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.
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2641
Report 6 years ago
#2641
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
And that economic slump is now becoming History. We've managed to ride out a very serious economic downturn and I think that give it time and people will look back and realise that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.
woooooaaaahhhhhh nelly!

get back to talking up the Union, cos you are so so so so wrong here!

Not even gonna attempt to argue this one, 'not as bad as it was made out'? Crazy!
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2642
Report 6 years ago
#2642
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
But you can read the SNPs own take on that. The stuff that they say in private, but not in public.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee0..._u9m6vd74f.pdfhttp://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee0..._u9m6vd74f.pdf


It's not negative or scaremongering. It's just the truth. Something that the SNP have been somewhat lacking in telling us in the past.
Better Together spin that document though.

CREDIT where credit is due: the Better Together campaign pulled off a coup with its publication of a leaked cabinet paper from John Swinney, laying out fiscal options in the post-independence period.

However, what the document actually says is very different from the spin put on it by the No campaign. Quite the opposite in fact.

It’s worth having a look at the supposed “secret” document, which you can find on the Better Together web page. But beware. When you log on you’ll find the front page of the document boldly proclaims “top secret – the truth about taxes, spending and oil in a separate Scotland”. Clearly this is not part of the internal memo but a mock-up supplied by the creative geniuses behind Better Together to put their own spin on the contents. You’ll also see they have redacted the first part of the paper. I wonder why?

The Better Together editors insert comments throughout the document. Frequently these are at odds with the text. For instance, the running commentary says: “Today [the SNP] claim that Scotland is better off than the UK. They admit internally that we’d soon be worse-off.” However the text in question is actually quoting a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which advises the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So it’s the OBR that claims Scotland is fiscally better off, not Mr Swinney. What the document actually says is: “Before 2016-17, Scotland is projected to have a smaller deficit, as a share of GDP, than the UK.”

The paragraph in the leaked document then says: “In 2016-17, the OBR forecasts suggest that Scotland would have a marginally larger net fiscal deficit than the UK.” Proof things will be worse under independence?

Even here, the No campaign spin doctors are twisting things. For a start, the OBR forecasts Scotland’s deficit (for the single year) at a paltry 2 per cent. Assuming independent Scotland had economic growth of 2 per cent or more – which it could with such a stimulus – it would easily fund this deficit. Far from being worse off, Scotland would be getting richer at around £500 per person per year on these figures. (By the way, the OBR only gets Scotland’s 2016-17 deficit lower than for the rest of UK by predicating unrealistically low oil prices.)
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...ut-of-currency
1
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2643
Report 6 years ago
#2643
(Original post by Boab)
It is scaremongering to come out with the worst possible scenario time after time and present it as fact. That is what is happening day after day.

As for the 'Free Education' thang!
Its not a misnomer. The SNP might be guilty of taking money from Peter to pay Paul in this case, but in an independent Scotland with more levers to shift money around I am sure education would be funded far better.


Even the SNP don't believe that.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee0..._u9m6vd74f.pdf



As for the 'middle class kids', well there may be an element of truth to that, but that is something we need to correct. Will it ever happen within the UK? No. Could it possibly be done in an independent Scotland? More likely.

Actually the UK has already addressed the problem with it's tuition fees. We're the ones lagging behind

As a 'working class' sic, kid, am I more likely to go to Uni when I get a grant and don't have to pay £9000 a year, or vice versa? Thats a non-question if ever I heard one.


As a working class kid you're not likely to go to University. We have free University Education and the majority of people going to University come from Middle Income families. We've had free higher education for a long time, and it still hasn't. This isn't just a Scottish issue, this is a global issue. The gap is growing bigger, because do gooders claiming to introduce legislation to help poorer people, inevitably support legislation that holds them back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wx5PYZIWcQ




Remember as well, if we're in Europe and offering free education to everybody, the same applies to anybody else in Europe. At current levels that's an additional £180 Million we'd be investing in other peoples education for no return. That's not scaremongering, that's just economic fact.
Sorry for doing the bold, but I don't know how to multi quote.
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2644
Report 6 years ago
#2644
(Original post by Boab)
It is scaremongering to come out with the worst possible scenario time after time and present it as fact. That is what is happening day after day.

