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.
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2801
Report 6 years ago
#2801
(Original post by punani)
All public assets sold during the course of the Union? Are you sure?
Of course. It is obvious.
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2802
Report 6 years ago
#2802
(Original post by Good bloke)
Of course. It is obvious.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not? You think they will add up all the public assets sold off in the last 300 years, work out what Scotland's cut of this would be and then take this off the debt that Westminster would like to pass on to Scotland?
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2803
Report 6 years ago
#2803
(Original post by punani)
I can't tell if you're being serious or not? You think they will add up all the public assets sold off in the last 300 years, work out what Scotland's cut of this would be and then take this off the debt that Westminster would like to pass on to Scotland?
Of course I'm being serious. You don't need to account for all the previous transactions, just the final asset/debt value.You seem to be having difficulty understanding so I'll use an everyday example.

Let's assume my wife and I jointly own a house with a mortgage and a car - only (to keep this simple) - and we decide to divorce and split our proceeds equally. The house is worth £300,000 and will cost £2,000 to sell. We owe £250,000 on the mortgage and the car is worth £10,000. We don't have to look at all the transactions that led to us buying the house and car at all - just the current value.

We sell the house for £300,000 and pay the selling costs of £2,000 and pay off the mortgage, leaving us with £48,000 and a car (total worth £58,000). Since my wife cannot drive, I take the car and £19,000 and she takes £29,000.

If we had, instead, had a £320,000 mortgage (because the house had fallen in value from the £400,000 we had paid for it) we would have net debts of £12,000 instead of net assets of £58,000. If I kept the car it I would have to pay her £5,000 for her share of it but we would each owe the mortgage company a further £6,000.

If, in each of those two circumstances, we had sold the car first and realised its value of £10,000 there would have just been an extra £10,000 in the cash pot but no car for me to keep so we could just split the remaining cash/debts equally with no need for me to buy half the car or for her to take a bigger share of the pot to offset the car's value. The net effect is the same.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2804
Report 6 years ago
#2804
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
[/B]
This statement further proves how far the likes of yourself are from realilty.
Yes, sorry, I don't care much about the politics of delivering letters through people's doors. It must be because I'm an out-of-touch Tory toff that sends everything by trained ****ing capercaillie and only orders Port.

No one in his / her right or honest mind thinks that the "quality of service" will be maintained with privatisation.
Er, yes they do - plenty of people. In fact, many think it will be improved. It's been cut back to the bone under nationalisation. To the point where plenty of people are getting their important deliveries through other means.

Meanwhile the bread-and-butter postal service has virtually died anyway, and will remain as nothing more than a quaint reminder of the Victorian era in a decade or so. If you want to consider who is out of touch - I think subsidising that is extremely so. Indeed, you might as well demand we return to bloody steam engines and bicycling vicars.

What will happen to postal services to the Shetland Islands?
Depends on the regulation imposed on a post-privatised system, of course. Theoretically they would have to pay more, which they already do for most things anyway. I wouldn't have any great problem with that.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2805
Report 6 years ago
#2805
(Original post by punani)
Well I would imagine people living in rural and remote areas will be hit the hardest from service changes, fee hikes and post office closures. I think there is an argument for keeping a universal mail delivery system nationalised as people living in areas deemed to be uneconomical for private companies to provide a service will either be faced with exorbitant fee hikes or be hit with a very limited service. Personally I wouldn't mind paying a little extra for my stamps in order to fulfil the needs of these people.
I genuinely don't know why we're expected to subsidise these people. I'd love to wake up in the morning and gaze out on the beaches of Tiree. Instead, I live in a city - entirely for economic reasons. To my mind, if you choose the luxury of living somewhere out-of-the-day, you can hardly expect my subsidy on your post, electricity and ferries.

I'm a rural boy by upbringing. I'm a member of the Countryside Alliance and generally take assaults on the country by urbanite policymakers quite seriously. That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't pay our way.

Obviously most of us are using email etc instead of mail for most of our communication these days but there are things we still need to send through the post and it would be unfair to discriminate against people based on where they happen to live.

