Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing? Watch

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2281
Report 6 years ago
#2281
(Original post by Psyk)
Look again at what you quoted:



(emphasis mine)

He could have meant every person is equal.
I sincerely doubt it given the context of the discussion.

Of course the problem is that if every nation as a single unit is equal, then there would be huge inequality on an individual level. You can't really have both each nation being equal and each person being equal. I suppose nationalists who consider that a problem would see independence as a solution to that. But it's kind of circular reasoning, they would only see it as a problem because they are nationalist and therefore probably already support independence.
I agree, 'equality' between nations and regions isn't something that particulalry bothers me. I certainly don't think there's any kind of effort by England (however that could even come about) to somehow discriminate against the other nations. I think that's pretty ridiculous.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2282
Report 6 years ago
#2282
(Original post by MatureStudent36)

But then again, it depends on how you decide to identify yourself in tribalistic identity politics. Thankfully the majority of us aren't that narrow minded in our outlook.
Are you sure about that? I'm not sure what you mean by "us". Whether you mean people in Scotland, the UK, or the world. But I think you'll find identity plays a very prominent role in people's politics whatever one you meant.

The idea that anyone who doesn't support independence is unaffected by identity politics is completely and utterly laughable. For many, it's just a case of a different identity being more important to them, for many it's just not strong enough to affect their opinion on this issue.

The idea that this question is about us cutting ourselves off from the world or embracing some kind of new era of 'one-world' politics is lunacy. Neither are remotely likely to happen whatever way the vote goes.
0
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2283
Report 6 years ago
#2283
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
One could argue that there's 50 In the United States, Germany has half a dozen, as does Italy, Australia, France, Spain, Canada etc.
Interesting thing about Germany. What we would call their states, they call "Länder", and "Länder" is the German word for countries. So Germany is also a country of countries if you translate literally from German.
0
Piprod01
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2284
Report 6 years ago
#2284
(Original post by L i b)
Your understanding of economics is as poor as your understanding of political science. There are many, very good arguments against oil funds. These arguments were made at the time, in cabinet, and it was decided against. I'm very grateful for that, considering the economic shift it allowed us to undertake in the 1980s. Britain is far better off for that decision.
Maybe avoiding seeing oil revenues used to fund another neo-liberal austerity plan is the reason people want to become independant.

Going on a :adore:Maggie Thatcher, she wasn't well liked up here, it should be pretty obvious there is a political divide that justifies Independance.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2285
Report 6 years ago
#2285
(Original post by Psyk)
Indeed. I mean how many countries are there other than those in the UK that are not independent?
Hundreds, thousands, however many you like. The problem with nationalism is that it is based on a fiction that "nations" of this type exist objectively at all.

Tell me, what "nations" exist on the island of Ireland? One type of nationalist will have a completely different view from another. Or how many exist in the Holy Land? Again, same problem. And this isn't a dispute of ideology, it's just tribalism and personal prejudices.

There is not a single country on earth with a population the same or larger than the UK's which does not have some sort of sub-state nationalistic sentiment somewhere within it. We're already perfectly normal.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2286
Report 6 years ago
#2286
(Original post by Piprod01)
Maybe avoiding seeing oil revenues used to fund another neo-liberal austerity plan is the reason people want to become independant.

Going on a :adore:Maggie Thatcher, she wasn't well liked up here, it should be pretty obvious there is a political divide that justifies Independance.
Which Political divide is that?

And you may find that at one point Thatcher was highly thought of in Scotland.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2287
Report 6 years ago
#2287
(Original post by Piprod01)
Maybe avoiding seeing oil revenues used to fund another neo-liberal austerity plan is the reason people want to become independant.
That would hold some sort of credibility if the nationalists weren't planning to exploit oil revenues for specifically neo-liberal objectives too (amongst the countless things they've said they'd spend oil money on). It was an interesting exchange at First Minister's Questions today - Labour pointing out that corporation tax cuts had consequences and that even Salmond's economic advisor disagreed with them, whilst Salmond stopped just short of getting out a chart with the Laffer Curve drawn on it.

In reality, it's a declining resource. We're producing far less now than we were back then. It works out as less than 2% of our national tax-take in the UK. It's not incredibly important, in the grand scheme of things.