As for the 'Free Education' thang!
Its not a misnomer. The SNP might be guilty of taking money from Peter to pay Paul in this case, but in an independent Scotland with more levers to shift money around I am sure education would be funded far better.

As for the 'middle class kids', well there may be an element of truth to that, but that is something we need to correct. Will it ever happen within the UK? No. Could it possibly be done in an independent Scotland? More likely.

As a 'working class' sic, kid, am I more likely to go to Uni when I get a grant and don't have to pay £9000 a year, or vice versa? Thats a non-question if ever I heard one.
The problem is that currently students from lower incomes and areas of social deprivation are more likely to enter higher education in England rather than in Scotland.

Also although it is an interesting point that yourself and "maturestudent" are discussing, It is a complete nonsense to say that the working class put more into state funding of anything than the middle classes. If it weren't for the taxation raised by the middle classes, there wouldn't be "free" anything. If you take away the main benefits that the middle classes receive from the state (education being one of them) then why on earth would they continue to fund it?
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2645
Report 6 years ago
#2645
(Original post by Kj91)
Better Together spin that document though
I didn't even look at that evidence posted by 'MatureStudent'

It's pathetic! I fail to understand how you can put your support behind a group whose primary motive is to say how feeble Scotland would be on its own.

The editors comments on that document, which was an entirely truthful outlook on our future (woe betide the SNP are ever truthful) are cringeworthy.

Oh no, we're too wee, we don't have enough money, we cannae do it - pathetic!


The global recession, which has apparently been 'overplayed' has had far more drastic costs on all of us, than independence ever could (in the worst of scenarios). So what the hell are we scared about?
2
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2646
Report 6 years ago
#2646
(Original post by punani)
The problem is that currently students from lower incomes and areas of social deprivation are more likely to enter higher education in England rather than in Scotland.

Also although it is an interesting point that yourself and "maturestudent" are discussing, It is a complete nonsense to say that the working class put more into state funding of anything than the middle classes. If it weren't for the taxation raised by the middle classes, there wouldn't be "free" anything. If you take away the main benefits that the middle classes receive from the state (education being one of them) then why on earth would they continue to fund it?
agreed!
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2647
Report 6 years ago
#2647
(Original post by Kj91)
Better Together spin that document though.

CREDIT where credit is due: the Better Together campaign pulled off a coup with its publication of a leaked cabinet paper from John Swinney, laying out fiscal options in the post-independence period.

However, what the document actually says is very different from the spin put on it by the No campaign. Quite the opposite in fact.

It’s worth having a look at the supposed “secret” document, which you can find on the Better Together web page. But beware. When you log on you’ll find the front page of the document boldly proclaims “top secret – the truth about taxes, spending and oil in a separate Scotland”. Clearly this is not part of the internal memo but a mock-up supplied by the creative geniuses behind Better Together to put their own spin on the contents. You’ll also see they have redacted the first part of the paper. I wonder why?

The Better Together editors insert comments throughout the document. Frequently these are at odds with the text. For instance, the running commentary says: “Today [the SNP] claim that Scotland is better off than the UK. They admit internally that we’d soon be worse-off.” However the text in question is actually quoting a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which advises the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So it’s the OBR that claims Scotland is fiscally better off, not Mr Swinney. What the document actually says is: “Before 2016-17, Scotland is projected to have a smaller deficit, as a share of GDP, than the UK.”

The paragraph in the leaked document then says: “In 2016-17, the OBR forecasts suggest that Scotland would have a marginally larger net fiscal deficit than the UK.” Proof things will be worse under independence?

Even here, the No campaign spin doctors are twisting things. For a start, the OBR forecasts Scotland’s deficit (for the single year) at a paltry 2 per cent. Assuming independent Scotland had economic growth of 2 per cent or more – which it could with such a stimulus – it would easily fund this deficit. Far from being worse off, Scotland would be getting richer at around £500 per person per year on these figures. (By the way, the OBR only gets Scotland’s 2016-17 deficit lower than for the rest of UK by predicating unrealistically low oil prices.)
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...ut-of-currency
Political parties will always spin, but thats' why I actually took time to read it and it does back up what they're saying. (I'm sorry, but I've been unable to find teh original, clean document on line.)

I find it amazing that you're quoting a website that is an SNP front that has been unable to give a balanced argument. It was argueing that the YeSNP had received legal advice on Europe, when we now know it didn't.