When it comes to parcel delivery, this is the profitable area of the business. I imagine the royal mail must make a fair chunk of their profits from amazon alone. Is it fair that people in remote areas pay more for parcel delivery? I suppose you could argue either way, but I think a nationalised or not-for-profit parcel delivery organisation wouldn't be a bad idea.
Well, this already happens in many cases: http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/...ays-cab-survey

I've not seen the details, but as far as I'm aware there will still be a universal service obligation under current proposals.
2
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2806
Report 6 years ago
#2806
(Original post by Good bloke)
Of course I'm being serious. You don't need to account for all the previous transactions, just the final asset/debt value.You seem to be having difficulty understanding so I'll use an everyday example.

Let's assume my wife and I jointly own a house with a mortgage and a car - only (to keep this simple) - and we decide to divorce and split our proceeds equally. The house is worth £300,000 and will cost £2,000 to sell. We owe £250,000 on the mortgage and the car is worth £10,000. We don't have to look at all the transactions that led to us buying the house and car at all - just the current value.

We sell the house for £300,000 and pay the selling costs of £2,000 and pay off the mortgage, leaving us with £48,000 and a car (total worth £58,000). Since my wife cannot drive, I take the car and £19,000 and she takes £29,000.

If we had, instead, had a £320,000 mortgage (because the house had fallen in value from the £400,000 we had paid for it) we would have net debts of £12,000 instead of net assets of £58,000. If I kept the car it I would have to pay her £5,000 for her share of it but we would each owe the mortgage company a further £6,000.

If, in each of those two circumstances, we had sold the car first and realised its value of £10,000 there would have just been an extra £10,000 in the cash pot but no car for me to keep so we could just split the remaining cash/debts equally with no need for me to buy half the car or for her to take a bigger share of the pot to offset the car's value. The net effect is the same.
Right. Assuming that you are not on the wind up here, let's continue with your analogy. This time however, we shall make it a little more applicable to the situation we are discussing.

Let us start with the wife (Scotland). She works very hard, is highly skilled and educated and so can more than pay her way. Also she was fortunate enough to have a large inheritance (Oil & Gas.) However, foolishly, she fell in love with a flash, arrogant young man (England), full of promises and she agreed to marry him. Let's say the husband decides to use the money in their joint account (all her earnings and her inheritance) to go on a gambling spree. He spends all the money in their account and then wracks up gambling debts all in both their names.

The wife realises her mistake in marrying this fiend and decides to divorce him. This despicable man argues that they don't have any assets any more since he has sold all their assets to pay for his reckless spending and gambling debts. He then argues that his soon to be ex wife should be accountable for half of the debts he has run up. So even though this exceptional young women entered this marriage with a large inheritance, a high paying job, an excellent education and terrific prospects, she leaves it weighed down by the debts of her reckless, inept husband.

What an injustice!
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2807
Report 6 years ago
#2807
(Original post by L i b)
I genuinely don't know why we're expected to subsidise these people. I'd love to wake up in the morning and gaze out on the beaches of Tiree. Instead, I live in a city - entirely for economic reasons. To my mind, if you choose the luxury of living somewhere out-of-the-day, you can hardly expect my subsidy on your post, electricity and ferries.


Well, this already happens in many cases: http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/...ays-cab-survey

I've not seen the details, but as far as I'm aware there will still be a universal service obligation under current proposals.
I suppose you would argue that we should all pay our own medical bills and for our own education, regardless of the circumstances we were born into or find ourselves in.

Why should you, a hard working, industrious individual subsidise the medical care and education of the feckless poor? Maybe we should sell off all remaining council and social housing stock to some rich buddies of the cabinet at a massive discount, end all housing benefit and force the poor into shanty towns. Let's ban all food banks, as the people who need to use them are only their due to their own financial incompetence and giving them free food only encourages their fecklessness. After all, they probably chose to be in the circumstances they found themselves in anyway. If you can pay your own way, why can't they?

