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.
Radio4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2441
Report 6 years ago
#2441
(Original post by L i b)
At the last general election, the Tories in Scotland got over 400,000 votes. The SNP and Lib Dems were all also in the 400,000-range, while Labour powered ahead with just over a million.

So in reality, there are 2.5 Labour supporters for every Tory in Scotland.

Funnily enough, this 400,000ish figure was enough to get the Lib Dems 11 MPs in Scotland and the Tories just got 1. I suppose that First Past the Post for you. Where I grew up, the Tories got over 50% of the vote.
Honestly never knew that. Guess FPTP isn't much good for a party with many votes that are spread out 'thinly' across multiple constituencies. Reminds me of the Lib Dem experience in elections...
0
medic_armadillo7
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2442
Report 6 years ago
#2442
I just find it crazy that such a destabilising decision to have a referendum (particularly in harsh economic times) can be pushed ahead solely because it was in the mandate of the SNP. Pulling out of the united kingdom is like pulling UK pulling out of the EU. You might not like a lot of policy but, it doesn't mean you should cast yourself adrift from the rest of the pack, without a paddle. I can't see how it'll be hugely beneficial to the Scottish economy and public policy.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2443
Report 6 years ago
#2443
(Original post by medic_armadillo7)
I just find it crazy that such a destabilising decision to have a referendum (particularly in harsh economic times) can be pushed ahead solely because it was in the mandate of the SNP. Pulling out of the united kingdom is like pulling UK pulling out of the EU. You might not like a lot of policy but, it doesn't mean you should cast yourself adrift from the rest of the pack, without a paddle. I can't see how it'll be hugely beneficial to the Scottish economy and public policy.

Because the SNP have a political mandate. But you are right. it isn't beneficial economically. That's the reason why support for it has been stuck at 30% for 30 years. But I suspect it will be lower than that as so far the SNPs flag ship policies have all been found to be made up.
0
Tigers
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2444
Report 6 years ago
#2444
it's good for the Scottish people and Wallace.Not good for the Queen and Charles
0
Solarstorm
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#2445
Report 6 years ago
#2445
(Original post by L i b)
As a race, maybe white people voted Labour. As a gender, maybe women would have elected a Lib Dem government into power in Scotland. In either case, I couldn't give two hoots. This is a democracy, and in a democracy all that counts is the vote of the individual.
So how about we enter a political democratic union with China with it's population of 1.35 billion compared to the UK's population 63.7 milion. Not forgetting to mention our entierly diffrent cultures, customs, traditions and languages which are a result of us developing in entierly diffrent ways, over centuries and on the opposite sides of the world.

If only the vote of the individual counts then all the 1.35 billion chinese individuals could vote in a certain way which would almost entierly prevent the British from having much say at all or ability to govern themselves. Don't know about you but I would not find that fair at all.

Transferring that to a UK level then of course we are not separated by the entire world and we have not developed entierly independently of each other. However, there is still a large diffrence in population between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and moreover large diffrences in the way that we vote as well as cultural diffrences which have still remained intact despite at first English aggression and imperialism towards other countries in Britain, and then followed by the establishment of the union which has not always been entierly fair and equal. Even today it is still too centralised and has become too London dominant at the detriment of other areas of the country including even England itself which is utterly refused an English parliament.

Our cultures have mixed together in Britain, and today we may be much more similar than we ever have been. However regional cultures still remain and are still important to people even if they are not going to split the country up based on them. I think spliting the country up based alone on national identity grounds is rather stupid, however breaking up the country to provide a better government in Scotland more reflective and democratic of what the people of Scotland want rather than they may get with Westminister I really do not find anything wrong with in principle at least.

States derive political legitimacy from the active participation of their citizens, and if the majority of Scots voted in a certain way, but never recieved the government they want or never felt that they were well represented or heard in government, then that government is not exactly legitmate. There would be an obvious democratic deficit.