In reality though, Scotland has got its oil money back. Public spending is considerably higher here than the national average.

Going on a :adore:Maggie Thatcher, she wasn't well liked up here, it should be pretty obvious there is a political divide that justifies Independance.
She got more votes in Scotland than Alex Salmond ever has. Margaret Thatcher divided opinion - she had many detractors in Scotland, but a great many supporters too. The mythology which has been built up about her and Scotland after her premiership is largely invented or, at best, misleading. I say that, incidentally, as a non-Thatcherite.
0
Piprod01
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2288
Report 6 years ago
#2288
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Which Political divide is that?

And you may find that at one point Thatcher was highly thought of in Scotland.
Notice how the sea of blue barely touches Scotland? That.


I didn't see a single tear shed for her when she died, on my facebook.
Attached files
1
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2289
Report 6 years ago
#2289
(Original post by Piprod01)
Notice how the sea of blue barely touches Scotland? That.


I didn't see a single tear shed for her when she died, on my facebook.

But it does touch.

but I see your point about the political divide. Looks like we need to split Scotland. But it looks like the Lib Dems get the oil.

I'm not suprised you didn't see anybody cry for her on your Facebook page. Do you know any of her family members on Facebook?
0
Piprod01
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2290
Report 6 years ago
#2290
(Original post by L i b)
That would hold some sort of credibility if the nationalists weren't planning to exploit oil revenues for specifically neo-liberal objectives too (amongst the countless things they've said they'd spend oil money on). It was an interesting exchange at First Minister's Questions today - Labour pointing out that corporation tax cuts had consequences and that even Salmond's economic advisor disagreed with them, whilst Salmond stopped just short of getting out a chart with the Laffer Curve drawn on it.

In reality, it's a declining resource. We're producing far less now than we were back then. It works out as less than 2% of our national tax-take in the UK. It's not incredibly important, in the grand scheme of things.

In reality though, Scotland has got its oil money back. Public spending is considerably higher here than the national average.
Conservative estimates say ~40 years of oil. That's a lot of years and the amount of money that makes up 2% of current tax intake and apply it to 1/10th the number of the people it's pretty significant. That'll take a long time before it's anything like 2% when applied to Scotland.

Sounds like Salmond was saying he'd spend some of the rest of the cash to lower taxes, that's one way to increase demand. Not as good as public work spending, but it's better than using it to pay back debt. Specific policy decisions Salmond says about Scotland after independence aren't very important because that's not his call to make, but the general more left leaningness is a much better bet and one that aligns more with me.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2291
Report 6 years ago
#2291
(Original post by Piprod01)
Conservative estimates say ~40 years of oil. That's a lot of years and the amount of money that makes up 2% of current tax intake and apply it to 1/10th the number of the people it's pretty significant. That'll take a long time before it's anything like 2% when applied to Scotland.

Sounds like Salmond was saying he'd spend some of the rest of the cash to lower taxes, that's one way to increase demand. Not as good as public work spending, but it's better than using it to pay back debt. Specific policy decisions Salmond says about Scotland after independence aren't very important because that's not his call to make, but the general more left leaningness is a much better bet and one that aligns more with me.

I wouldn't put to much faith in salmonds economic plans. It appears that yet another one if his economic advisors has scuppered his plans.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/...cuts-1-2949675

But I see the point your trying to make. It's just a pity that we're going to have to jeopardise the financial sector, defence, renewables to name but a few as well as an increase in costs in pensions liabilities, tax collection, increasing in the diplomatic corps costs as well as a whole host of additional costs and risks to realise that minor increase in revenue that is a lot less than the additional costs.


oh. And the debt needs paying off at some point. You've just described the labour and the SnPs approach to economics. Keep spending and pass the responsibility of sorting the debt out to your kids.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2292
Report 6 years ago
#2292
(Original post by Piprod01)
Conservative estimates say ~40 years of oil. That's a lot of years and the amount of money that makes up 2% of current tax intake and apply it to 1/10th the number of the people it's pretty significant. That'll take a long time before it's anything like 2% when applied to Scotland.

Sounds like Salmond was saying he'd spend some of the rest of the cash to lower taxes, that's one way to increase demand. Not as good as public work spending, but it's better than using it to pay back debt.
Oddly enough, that's precisely what Maggie Thatcher used it for. Glad we've got a consensus here.