Disgusting.
1
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2808
Report 6 years ago
#2808
(Original post by punani)
What an injustice!
Except that your little story doesn't match that of Scotland and England. Scotland has always been over-represented in parliament, for instance, and wasn't highly skilled and educated when it came to the marriage. In fact, she was rather backward and feeling left out of things. On top of that she now wants to leave the marriage only a short time after her banking system was saved from collapse by the financial muscle of the British heavy hitters. A collapse (and subsequent recession) that was nurtured by the government policies that were led by, you guessed it, a Scottish chancellor.
0
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2809
Report 6 years ago
#2809
If they want it, sure. Whatever the economic consequences are, it's their choice as to whether the price is worth paying. They'd still retain the same financial regulatory system as the UK, unfortunately, so I don't really see any huge improvements as regards conduct of monetary policy coming out of it, but that isn't the impetus behind it, anyway.

The two countries can certainly still trade and co-operate.

No one in his / her right or honest mind thinks that the "quality of service" will be maintained with privatisation.
Depends on how the privatisation is conducted. What is so great about the "quality" now?
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2810
Report 6 years ago
#2810
(Original post by Good bloke)
Except that your little story doesn't match that of Scotland and England. Scotland has always been over-represented in parliament, for instance, and wasn't highly skilled and educated when it came to the marriage. In fact, she was rather backward and feeling left out of things. On top of that she now wants to leave the marriage only a short time after her banking system was saved from collapse by the financial muscle of the British heavy hitters. A collapse (and subsequent recession) that was nurtured by the government policies that were led by, you guessed it, a Scottish chancellor.
By financial muscle you mean debt. It isn't just Scotland that is over-represented, many areas of the country are over and under represented due to our ridiculous voting system and constituency make-up. It was the Industrial revolution that made Scotland and England rich, which was only made possible by the massive contribution of Scots and Scotland. What did Scotland get for the first 100 years of the Union? Not much.

England was only going through a "golden age" at this time due to the excellent leadership by a Scottish King.

Which Scottish Chancellor? Brown or Darling I think it is a little harsh blaming the financial crisis on these two and Fred the Shred gave back 1/3rd of his pension! Scottish generosity at its best.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2811
Report 6 years ago
#2811
The Guardian's Severin Carrell recently published the following LYING HEADLINE:

"Alex Salmond's independence white paper shifts to November"

I posted a link to an article on a pro-Independence website which provided conclusive evidence that The Guardian's Severin Carrell WAS LYING.

A prominent anti-Independence poster on TSR, who did not like the lies of "respected national newspapers" being exposed, duly complained to TSR.

TSR removed my post, claiming that I was "advertising" the pro-Independence website.

It also removed several other posts which did not mention any websites but exposed the lies and hypocrisy of two prominent anti-Independence posters here.

100% of the UK media including the BBC are anti-Scottish Independence and block pro-Independence comments.

SHAMEFULLY, TSR HAS NOW JOINED THE ANTI-SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE MEDIA in blocking links to articles in a pro-Independece website that expose the lies and propaganda of the anti-Independence camp.


Previously, pro-Independence posters on this blog have been hounded out by 5-6 prominent anti-Independence posters.

SHAMEFULLY, TSR HAS NOW JOINED THE ANTI-INDEPENDENCE POSTERS in hounding out pro-Independence posters by removing their posts without any justification whatsoever.
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2812
Report 6 years ago
#2812
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The Guardian's Severin Carrell recently published the following LYING HEADLINE:

"Alex Salmond's independence white paper shifts to November"

I posted a link to an article on a pro-Independence website which provided conclusive evidence that The Guardian's Severin Carrell WAS LYING.

A prominent anti-Independence poster on TSR, who did not like the lies of "respected national newspapers" being exposed, duly complained to TSR.

TSR removed my post, claiming that I was "advertising" the pro-Independence website.

It also removed several other posts which did not mention any websites but exposed the lies and hypocrisy of two prominent anti-Independence posters here.

100% of the UK media including the BBC are anti-Scottish Independence and block pro-Independence comments.