Independence is only one option to rectify that problem, others could include greater devolution, a change in the political system or federalism. It is for the people of Scotland to decide however and not by those who have some political agenda by shooting down any supporter of independence as a 'nationalist' and deciding that all forms of nationalism are a bad thing.
4
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2446
Report 6 years ago
#2446
(Original post by Solarstorm)
So how about we enter a political democratic union with China with it's population of 1.35 billion compared to the UK's population 63.7 milion. Not forgetting to mention our entierly diffrent cultures, customs, traditions and languages which are a result of us developing in entierly diffrent ways, over centuries and on the opposite sides of the world.

If only the vote of the individual counts then all the 1.35 billion chinese individuals could vote in a certain way which would almost entierly prevent the British from having much say at all or ability to govern themselves. Don't know about you but I would not find that fair at all.

Transferring that to a UK level then of course we are not separated by the entire world and we have not developed entierly independently of each other. However, there is still a large diffrence in population between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and moreover large diffrences in the way that we vote as well as cultural diffrences which have still remained intact despite at first English aggression and imperialism towards other countries in Britain, and then followed by the establishment of the union which has not always been entierly fair and equal. Even today it is still too centralised and has become too London dominant at the detriment of other areas of the country including even England itself which is utterly refused an English parliament.

Our cultures have mixed together in Britain, and today we may be much more similar than we ever have been. However regional cultures still remain and are still important to people even if they are not going to split the country up based on them. I think spliting the country up based alone on national identity grounds is rather stupid, however breaking up the country to provide a better government in Scotland more reflective and democratic of what the people of Scotland want rather than they may get with Westminister I really do not find anything wrong with in principle at least.

States derive political legitimacy from the active participation of their citizens, and if the majority of Scots voted in a certain way, but never recieved the government they want or never felt that they were well represented or heard in government, then that government is not exactly legitmate. There would be an obvious democratic deficit.

Independence is only one option to rectify that problem, others could include greater devolution, a change in the political system or federalism. It is for the people of Scotland to decide however and not by those who have some political agenda by shooting down any supporter of independence as a 'nationalist' and deciding that all forms of nationalism are a bad thing.

Why has Alex Salmond and the SNP lied so much to us over the past few years?
0
Solarstorm
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#2447
Report 6 years ago
#2447
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Why has Alex Salmond and the SNP lied so much to us over the past few years?
What does your question have to do with anything I posted?

I don't support Alex salmond or the SNP, nor the conservatives, Labour or the current liberal democrats either so I would suggest asking a supporter of the SNP and whilst your at it why not ask labour, the conservatives and lib dems why they have lied so much to us over the past few years.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2448
Report 6 years ago
#2448
(Original post by Solarstorm)
What does your question have to do with anything I posted?

I don't support Alex salmond or the SNP, nor the conservatives, Labour or the current liberal democrats either so I would suggest asking a supporter of the SNP and whilst your at it why not ask labour, the conservatives and lib dems why they have lied so much to us over the past few years.

But the SNP have told some whoppers. Automatic entry into Europe, NATO etc. second oil boom, Saudi Arabia of renewables. Lower taxes, increased public spending.

They've told so many whoppers over the past few years, they can't be trusted
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2449
Report 6 years ago
#2449
(Original post by Solarstorm)
So how about we enter a political democratic union with China with it's population of 1.35 billion compared to the UK's population 63.7 milion. Not forgetting to mention our entierly diffrent cultures, customs, traditions and languages which are a result of us developing in entierly diffrent ways, over centuries and on the opposite sides of the world.

If only the vote of the individual counts then all the 1.35 billion chinese individuals could vote in a certain way which would almost entierly prevent the British from having much say at all or ability to govern themselves. Don't know about you but I would not find that fair at all.

Transferring that to a UK level then of course we are not separated by the entire world and we have not developed entierly independently of each other. However, there is still a large diffrence in population between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and moreover large diffrences in the way that we vote as well as cultural diffrences which have still remained intact despite at first English aggression and imperialism towards other countries in Britain, and then followed by the establishment of the union which has not always been entierly fair and equal. Even today it is still too centralised and has become too London dominant at the detriment of other areas of the country including even England itself which is utterly refused an English parliament.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Democracy cannot set the boundaries of a polity, is a method by which a polity is governed. Were we to be in a state which incorporated Great Britain and China together, then I would still advocate that state be a democracy of one form or another because I believe it is a good system of government.

