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.
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2961
Report 6 years ago
#2961
(Original post by punani)
Russia also kept all the debt. A point you constantly avoid answering. Who cares if the break up of Europe was deemed a case of colonialism? It is irrelevant. The motivation for enacting your right to self-determination is not a crucial matter. It may be because you are living under a tyrant, it may be simply because you want to control your own affairs. The crucial point is what happens when these states secede.

Russia kept the debt because it's union was based on force and coercion. We've gone over this numerous times. We weren't forced into the union. If we leave, we're leaving with our share of the assetts and our share of the debt.


It is completely impractical to split the embassies and diplomatic relationships. Treaties or memberships can't be split either.

They're notbeing split. The rUK maintain those treaties

This is why if the UK argues that it will be the sole successor state, it will have to compensate Scotland accordingly.

It has said i will. A split of Assets and Liabilities.



The easiest way of doing this is to reduce the debt obligations that would have been assigned to her if she had been given an equitable split of these assets. This is why the co-successor state soultion will be the favoured option by both parties.

Not so. Legal precident is that only one gets that pleasure. Not both.

Scotland will undergo a smooth transition to the UN, EU, NATO etc and all the treaties signed under the UK will still apply.

Agree it will be smoothed out, but we're still on the outside looking in and loose opt outs and have to take on issues such as adoption of the Euro.


England will keep the embassies and will pay some sort of compensation to Scotland in return and the rest of the tangible assets and debts will be split equitably.


You're learning




Yet how many of the populations contained in the EU actually want this?

Not many, but others who have been doing the bailing out demand it.

The point is simple. Foreign ships should not be fishing in our waters. The reason they are allowed to is because the UK government gave in to the EU on this matter so that they could gain concessions in other areas that were deemed to be more important to them.

Good luck on trying to enforce protectionist measures elsewhere.

The fishing industry was far more important to Scotland than it was to England. Do you presume to tell me that Scotland would be incapable of managing her own fisheries? Could we not set our own quotas in regards to fish stocks? Why do we need the EU for this?


Well all of Europe and significant parts of the world have failed to do it. That's why CFP and quotas were introduced.




I really don't know where to begin with this. Are you honestly telling me that the EU and WTO don't condone protectionism?


Pretty much. Feel free to educate yourself. I highly recommend this book. It's a straight forward read and covers WTO and the Bretagne Woods agreement in quite easy to follow terminology.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Shift.../dp/0761971505


How much of the EU's budget is made up by the Common Agriculture Policy? Around 40% of the entire EU budget is spent on protectionism.


Within the EU. CAP was introduced as a safety mechanism for Europe to ensure that it could feed itself post WW2. Then again, the largest trading block in the world has the ability to influence things for self gain. 5.5 million people in that get told what to do.

Concerning the WTO I suggest you look into the Doha development round. So strict on protectionism are they, that this round began in 2001 and still isn't even ratified yet.

Again, read global shift.

Basically, rich countries are allowed to protect their industries, poor countries aren't.

You got it. But you may want to put large and small in there as well.

Within countries rich people are allowed to protect their assets, poor people aren't. That's how the EU and WTO view protectionism.

Correct.




Yet you fail to mention that even within these stats you have linked to, London has an even greater public spending per Capita than Scotland. I can't imagine why you failed to mention this? In particular I liked the bit where it said that it expects the UK deficit to rise to £55 billion in 2009-10. Only £123 Billion out, which is a mere 223% out with their estimates, impressive. That is the caliber of this research you have linked to.


London does have quite high spending as it's a capital city. If we look at Edinburgh for example. I've benefited from a £700 million tram line because I'm in a capital city plus all of the other perks that go along with it. That's just life. So unless we're going to ensure that Edinburgh doesn't get all of the perks as well, we're in the same situation. But you're argument was it was the South East. Lets also remember, like it or not that London also produces a lt of wealth....and hey don't rely on oil.






I remember you have linked me to this research before. It is very interesting but how is it relevant to this discussion?


You seem to make the argument that Westminster benefits the South east to he detriment of other area's. I'm merely highlighting the fact that the SE is successful because of it's geographical position. Let's remember that although we like to go grief whoring about how much wealth leaves Scotland, significantly more leaves the SE

Apparently he had a bust of Lenin in his office while working for RBS. This probably isn't to his credit. Really?

..
0
FinalMH
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2962
Report 6 years ago
#2962
Blank cheque signed by the SNP. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-24162324
0
punani
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2963
Report 6 years ago
#2963
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
..
We're starting to go round in circles on some issues so I will try to avoid exacerbating this.

On the Scotland debt issue. There is very little precedent for a country naming themselves the successor state, keeping all memberships of IGO's, treaties, embassies and dumping a portion of the debt on the new state. This would in no way be deemed equitable by any independent body. I can think of only one instance when this "kind of" happened, but it was more complicated and the debt that was agreed to by the seceding state was quite small as a percentage of GDP. Every other instance is contrary to how you believe it is.

