more than we disagree buddy, apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick in my first post :smile:

Reply 42

DaDoodleQueen

Original post by Burton Bridge

No problem at all and I'll maybe see u around

Reply 43

DaDoodleQueen

Original post by tashkent46

I think it is only fair since they do not want to help us, we can start by withdrawing the devolved powers and introducing tuition fees in line with England. Then we can have real equality, it is about time the Scots paid their way to have their say instead of freeloading off the intellectual giant that is Westminster.

We don't "freeload". Our government chooses how we spend our money so if we coose to have free higher education then that's our choice, but it means we sacrifice other things. Complain about your own government for paying for university, not mine.
2nd point - the English invaded US, you took OUR country. If you didn't want us as a part of the UK, then you guys shouldn't have gone to war with us. Simple as. You can't blame us for a lot of us not wanting to help. (Not that I feel like that)
The devolved powers are what allows us to have no tuition fees. Wouldn't you rather have free education for you guys than make us pay?
Scotland is going to pay for parts of Brexit, but we ain't paying for the whole d*mn thing cause that isn't equality either.

Reply 44

Quady

Original post by DaDoodleQueen

2nd point - the English invaded US, you took OUR country. If you didn't want us as a part of the UK, then you guys shouldn't have gone to war with us.

That's not what happened though is it?
Scotland was broke and needed a union, England didn't win a war with Scotland in the 18th century - unless I've missed something...?

Reply 45

StriderHort

Original post by DaDoodleQueen

This entire thread was intended to wind people up in case you hadn't completely worked it out.

Reply 46

McCormick02

Original post by tashkent46

Are you serious? Westminster? "Intellectual Giant"? The place where MPs with the loudest voices shout down opponents and colleagues alike as if they were rowdy schoolchildren? The place where pubs outside the complex have division bells so that MPs can faff about with a pint while Parliament is sitting? The place where the chamber does not have enough seats for all of its members?
This attitude to Scotland and Wales is dangerous and delusional. Both suffered heavliy under austerity under Thatcher, many areas often to a greater extent than the majority of regions in England. Scottish Independence was only narrowly averted in 2014 by Cameron's -- later broken -- promises for more devolution. At a time when Nationalist sentiment is on the rise worldwide (Scotland is no exception -- the SNP are polling higher than any other party, which is remarkable given that they have held power for over 12 years already), such a provocative act as to abolish all devolution would be nothing short of inflammatory -- a vote for independence in a referendum may end up being inevitable in this case, and the country would break up.

good idea

Original post by MrMcCormick

Scottish Independence was only narrowly averted in 2014 by Cameron's -- later broken -- promises for more devolution.

Just to check, you realise SG started exercising more of the new powers today right?

Reply 49

L i b

Original post by Quady

Just to check, you realise SG started exercising more of the new powers today right?

Yeah, and there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that promising more powers was a good play. Indeed, a lot of local politicians opposed it as it looked like a concession to the nationalists. While the "it wasn't delivered" thing in an online nationalist trope, what was devolved was fairly extensive and actually did have the net effect of skewering the SNP administration a bit.

If anything, the rush to deliver actually caused problems. Objectively, devolving control over the British Transport Police, to give just one small example, sounded sensible enough (Holyrood has wide over rail and policing, so I suppose it follows) - but the end result was always going to be the unpleasant spectacle of the SNP trying to break the force up, something it luckily seems to have kicked into the long grass after mass opposition.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 50

ThePootisPower

We need to rebuild Hadrian's Wall, and make the Scots pay for it!

(Also, delete your account OP.)

Reply 51

gwynmor1234

Scotland has never been successfully invaded lol what do you mean

Original post by DaDoodleQueen

Reply 52

ThePootisPower

Original post by Steph4

Scotland has never been successfully invaded lol what do you mean

You’re so bloody wrong, there’s literally an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to how wrong you are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_invasions_of_Scotland

62EE6B89-7870-46A0-9C46-FE6E98F9DF0B.jpg.jpeg

62EE6B89-7870-46A0-9C46-FE6E98F9DF0B.jpg.jpeg

Reply 53

gwynmor1234

Never been a SUCCESSFUL invasion of scotland, i didnt say no one has ever tried. Please get your facts right before you come for me

https://www.quora.com/Was-Scotland-entirely-conquered

Original post by ThePootisPower

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 54

L i b

Original post by Steph4

Never been a SUCCESSFUL invasion of scotland, i didnt say no one has ever tried. Please get your facts right before you come for me

https://www.quora.com/Was-Scotland-entirely-conquered

Interesting point. It depends what you mean by a "successful" invasion. Given that the writ of the government didn't really apply over all the country's territory anyway until relatively recent times, it's a bit difficult to suggest that not having complete control over a territory is a necessity for an invasion to be successful.

Scotland, of course, didn't exist in Roman times. However the Romans effectively conquered Northern Britain, but didn't see any need to expend the resources to effectively police it and incorporate it. The Battle of Mons Graupius, where the British in the north were subdued, certainly showed that the Romans had the ability to subdue all of the island.

Then of course, again pre-Scotland, the Gaels came in - and so did the Angles, in different parts of the country. While it was the Gaels who drove the unification of Scotland, they were themselves invaders.

While David I invited in the Normans after their successful invasion of England, this ignores the actions beforehand that led to him being effectively a Normanised King and the authority England had at the time.

The Kingdom of England certainly held Scotland quite effectively at various points in its history and were able to exercise that authority pretty effectively by the standards of the time - and indeed toppled the Kingdom of Scotland at various points. Whether these were really "invaders" in the true sense, given the disputes about authority (it was generally held that the Scottish monarch owed ultimate allegiance to the King of England at these times), is a bit of an open question.

We of course have Cromwell who incorporated Scotland successfully into his Commonwealth. Then comes the Glorious Revolution and the installation of William and Mary on the throne. Again, whether this is a pure invasion can be disputed, but it was certainly bears many of the hallmarks.

The reality is that there's not straightforward measure of these things. "Scottish" administrations often couldn't exercise control over their own territory and at various points in history there were clear rival power-bases within the kingdom. I'd call some of the above pretty successful, however.

Reply 55

DaDoodleQueen

Original post by Steph4

Scotland has never been successfully invaded lol what do you mean

I mean we definitely have been. literally look at all the Scottish wars of independence. despite the fact that we fought back so many times, here we are, still part of Britain, hundreds of years after we were invaded and the Scottish nobles forced to sign a treaty to join the uk.

Reply 56

Sin Nombre

Surely this is a joke. Tution fees can be removed by the UK Gov. They choose not to.

Reply 57

Admit-One

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by tashkent46

... the intellectual giant that is Westminster.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Reply 58

L i b

Original post by DaDoodleQueen

What nonsense is this? The Kingdom of Scotland was successful in retaining its status as an independent kingdom. That's got nothing to do with the United Kingdom, which Scotland's parliament voted to become part of: Scotland wasn't "invaded" nor were "nobles" "forced" to sign anything.

This thread has been a cluster-**** of awfulness since the very start.