Our cultures have mixed together in Britain, and today we may be much more similar than we ever have been. However regional cultures still remain and are still important to people even if they are not going to split the country up based on them. I think spliting the country up based alone on national identity grounds is rather stupid, however breaking up the country to provide a better government in Scotland more reflective and democratic of what the people of Scotland want rather than they may get with Westminister I really do not find anything wrong with in principle at least.

States derive political legitimacy from the active participation of their citizens, and if the majority of Scots voted in a certain way, but never recieved the government they want or never felt that they were well represented or heard in government, then that government is not exactly legitmate. There would be an obvious democratic deficit.
I couldn't disagree more. The term 'democratic deficit' is a relatively new one, coined in the late 1970s to relate to the problems with democracy on a European level. It noted the problems with powers being transferred to institutions which were confederational rather than democratic, the lack of accountability of certain institutions and the connection between the state and the citizen. In no case did it at any time suggest anything of the nature you are implying.

Indeed, I think your so-called democratic deficit is actually simply democracy working in a normal and quite reasonable way. There is nothing remotely illegitimate about government going against the will of a certain group - indeed, it is to be expected that groups sharing some aspect of commonality may have an overlap in views on some issues. That is both healthy and rational.

Once again, democracy is a method of governing a state - and in doing so gives equal weight to the votes of each individual elector. It takes no account whatsoever of groups of people - whether formed by race, colour, creed, 'nation', gender, sexual orientation, favourite football team or any other such status. To call a person a democrat, they must not only passively but actively resist any attempt to bring such elements into democratic discourse.

Independence is only one option to rectify that problem, others could include greater devolution, a change in the political system or federalism. It is for the people of Scotland to decide however and not by those who have some political agenda by shooting down any supporter of independence as a 'nationalist' and deciding that all forms of nationalism are a bad thing.
All forms of nationalism, to my mind, are a blatant threat to liberal democracy. It is a backward and collectivist ideology that should be confined to the dustbin of history. If you consider that a political agenda, I am proud to have one.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2450
Report 6 years ago
#2450
With regards to Europe. I saw this post in the Scotsman.

It is up to the UK Government to remove this uncertainty on whether the independent Scotland (and RUK) would be admitted/remain members of the European Union because only the UKG (a EU member) can ask the European Commission to give its legal opinion on this issue.
The European Commission refuses to publish its legal advice on an independent Scotland's [RUK] potential membership, saying it will only do so if it receives a request from a European Union member (in this case the UKG). Dec 2012

The UKG has said it "would not" ask the European Commission's view on whether an independent Scotland [and RUK] would remain a member of the EU.Nov 2012"

The UK goverment refuses to seek legal advice on EU membership therefore depriving the the people of Scotland of information required for the referendum vote. With regards to EU membership although the UK goverment takes the stance that Scotland has to re-apply. I was interested in this document as well. http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/fil...ScotlandEU.pdf

"From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership."

I've seen different opinions with regards to EU membership but the EU has never had a case like this before. I don't see why the EU would go through the hassle of expelling Scotland from the EU only for Scotland to re-apply again.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2451
Report 6 years ago
#2451
(Original post by Kj91)
With regards to Europe. I saw this post in the Scotsman.

It is up to the UK Government to remove this uncertainty on whether the independent Scotland (and RUK) would be admitted/remain members of the European Union because only the UKG (a EU member) can ask the European Commission to give its legal opinion on this issue.
The European Commission refuses to publish its legal advice on an independent Scotland's [RUK] potential membership, saying it will only do so if it receives a request from a European Union member (in this case the UKG). Dec 2012

The UKG has said it "would not" ask the European Commission's view on whether an independent Scotland [and RUK] would remain a member of the EU.Nov 2012"

The UK goverment refuses to seek legal advice on EU membership therefore depriving the the people of Scotland of information required for the referendum vote. With regards to EU membership although the UK goverment takes the stance that Scotland has to re-apply. I was interested in this document as well. http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/fil...ScotlandEU.pdf

"From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership."