As for debt repayment - when you're spending considerable sums of money just servicing your national debt, paying it off is quite often a good idea.

(Original post by Piprod01)
Notice how the sea of blue barely touches Scotland? That.
A symptom of first past the post, of course. In that election, the Tories got very similar numbers of votes in Scotland as the SNP and Lib Dems. However that resulted in 1 Conservative MP, 6 SNP MPs and 11 Lib Dem MPs.

What that actually shows is that the Tories are spread thinner across Scotland. If you want to spin that, it means the Tories are actually a more national party, rather than the regional Lib Dems who benefit most from this system.
0
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2293
Report 6 years ago
#2293
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Everybody is an equal partner in the UK.
Scotland's not equal to England, but each voter is. To suggest or demand otherwise would be undemocratic.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2294
Report 6 years ago
#2294
(Original post by L i b)
Oh please, are we at the stage where we're even going to pretend an appeal to nature is in any way a legitimate argument?

It's even demonstrably untrue. There are 200-odd states in the world. There are countless hundreds of communities, thousands even, across the globewhich could be reasonably described as national. Any state of significant size has such minorities within it.

I agree with your first point that I was wrong to say Independence is the default state of any nation.

Aren't conspiracy theories fun? :rolleyes:

Why is the concentration of wealth in London a conspiracy theory? As mentioned in Scotlands Economy-The case for Independence.

This trend has been highlighted by senior UK Government ministers. David Cameron
in his first major speech as Prime Minister said:
“Today our economy is heavily reliant on just a few industries and a few regions –
particularly London and the South East. This really matters. An economy with such a
narrow foundation for growth is fundamentally unstable and wasteful – because we
are not making use of the talent out there in all parts of our United Kingdom.”
He added:
“Our economy has become more and more unbalanced, with our fortunes
hitched to a few industries in one corner of the country, while we let other
sectors like manufacturing slide.”53
His deputy, Nick Clegg, has echoed this concern, arguing:
“For years, our prosperity has been pinned on financial wizardry in London’s
Square Mile, with other sectors and other regions left behind. This imbalance
left us hugely exposed when the banking crisis hit.”
To date, the evidence from official statistics indicates that there is little sign of the
rebalancing that the UK Government suggests is required. In March 2013, the Office
for National Statistics said:
“Looking at data between 2007 (before the economic downturn) and the latest
available, a clear trend is apparent with London outperforming the rest of the
UK economy.”54
It found that between September 2007 and September 2012, workforce jobs
increased by 267,000 in London but fell by 284,000 in the rest of the UK.
55.

http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00422987.pdf




Your understanding of economics is as poor as your understanding of political science. There are many, very good arguments against oil funds. These arguments were made at the time, in cabinet, and it was decided against. I'm very grateful for that, considering the economic shift it allowed us to undertake in the 1980s. Britain is far better off for that decision.

What are the arguments against an oil fund then? From this paper as well.

The UK and Norway are the largest oil and gas producers in Europe. However, they
have taken different approaches to managing the revenue received from the oil and
gas industry.
Since 1996 the Norwegian Government has invested a proportion of the revenue
received from offshore production in an oil fund. The fund is now worth £450 billion,
equivalent to £90,000 per person in Norway, and is the largest Sovereign Wealth
Fund in the world. The aim is to ensure that the depletion of Norway’s natural assets
via oil and gas production are, in part, offset by an increase in its long term financial
assets.
In contrast, successive UK Governments have used the revenue generated from oil
and gas production to fund current general government expenditure73. This
approach has been contrasted with the Norwegian model. For example, Professor
Joseph Stiglitz has argued that the UK “squandered” its oil wealth74, and that UK
Governments’ economic policies reflected “false prosperity where they took all the
income coming in from the North Sea but rather than investing that in enhancing the
human capital, the fiscal capital and the technical skills, a disproportionate amount of
that went elsewhere”75

One long term implication of this different approach has been that whilst the IMF
estimates that UK general government net debt now stands at around 75% of
GDP, Norway has accumulated public sector net assets equal to 168% of GDP,
as outlined in Chart 3.8


Which were demonstrably proven to be false earlier this week through the novel use of actually looking at predictions and matching them to output.
^^
OK. Is there a link available for this?
0
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2295
Report 6 years ago
#2295
(Original post by Psyk)
Indeed. I mean how many countries are there other than those in the UK that are not independent?