If you have a look around on it, you'll also find articles on it saying how we're paying for Londons sewers, which we're nor. NewsnetScotland and WingsoverScotland are biased sources. And when I say biased, I'm talking extreme bias.


The SNP have not only taken high end oil prices, but they've factored in increased output. So far oil revenues have dropped and with the extraction of shale gas and oil are likely to continue to drop.


Yes we are in a good position, but to assume that position will strengthen when they ignore all of the negatives. If we loose the Pound, how's that going to impact Edinburghs financial centre. It's not going to improve the situation, it'll make it worse.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2648
Report 6 years ago
#2648
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Sorry for doing the bold, but I don't know how to multi quote.
what what what?

£9000 tuition fees are the solution? I give up!
0
MickIAC
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2649
Report 6 years ago
#2649
With devolution, Salmond is a great leader. Free uni, free prescriptions and maintaining a good education system he has done well. BUT his campaign is based on statistics which are not answering the questions and it's an uncertain future. We could go independent, run out of money and lose free uni and that would be disastrous. Plus there isn't enough jobs up here and Salmond is running his campaign on propaganda. 700 years of Bannockburn and right after the Commonwealth Games being a coincidence? I think not.

As my Papa said when I asked him about it, "We should have done it in the eighties". That's when we had sufficient resources.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2650
Report 6 years ago
#2650
(Original post by MickIAC)
Plus there isn't enough jobs up here and Salmond is running his campaign on propaganda. 700 years of Bannockburn and right after the Commonwealth Games being a coincidence? I think not.
Sorry but you are having a go at him for this? Party politics aside, no man or woman in their right mind would forgo any opportunity to boost their posistion.

We'd be lampooning him as insane if hadn't picked the autumn of 2014!
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2651
Report 6 years ago
#2651
(Original post by Boab)
I didn't even look at that evidence posted by 'MatureStudent'

It's pathetic! I fail to understand how you can put your support behind a group whose primary motive is to say how feeble Scotland would be on its own.

The editors comments on that document, which was an entirely truthful outlook on our future (woe betide the SNP are ever truthful) are cringeworthy.

Oh no, we're too wee, we don't have enough money, we cannae do it - pathetic!


The global recession, which has apparently been 'overplayed' has had far more drastic costs on all of us, than independence ever could (in the worst of scenarios). So what the hell are we scared about?
So you're trying to have a debate without looking at facts. Genius.

Nobody is saying we'd be feeble, just saying that we're in a better position now. I'm in a better position now because I live with my Girlfriend. If I split up with here I wouldn't be feeble, but I would be in a worse situation. Of that there is no doubt.

The question is, and always has been is are we better as part of teh Union or separate. All indications are that economically, we are better off as part of the union, and that's not including the emotional arguments.


You have an emotional argument that is based on you somehow feeling different. I have an emotional argument on top of my economic arguments for staying together as I don't feel massively different.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2652
Report 6 years ago
#2652
(Original post by Boab)
Sorry but you are having a go at him for this? Party politics aside, no man or woman in their right mind would forgo any opportunity to boost their posistion.

We'd be lampooning him as insane if hadn't picked the autumn of 2014!
I have no problem with the date. I have a problem with how long this thing is dragging on. The SNP has had years to prepare for this and comes out with the same old arguments, and the same old arguments get batted around. Opinion polls don't shift, and haven't really shifted for decades.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2653
Report 6 years ago
#2653
(Original post by Boab)
what what what?

£9000 tuition fees are the solution? I give up!
Why shouldn't those who increase their earning potential through Higher education pay for it themselves? That £9000 is going to have to get paid anyway. I'd much rather it be the person that financially benefits from doing the higher education that Joe Bloggs who isn't.

At the moment, we have middle class students being subsidised by working class families improving their lot in life. It's not the working class family that get's the additional 30% salary increase. It's little Timmy from Bearsden that gets the benefit.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2654
Report 6 years ago
#2654
(Original post by Boab)
I didn't even look at that evidence posted by 'MatureStudent'

It's pathetic! I fail to understand how you can put your support behind a group whose primary motive is to say how feeble Scotland would be on its own.

The editors comments on that document, which was an entirely truthful outlook on our future (woe betide the SNP are ever truthful) are cringeworthy.