I've seen different opinions with regards to EU membership but the EU has never had a case like this before. I don't see why the EU would go through the hassle of expelling Scotland from the EU only for Scotland to re-apply again.

Because they've already hinted heavily that that's the case. The same argument could be used about NATO, but they've most definitely said that we'll have to reapply.

Interestingly though. The SNP have chosen not to ask us about our viewpoints on europe.

I have no doubt we'd get into Europe. It's the forced adoption of the euro and loss of opt outs I don't like.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2452
Report 6 years ago
#2452
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Because they've already hinted heavily that that's the case. The same argument could be used about NATO, but they've most definitely said that we'll have to reapply.

Interestingly though. The SNP have chosen not to ask us about our viewpoints on europe.

I have no doubt we'd get into Europe. It's the forced adoption of the euro and loss of opt outs I don't like.
The official Yes Scotland campaign is advocating the position that Scotland would remain in the European Union with re-negotiations in treaties etc.
http://www.yesscotland.net/independe...ain_part_of_eu

Mr Jenkins said that the No campaign’s assertion that Scotland would be kicked out of the EU was senseless, and has not been supported by the latest comments from Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.

"Mr Barroso’s comments are carefully phrased, because he knows that suggestions Scotland would be kicked out of the EU don’t make sense. Think what this would mean, not for Scotland but for other countries across the EU. Nations such as Spain would lose access to Scottish fisheries waters – this would have a decimating effect on the Spanish fishing industry.

"It would mean that every EU student in Scotland would either have to leave their university course or start paying fees as international students – is anyone credibly suggesting that this would be allowed to happen, given the cost and disruption thousands of families across the EU would face?"

"The EU would lose a net contributor – resulting in budget cuts for key programmes in other Member States.

"Every existing EU programme from structural funds to the Common Agricultural Policy would have to be re-written; and tens of thousands of EU nationals living in Scotland would lose important rights.

"No EU nation is going to want this to happen or is going to let this happen. That is why an independent Scotland will remain within the EU."

"When Greenland left the EU. It took quite a while for the negotations to leave.There is now a provision in the EU treaties which puts in place a mechanism for member states to negotiate their way out of the EU. (There is also the precedent of Greenland, which went through a prolonged period of negotiation to remove itself from what was then the European Community). It is simply not credible to suggest that the EU would spend two years negotiating to arrange Scotland’s withdrawal from the EU to then follow that with two years negotiating to get Scotland back in to the EU"

I know it is just an opinion but would it be in Europes interest for Scotland to leave the EU? Considering we have EU citizens living and working here as well. I personally do not think it is in Europes interest to see Scotland leave for a temporary period only to re-join.

I am not sure about NATO. I would need to look into NATO.

With regards to Europe. Thats just party policy surely?. The SNP want to remain in Europe. I'm not sure about Europe either personally but I think the majority of Scottish people wish to remain in Europe.I think thats an issue that can be solved after independence if Scotland does vote for independence. This Youtube video is quite good about an indepedent Scotland joining EFTA and EEA instead of Europe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_gBFaGtY10
But I do agree. I would have preferred a referendum on Europe.

With regards to the Euro. Sweden is obliged under the Treaty of Maastricht to adopt the euro at some point in the future.[1] Under the 1994 Treaty of Accession Sweden has to join the eurozone once it meets the necessary conditions.[2] Sweden maintains that joining the ERM II (a requirement for euro adoption) is voluntary,[3][4] giving Sweden a de facto opt out. From wikipedia. Crotia has recently joined the European Union as someone posted a couple of pages back and is not joining the Euro.
"Politicians in the country, which emerged two decades ago from the wreckage of Yugoslavia, say a decision on whether to drop the local currency, the kuna, will be taken later."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/48...-accession.htm
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2453
Report 6 years ago
#2453
(Original post by Kj91)
The official Yes Scotland campaign is advocating the position that Scotland would remain in the European Union with re-negotiations in treaties etc.
http://www.yesscotland.net/independe...ain_part_of_eu

Mr Jenkins said that the No campaign’s assertion that Scotland would be kicked out of the EU was senseless, and has not been supported by the latest comments from Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.