I wonder what the reason for that might be...
The issue is that everything can be a country, until people give up on prior/smaller iterations in favour of new ones. Why aren't there Gwent, Kent, Powys, Strathclyde, Yorkshire, Wessex, Mercia, Kincardine and Fife nationalists? Because they moved onto something new and bigger.
0
Piprod01
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2296
Report 6 years ago
#2296
(Original post by L i b)
Oddly enough, that's precisely what Maggie Thatcher used it for. Glad we've got a consensus here.

As for debt repayment - when you're spending considerable sums of money just servicing your national debt, paying it off is quite often a good idea.
Austerity is characterised by cuts in public services, that's something I find less likely in an independant scotland. I still don't really give many ****s about what the SNP says about after independence because that's not their decision to make. When I see labor and the SNP fighting over corporation tax, it's a much better future than having the Conservatives arguing that public services need to be cut.
A symptom of first past the post, of course. In that election, the Tories got very similar numbers of votes in Scotland as the SNP and Lib Dems. However that resulted in 1 Conservative MP, 6 SNP MPs and 11 Lib Dem MPs.

What that actually shows is that the Tories are spread thinner across Scotland. If you want to spin that, it means the Tories are actually a more national party, rather than the regional Lib Dems who benefit most from this system.
The Tories got 36% of the total UK vote in 2010, in Scotland they got 17%. The SNP and Lib Dems did slightly better, but Labor got 42%.

I'd much prefer to live in a country where Labour gets twice the % of votes than Conservatives, than in one where Conservatives get a higher % than Labor.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2297
Report 6 years ago
#2297
(Original post by Piprod01)
Austerity is characterised by cuts in public services, that's something I find less likely in an independant scotland.
Why do you think that? It is pretty universally accepted by politicians of all parties, including the ones that got us into the mess, that the cuts are necessary to reduce the debt and deficit. This is true across Europe, in fact. The arguments are only about the depth and timing of those cuts, with some parties trying to say they would cut (so as not to appear idiots) while trying to make people think they wouldn't (so as to garner votes from idiots who don't think cuts are necessary or who don't analyse what they say).

Do you think an independent Scotland, which will take a proportional share of the national debt, will somehow be immune from this necessity? If so, why?

The Tories got 36% of the total UK vote in 2010, in Scotland they got 17%. The SNP and Lib Dems did slightly better, but Labor got 42%.

I'd much prefer to live in a country where Labour gets twice the % of votes than Conservatives, than in one where Conservatives get a higher % than Labor.
The British party is called Labour, not Labor, presumably because it isn't American.

Your argement is an open invitation to the people of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale CC to say they don't wish to live in a state that votes Labour and SNP when so many of them want Conservative representation, and to declare they wish to be independent from Scotland, or to stay in the UK, surely?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2298
Report 6 years ago
#2298
(Original post by Piprod01)
Austerity is characterised by cuts in public services, that's something I find less likely in an independant scotland. I still don't really give many ****s about what the SNP says about after independence because that's not their decision to make. When I see labor and the SNP fighting over corporation tax, it's a much better future than having the Conservatives arguing that public services need to be cut.

The Tories got 36% of the total UK vote in 2010, in Scotland they got 17%. The SNP and Lib Dems did slightly better, but Labor got 42%.

I'd much prefer to live in a country where Labour gets twice the % of votes than Conservatives, than in one where Conservatives get a higher % than Labor.
you are aware that even the SNP have said cuts need to happen and would happen harder in a separate Scotland?
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2299
Report 6 years ago
#2299
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
you are aware that even the SNP have said cuts need to happen and would happen harder in a separate Scotland?
Out of interest, where did they say that?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2300
Report 6 years ago
#2300
(Original post by Gordon1985)
Out of interest, where did they say that?

In their leaked internal document from a couple of months ago.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (131)
18.3%
It's just nice to be back! (194)
27.09%
Not great so far... (257)
35.89%
I want to drop out! (134)
18.72%

Watched Threads

View All