SHAMEFULLY, TSR HAS NOW JOINED THE ANTI-SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE MEDIA in blocking links to articles in a pro-Independece website that expose the lies and propaganda of the anti-Independence camp.


Previously, pro-Independence posters on this blog have been hounded out by 5-6 prominent anti-Independence posters.

SHAMEFULLY, TSR HAS NOW JOINED THE ANTI-INDEPENDENCE POSTERS in hounding out pro-Independence posters by removing their posts without any justification whatsoever.
The last time I complained about an injustice on TSR I ended up getting banned. Free speech is dead.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2813
Report 6 years ago
#2813
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The Guardian's Severin Carrell recently published the following LYING HEADLINE:

"Alex Salmond's independence white paper shifts to November"

I posted a link to an article on a pro-Independence website which provided conclusive evidence that The Guardian's Severin Carrell WAS LYING.

A prominent anti-Independence poster on TSR, who did not like the lies of "respected national newspapers" being exposed, duly complained to TSR.

TSR removed my post, claiming that I was "advertising" the pro-Independence website.

It also removed several other posts which did not mention any websites but exposed the lies and hypocrisy of two prominent anti-Independence posters here.

100% of the UK media including the BBC are anti-Scottish Independence and block pro-Independence comments.

SHAMEFULLY, TSR HAS NOW JOINED THE ANTI-SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE MEDIA in blocking links to articles in a pro-Independece website that expose the lies and propaganda of the anti-Independence camp.


Previously, pro-Independence posters on this blog have been hounded out by 5-6 prominent anti-Independence posters.

SHAMEFULLY, TSR HAS NOW JOINED THE ANTI-INDEPENDENCE POSTERS in hounding out pro-Independence posters by removing their posts without any justification whatsoever.

I like cats. Do you like cats?
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2814
Report 6 years ago
#2814
(Original post by punani)
I suppose you would argue that we should all pay our own medical bills and for our own education, regardless of the circumstances we were born into or find ourselves in.
No, I'd argue that if you were poor and unable to afford medical insurance the state should provide it. I actually endorse free education to the point of majority - we are, after all, not talking about developed adults.

So, yeah, no. In neither case, however, is this down to personal choice. Living somewhere inconvenient is a personal choice. Accepting that it attracts greater costs to live in some places is simply an adult decision made by reasonable and rational people.

If you don't accept that, presumably you suppose the state should pay the cost for commuters to travel to work? I quite fancy a job in London and living in Edinburgh... have fun with that.

(Original post by punani)
England was only going through a "golden age" at this time due to the excellent leadership by a Scottish King.
Eh? At the time of union, both England and Scotland were ruled by an English queen.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2815
Report 6 years ago
#2815
(Original post by punani)
England was only going through a "golden age" at this time due to the excellent leadership by a Scottish King.
Which Scottish king are you referring, to that led England in a golden age? James I & VI? He didn't lead a golden age. Charles I? He was a complete disaster. Charles II? Not Scottish, and it was hardly a golden age. James II & VII? Another disaster, and not Scottish.

Perhaps you mean the Dutch chap, William, or his wife Mary (oops, not a king)? Or the last of the Stuarts, Anne. Not a king. Or the German, George I?

In fact, the Scottish Stuarts were, taken all in all as monarchs of England, a pretty disastrous royal house.

You must mean that great Scottish paragon, George III of Hanover. He had what could perhaps be termed a golden age.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2816
Report 6 years ago
#2816
(Original post by Good bloke)
Which Scottish king are you referring, to that led England in a golden age? James I & VI? He didn't lead a golden age. Charles I? He was a complete disaster. Charles II? Not Scottish, and it was hardly a golden age. James II & VII? Another disaster, and not Scottish.

Perhaps you mean the Dutch chap, William, or his wife Mary (oops, not a king)? Or the last of the Stuarts, Anne. Not a king. Or the German, George I?

In fact, the Scottish Stuarts were, taken all in all as monarchs of England, a pretty disastrous royal house.