"Mr Barroso’s comments are carefully phrased, because he knows that suggestions Scotland would be kicked out of the EU don’t make sense. Think what this would mean, not for Scotland but for other countries across the EU. Nations such as Spain would lose access to Scottish fisheries waters – this would have a decimating effect on the Spanish fishing industry.

"It would mean that every EU student in Scotland would either have to leave their university course or start paying fees as international students – is anyone credibly suggesting that this would be allowed to happen, given the cost and disruption thousands of families across the EU would face?"

"The EU would lose a net contributor – resulting in budget cuts for key programmes in other Member States.

"Every existing EU programme from structural funds to the Common Agricultural Policy would have to be re-written; and tens of thousands of EU nationals living in Scotland would lose important rights.

"No EU nation is going to want this to happen or is going to let this happen. That is why an independent Scotland will remain within the EU."

When Greenland left the EU. It took quite a while for the negotations to leave.There is now a provision in the EU treaties which puts in place a mechanism for member states to negotiate their way out of the EU. (There is also the precedent of Greenland, which went through a prolonged period of negotiation to remove itself from what was then the European Community). It is simply not credible to suggest that the EU would spend two years negotiating to arrange Scotland’s withdrawal from the EU to then follow that with two years negotiating to get Scotland back in to the EU.

I am not sure about NATO. I would need to look into NATO.

With regards to Europe. Thats just party policy surely?. The SNP want to remain in Europe. I'm not sure about Europe either personally but I think the majority of Scottish people wish to remain in Europe.I think thats an issue that can be solved after independence if Scotland does vote for independence. This Youtube video is quite good about an indepedent Scotland joining EFTA and EEA instead of Europe but that won't happen anyway if we did become indepedent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_gBFaGtY10
But I do agree. I would have preferred a referendum on Europe.

With regards to the Euro. Sweden is obliged under the Treaty of Maastricht to adopt the euro at some point in the future.[1] Under the 1994 Treaty of Accession Sweden has to join the eurozone once it meets the necessary conditions.[2] Sweden maintains that joining the ERM II (a requirement for euro adoption) is voluntary,[3][4] giving Sweden a de facto opt out. From wikipedia. Crotia has recently joined the European Union as someone posted a couple of pages back and is not joining the Euro.
"Politicians in the country, which emerged two decades ago from the wreckage of Yugoslavia, say a decision on whether to drop the local currency, the kuna, will be taken later."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/48...-accession.htm

So you're basing several paragraphs on the SNPs claims. The same SNP that lied to us about their legal advice on Europe. The same SNP who lied to us about the second oil boom. The same SNP who have lied to us about the Saudi Arabia of renewables. The same SNP who have made a an assumption about a currency union. The same SNP who have promised a richer Scotland in public but privately acknowledge we'll be financially worse off.


So please do your research on NATO. It was yet another assumption of theirs, but NATO has said no. Not no forever, but we'll have to reapply. That's a group that scottish servicemen and women have helped out in fir the past 60 years, not 40.

I have no doubt we'll get into Europe eventually, but there's a queue to get in and I don't relish the fact of loosing opt outs and taking on the euro.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2454
Report 6 years ago
#2454
(Original post by Kj91)
With regards to Europe. I saw this post in the Scotsman.