Oh no, we're too wee, we don't have enough money, we cannae do it - pathetic!


The global recession, which has apparently been 'overplayed' has had far more drastic costs on all of us, than independence ever could (in the worst of scenarios). So what the hell are we scared about?
I agree. Scotland is 'so poor' .That is why the UK goverment and Unionist politicians are fighting to keep it in the Union with the help of the mainstream media with constant negative scare stories. They are going to produce a 'black paper' to counter the SNP's white paper. They want to know how the SNP will fund a pensions shortfall in 50 years time. The future is always uncertain. The same argument could be applied to Scotland in the Union.They provide no positive vision for Scotland in the Union. What is the positive case for the Union? Only negative scare stories about leaving the Union.
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2655
Report 6 years ago
#2655
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I have no problem with the date. I have a problem with how long this thing is dragging on. The SNP has had years to prepare for this and comes out with the same old arguments, and the same old arguments get batted around. Opinion polls don't shift, and haven't really shifted for decades.
This is my biggest beef with the whole indy ref as well. However, I believe the SNP are deliberately sabotaging their own campaign, as they realise that the SNP would be the biggest losers in an independent Scotland.

Also around 44% of voters are still undecided, but the Yes campaign needs far too money of them to turn out and vote for independence that it doesn't seem feasible for them to win.
0
scotland369
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2656
Report 6 years ago
#2656
(Original post by Good bloke)
Your argument is ridiculous. Many top English schools teach the curricula of foreign examinations systems. Charterhouse uses the International Baccalaureate, for instance. And the number of people who emerge from a boarding school education with anything other than received pronunciation can be counted on the fingers of one foot. Nobody thinks of them as anything other than traditionally English.
Fettes also teaches the IB and like other English schools the sole alternative is A-Levels. Give me one example of a school in England that teaches the IB and SQA Highers but NOT A-Levels. You won't because it would be absurd- just as the Fettes curriculum is considered absurd from the perspective of people in Scotland. It is an English boarding school that is Scottish in nothing more than a geographical sense.

Further, if schools churn out RP accents, then they would indeed be considered traditionally English since RP is a refined English accent.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2657
Report 6 years ago
#2657
(Original post by punani)
This is my biggest beef with the whole indy ref as well. However, I believe the SNP are deliberately sabotaging their own campaign, as they realise that the SNP would be the biggest losers in an independent Scotland.

Also around 44% of voters are still undecided, but the Yes campaign needs far too money of them to turn out and vote for independence that it doesn't seem feasible for them to win.

What do you mean by this? Just curious.
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2658
Report 6 years ago
#2658
Not sure if anyone has posted this link before but I'll do it anyway.

http://www.nordichorizons.org/

It is a pretty terrible site, but if you have a rummage around there are some interesting pieces and podcasts on how the Nordic countries, with similar populations mange to govern themselves rather successfully, in the main.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2659
Report 6 years ago
#2659
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
So you're trying to have a debate without looking at facts. Genius.
On that note I will depart this debate. Of course I have looked at the facts - I'm a politics student who has lived in England, Scotland, N Ireland and other British territories for 34 years.
I have an emotional attachment no doubt, but arguing the facts are utterly pointless - the worlds best economists cannot agree, so how do we?

Common sense tells me personally, that we are likely if anything to be better off. In a worst case scenario, we'd be a bit worse off, but nothing on the scale to what we have already seen in recent years.

So, fear? I have none. I am excited by the possibilities that it will bring, and yes, I say will. I'm confident, not because its what I want, but from studying polls, trends, history. Are the YES camp going to move to no? Nae chance! Will the MAYBES be motivated by a positive campaign? History says more yes then no. Will the NO camp stay solid no? I doubt it.

Ten years time, we can all look back at the scaremongering and laugh it off, happy in a positive independent Scotland. Armegeddon will have never happened!

Have fun arguing people!
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2660
Report 6 years ago
#2660
(Original post by Kj91)
What do you mean by this? Just curious.
I mean currently we have 3 main left of centre political parties in Scotland. If we achieve independence, what is the purpose of the SNP? Who would vote for the SNP after independence? Turkeys generally don't vote for Christmas.
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 (129)
64.82%
No I haven't decided yet (41)
20.6%
Yes but I might change my mind (29)
14.57%

Watched Threads

View All