You must mean that great Scottish paragon, George III of Hanover. He had what could perhaps be termed a golden age.
I always thought it was Elizabeth.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2817
Report 6 years ago
#2817
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I always thought it was Elizabeth.
She is always reckoned to have had a golden age, of course. But I ignored her as she was before anyone Scottish came to the throne and she was a woman and not a king.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2818
Report 6 years ago
#2818
(Original post by punani)
The last time I complained about an injustice on TSR I ended up getting banned. Free speech is dead.
There never was free speech regarding Scotland for the last 300 years.

100% of the UK media led by the BBC are anti-Scottish Independence.

It is only thanks to the internet that the people of Scotland have got an opportunity to read and write about the lies and propaganda of the anti-Independence camp.

The leading anti-Independence poster on this thread was so rattled and terrified by the exposure of lies and propaganda that he/she pressurised TSR to remove my posts which provided links to the relevant articles.

THE TSR MODERATOR WHO REMOVED MY POSTS SHOULD BE UTTERLY ASHAMED.

I don't mind being banned - there would be no point in posting any more.

But one thing should be put on record:

THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND STOPPED BEING TAKEN FOR FOOLS IN MAY 2011.

AND THEY WILL NOT BE TAKEN FOR FOOLS ON 18th SEPTEMBER 2014.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2819
Report 6 years ago
#2819
(Original post by L i b)
I live in a city - entirely for economic reasons.
That city being in England right?

As the leading anti-Scottish Independence poster on this thread, and no doubt a 'proud Scot', why else would you not proudly display the name of the Scottish city you live in?
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2820
Report 6 years ago
#2820
(Original post by L i b)
Eh? At the time of union, both England and Scotland were ruled by an English queen.
(Original post by Good bloke)
Which Scottish king are you referring, to that led England in a golden age? James I & VI? He didn't lead a golden age. Charles I? He was a complete disaster. Charles II? Not Scottish, and it was hardly a golden age. James II & VII? Another disaster, and not Scottish.

Perhaps you mean the Dutch chap, William, or his wife Mary (oops, not a king)? Or the last of the Stuarts, Anne. Not a king. Or the German, George I?

In fact, the Scottish Stuarts were, taken all in all as monarchs of England, a pretty disastrous royal house.

You must mean that great Scottish paragon, George III of Hanover. He had what could perhaps be termed a golden age.
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I always thought it was Elizabeth.
(Original post by Good bloke)
She is always reckoned to have had a golden age, of course. But I ignored her as she was before anyone Scottish came to the throne and she was a woman and not a king.
You are all being deliberately obtuse.

As you are all aware, we were discussing the period leading up to the Act of Union and the first century following it. Now, there was a union of the crowns for a century before the Act of Union. The King at this time was of course James VI, regarded as one of Scotland and England's greatest kings. Now as I'm sure you are aware Elizabeth I has been credited with heralding the golden age (In fact James VI inherited a large fiscal deficit from her), but it was James VI/I era that was in fact "the" golden age. Economically, culturally and socially this is indisputable. It was of course a tragedy that his son and grandson didn't amount to much and the following period was disastrous, although Cromwell has to take as much if not more of the blame for this than Charles I & II. The rest of this century was of course pretty appalling, but to make the assertion that England was some kind of economic and military powerhouse is fantasy.

Now, there were 3 attempts to unite the two countries during the 17th century, all rejected because the people hated the idea of being in a Union with England. In the end the Scottish nobles sold out their own country, the people still didn't want a union and the main reason the English wanted a Union was to pacify the Scots and to make sure we still shared the same crown to stop Scotland making alliances against England.

The 18th century is a matter of perspective. You could argue that both countries benefited from the union and that the growing British Empire (a part from the loss of America) provided more opportunities for Scots than there would have been without it. However, it wasn't until the Empire focused more on free trade than conquest and the impact of the industrial revolution (heavily influenced by Scots) that both countries became significantly richer.

The argument that Scotland would have remained some poor backwater without the union is a complete fallacy.
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 (115)
66.09%
No I haven't decided yet (35)
20.11%
Yes but I might change my mind (24)
13.79%

Watched Threads

View All