It is up to the UK Government to remove this uncertainty on whether the independent Scotland (and RUK) would be admitted/remain members of the European Union because only the UKG (a EU member) can ask the European Commission to give its legal opinion on this issue.
The European Commission refuses to publish its legal advice on an independent Scotland's [RUK] potential membership, saying it will only do so if it receives a request from a European Union member (in this case the UKG). Dec 2012

The UKG has said it "would not" ask the European Commission's view on whether an independent Scotland [and RUK] would remain a member of the EU.Nov 2012"

The UK goverment refuses to seek legal advice on EU membership therefore depriving the the people of Scotland of information required for the referendum vote. With regards to EU membership although the UK goverment takes the stance that Scotland has to re-apply. I was interested in this document as well. http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/fil...ScotlandEU.pdf
Always nice to see what the Cybernats are posting on the Scotsman website...

The Scottish Government has already dismissed the opinions of the European Commission as irrelevant in this pointing out - as is technically accurate - that the only binding or authoritative opinion on this matter is that of the European Court of Justice should an action be brought.

I say 'technically' - it's rather like saying that only the Sheriff Court can decide if me going next door and stabbing my neighbour to death is murder. The vast majority of legal questions can be answered by looking at the law and commenting on it without the need for judicial adjudication.

Unfortunately for the Scottish nationalists, this is one of them. The sheer weight of legal argument against their position - which they have all but abandoned anyway in accepting there would have to be a negotiated entry - is overwhelming.

As to why the UK Government does not seek legal advice from Commission lawyers: it has already sought legal advice on the topic. Legal advice that is perfectly clear.

"From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership."

I've seen different opinions with regards to EU membership but the EU has never had a case like this before. I don't see why the EU would go through the hassle of expelling Scotland from the EU only for Scotland to re-apply again.
An independent Scotland would not be 'asked to leave' - it would simply not be a member-state and would never have been a member-state. This is precisely what happened with international organisations when the Irish Free State left the UK.

There's no 'hassle' here, nor is there even a choice in the matter. For Scotland to become a member-state would require a treaty alteration between all of the other member-states. That is accession. There are many political choices about how Scotland can join and under what circumstances - this, however, is an entirely legal one.

However it is equally silly not to see the political benefit other EU member-states would see from Scotland having to apply for membership. It would be a chance to admit us on different conditions from those we enjoy as part of the UK - where we have a wide range of privileges and opt-outs.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2455
Report 6 years ago
#2455
(Original post by Kj91)
The official Yes Scotland campaign is advocating the position that Scotland would remain in the European Union with re-negotiations in treaties etc.
http://www.yesscotland.net/independe...ain_part_of_eu

Mr Jenkins said that the No campaign’s assertion that Scotland would be kicked out of the EU was senseless, and has not been supported by the latest comments from Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.
Barroso has made very clear statements on this several times, as have other EU Commissioners, as indeed has the Commission speaking officially. If Blair Jenkins, or indeed anyone else, want to deny that then they are simply denying reality.

Nations such as Spain would lose access to Scottish fisheries waters – this would have a decimating effect on the Spanish fishing industry.
A long discredited SNP myth, I'm afraid. After Salmond threatened to blockade Spanish boats if they didn't let him into the EU, the UK Government pointed out that there wasn't a single Spanish trawler operating in Scottish adjacent waters.

In reality, the effect on the Spanish fishing industry would be negligible.

"It would mean that every EU student in Scotland would either have to leave their university course or start paying fees as international students – is anyone credibly suggesting that this would be allowed to happen, given the cost and disruption thousands of families across the EU would face?"

"The EU would lose a net contributor – resulting in budget cuts for key programmes in other Member States.
Yet by readmitting Scotland on more favourable terms, they would gain more money. Rather a daft argument, no?

Anyway, the EU students thing is also completely false. They would remain British citizens, after all.

"When Greenland left the EU. It took quite a while for the negotations to leave.There is now a provision in the EU treaties which puts in place a mechanism for member states to negotiate their way out of the EU. (There is also the precedent of Greenland, which went through a prolonged period of negotiation to remove itself from what was then the European Community). It is simply not credible to suggest that the EU would spend two years negotiating to arrange Scotland’s withdrawal from the EU to then follow that with two years negotiating to get Scotland back in to the EU"
Greenland negotiated a new relationship with the EU as part of its overseas territories programme. Provisions for the departure of a member-state clearly don't apply to non-member-states.

I know it is just an opinion but would it be in Europes interest for Scotland to leave the EU? Considering we have EU citizens living and working here as well.
That would be for Scotland to change its domestic law on. Even if Scotland was not part of the EU, its inherited laws would still allow EU citizens to work here and give them other rights.


With regards to the Euro. Sweden is obliged under the Treaty of Maastricht to adopt the euro at some point in the future.[1] Under the 1994 Treaty of Accession Sweden has to join the eurozone once it meets the necessary conditions.[2] Sweden maintains that joining the ERM II (a requirement for euro adoption) is voluntary,[3][4] giving Sweden a de facto opt out. From wikipedia. Crotia has recently joined the European Union as someone posted a couple of pages back and is not joining the Euro.
"Politicians in the country, which emerged two decades ago from the wreckage of Yugoslavia, say a decision on whether to drop the local currency, the kuna, will be taken later."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/48...-accession.htm
Sigh. Both are committed to taking up the Euro. The vast majority of Scottish people do not want to join the Euro - now, later or ever.
0
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2456
Report 6 years ago
#2456
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
But the SNP have told some whoppers. Automatic entry into Europe, NATO etc. second oil boom, Saudi Arabia of renewables. Lower taxes, increased public spending.

They've told so many whoppers over the past few years, they can't be trusted
Are you aware of what country you live in? Labour said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Osbourne said cuts would restore our economy. The British government continues to maintain that the Cold War is still on (or why else does it want a fleet with enough nuclear weapons to turn European Russia into a smoking crater to be upgraded further). Nick Clegg said he'd oppose a tuition fee rise, and yet here I am with a £9000 debt. David Cameron said he'd protect the frontline Education and NHS at all costs, and he has slashed its budget so that it couldn't possibly hope to maintain current levels let alone improve. He said he'd reduce immigration, he's done no such thing. And he has made numerous claims about Scottish independence that turned out to be horses**t (for instance, the No campaign claimed a couple of months back that moving Trident would be astronomically expensive, and a day later the real cost was revealed as a fraction of what was said).

Of course the SNP is facing a brick wall of noncooperation from Europe and Westminster, with the natural consequence that former aims are turning out to be impossible to achieve, but that is only natural for a move so unprecedented as secession.

Please, be logical, and judge the SNP on their manifesto next year when the Yes Campaign kicks off in earnest, not on their past. Because if the SNP have been a little optimistic, then Westminster is living in a sleazy, hellish fantasy world.
3
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2457
Report 6 years ago
#2457
(Original post by Copperknickers)
Are you aware of what country you live in? Labour said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Osbourne said cuts would restore our economy. The British government continues to maintain that the Cold War is still on (or why else does it want a fleet with enough nuclear weapons to turn European Russia into a smoking crater to be upgraded further). Nick Clegg said he'd oppose a tuition fee rise, and yet here I am with a £9000 debt. David Cameron said he'd protect the frontline Education and NHS at all costs, and he has slashed its budget so that it couldn't possibly hope to maintain current levels let alone improve. He said he'd reduce immigration, he's done no such thing. And he has made numerous claims about Scottish independence that turned out to be horses**t (for instance, the No campaign claimed a couple of months back that moving Trident would be astronomically expensive, and a day later the real cost was revealed as a fraction of what was said).

Of course the SNP is facing a brick wall of noncooperation from Europe and Westminster, with the natural consequence that former aims are turning out to be impossible to achieve, but that is only natural for a move so unprecedented as secession.

Please, be logical, and judge the SNP on their manifesto next year when the Yes Campaign kicks off in earnest, not on their past. Because if the SNP have been a little optimistic, then Westminster is living in a sleazy, hellish fantasy world.
I'm fully aware of where I live. Yes. Labour got it wrong with Iraq, as sadly the intelligence community have to make assessments on incomplete information. I still remember rolling over the Iraq border one march evening in 2003 having to wear a noddy suit as we knew he'd used chemical weapons on civilians. But then again, we weren't the only nation there.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi...Force_–_Iraq


The economy has been restored. Only politicians attempting to buy your votes could advocate having to borrow money in boom times to at fir government spending. Seriously. Do you think any country can continually spend more than it earns as viable.

Yes the lib dems said they wouldn't support tuition fee cuts. But the lib dems never got into power. They got into. Government as part of a coalition, so there manifesto promises can't get met. Your also assuming that we all agree with university education being free. I don't. At the moment, the scottish taxpayer is subsidising middle and upper class families with its free university education whilst crippling working class filies with significant cuts to college education. This policysy also explain why NHS Scotland doesn't have the money to perform better.

The Cold War as you think you know it is over. However Russia sstill poses a potential threat. Realising that Russia's conventional forces need upgrading that will take time, Russia has. Decided to plug the gap with investment into its ballistic missile system.

So although its technically over, why is this still going on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8465903.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/repor...dy-hit-2012-11

We'll not even mention the fact that nasty things like trident have kept the peace and nobody can preoct the future. But we'll leave the double standards of the SNP wanting rid of trident but still falling under the nuclear umbrella of a NATO.

You'll have to ttell me about the government lieing to us about the cost of moving trident. All I know is that the SNP got one figure released about it under an FoI that wasn't the actually cost and then lied to us and said it was. ( it only costs £150 million to move the subs. The SNP convientaly forgot about all of the ther infrastructure)

i know the SNP have been optimistic. They've been overly optimistic and claimed their optimistic as fact. That's not optimism. That's lying.

So they're starting off their campaign now? This is start number four by my reckoning. And still the fact remains that the majority of us don't buy into their brand of poison and division.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Ima..._Feb13_lrg.jpg

And the claim the SNP aren't being just as sleazy is utter pump. They been involved in domestic violence, adultery, expense fiddling, smear campaigns, blatant lies.


Edit. You've raised the issue of the government failing address immigration. Yet SNP policy is to promote it.
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2458
Report 6 years ago
#2458
So, Have just finished reading this article.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...lver-1-3042233

"The Yes campaign has “virtually no chance” of victory in next year’s referendum on Scottish independence, according to one of America’s most-respected polling experts.
Nate Silver, the award-winning statistician who shot to fame when he correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states in the 2012 US presidential elections, says all the indicators point towards Scots voting to stay in the UK on 18 September next year.
Only a “major crisis” south of the Border could turn the situation in favour of independence, despite it being more than a year until polling day, he added."

What is the point in even having this referendum?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2459
Report 6 years ago
#2459
(Original post by punani)
So, Have just finished reading this article.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...lver-1-3042233

"The Yes campaign has “virtually no chance” of victory in next year’s referendum on Scottish independence, according to one of America’s most-respected polling experts.
Nate Silver, the award-winning statistician who shot to fame when he correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states in the 2012 US presidential elections, says all the indicators point towards Scots voting to stay in the UK on 18 September next year.
Only a “major crisis” south of the Border could turn the situation in favour of independence, despite it being more than a year until polling day, he added."

What is the point in even having this referendum?
Nothing new here. I could've told them that years ago.

Name:  Scotland 35 year.jpg
Views: 133
Size:  39.4 KB


However, the SNP were voted in and it was in their manifesto for a referendum......even though they could've pushed it through when they were a minority government.

I want this referendum finished with a soon as possible, but I want it to go through to shut up the whining members of the SNP. YOU DON'T REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF SCOTLAND YOU POISONOUS INDIVIDUALS and as soon as they realise that they can climb back under which ever rock they came from.


My only concern now is the damage that has been done to the reputation of Scotland.
Attached files
0
arson_fire
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2460
Report 6 years ago
#2460
(Original post by punani)

What is the point in even having this referendum?
Hopefully it will put the issue to rest one way or another for a generation.

Although I could see the SNP taking the EU approach of keeping asking the question until they get the "correct" result.
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

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (152)
59.61%
No I haven't decided yet (58)
22.75%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.65%

Watched Threads

View All