It has nothing to do with coercion, it does not matter that Scotland "agreed" to a union with England. This has no bearing on anything. How do you suggest intangible assets such as treaties and memberships are to be split equitably then? England remaining party to them all, while making Scotland start from scratch does not seem an equitable split.

Even if you think it through logically: Scotland existed before the United kingdom did therefore it is not a new state. All treaties etc signed on behalf of the UK were signed on behalf of the constituent countries, of which Scotland is one. How then can Scotland be stripped of all these treaties and memberships and then be expected to agree to a portion of the debt, split through population measures alone? We will have to agree to disagree on this, I just can't understand your viewpoint.

I don't see the counter-point you are trying to make on protectionism? We both believe that the WTO and EU pay lip service to free trade etc but we both believe it is a sham and the actions of the member states of these organisations and the EU itself do the complete opposite. Free trade doesn't exist anywhere. It is a myth, as is the free market. It's just some neo-classical, unrealistic, fairy tale of false assumptions dressed up as economics to try and make it appear a respectable theory, yet only the people colluding in their own ignorance buy a single word of it.

The CAP is designed to funnel money from poor tax payers to rich landowners. These farmers are one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Europe. The whole thing disgusts me.

I'm merely pointing out that London and the South East are and always will be in the forethought of our EU representatives. The rest of the UK including Scotland will always play second fiddle to this area since as you say, it is where more of the wealth is generated.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2964
Report 6 years ago
#2964
(Original post by punani)
We're starting to go round in circles on some issues so I will try to avoid exacerbating this.

On the Scotland debt issue. There is very little precedent for a country naming themselves the successor state, keeping all memberships of IGO's, treaties, embassies and dumping a portion of the debt on the new state. This would in no way be deemed equitable by any independent body. I can think of only one instance when this "kind of" happened, but it was more complicated and the debt that was agreed to by the seceding state was quite small as a percentage of GDP. Every other instance is contrary to how you believe it is.

It has nothing to do with coercion, it does not matter that Scotland "agreed" to a union with England. This has no bearing on anything. How do you suggest intangible assets such as treaties and memberships are to be split equitably then? England remaining party to them all, while making Scotland start from scratch does not seem an equitable split.

Even if you think it through logically: Scotland existed before the United kingdom did therefore it is not a new state. All treaties etc signed on behalf of the UK were signed on behalf of the constituent countries, of which Scotland is one. How then can Scotland be stripped of all these treaties and memberships and then be expected to agree to a portion of the debt, split through population measures alone? We will have to agree to disagree on this, I just can't understand your viewpoint.

I don't see the counter-point you are trying to make on protectionism? We both believe that the WTO and EU pay lip service to free trade etc but we both believe it is a sham and the actions of the member states of these organisations and the EU itself do the complete opposite. Free trade doesn't exist anywhere. It is a myth, as is the free market. It's just some neo-classical, unrealistic, fairy tale of false assumptions dressed up as economics to try and make it appear a respectable theory, yet only the people colluding in their own ignorance buy a single word of it.

The CAP is designed to funnel money from poor tax payers to rich landowners. These farmers are one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Europe. The whole thing disgusts me.

I'm merely pointing out that London and the South East are and always will be in the forethought of our EU representatives. The rest of the UK including Scotland will always play second fiddle to this area since as you say, it is where more of the wealth is generated.
You have a warped approach of international law. Not even the SNP is demanding what you're advocating. They're just making assumptions that everything will be alright.

CAP was set up to feed Europe after WW2. Protectionist policies or not on the global scene, those policies exist within Europe.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2965
Report 6 years ago
#2965
(Original post by ENNGUF)
It doesn't, it includes St Patrick's flag too.
I stand corrected, thanks.

But it still doesn't include the flags of Wales and Northern Ireland, right?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2966
Report 6 years ago
#2966
(Original post by MatureStudent36)

Which Illegal wars? I'm assuming that you're talking about Iraq that hasn't been declared illegal that we went to wih a Scottish born PM, a Scottish Chancellor and an overly Scottish represented cabinet.
UK government ministers are there to (mis)rule the UK - They are not there to bat for England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland depending on their origin.

Blair was not even representing a Scottish constituency at Westminster.

It is PURE RACISM to talk about the Englishness, Scottishness, Welshness or Irishness of UK government ministers in this context.

The same anti-Scottish racism as displayed by the British media:

Whenever Andy Murray won he was 'British', whenever he lost he was 'Scottish'.

Are you attributing all good and bad things that "overly Scottish represented cabinet" did to the 'Scottishness' of those Ministers?

Why do the likes of you pull out this 'Scottishness' of UK ministers only when talking about unpopular things?
1
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2967
Report 6 years ago
#2967
(Original post by Maths Tutor)

The same anti-Scottish racism as displayed by the British media:
Which anti Scottish Racism would that be?
0
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2968
Report 6 years ago
#2968
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Which anti Scottish Racism would that be?
The double standards inherent in the view that, because Scottish politicians are over-represented in Westminster (arguably, I wouldn't tend to agree), Scotland's interests are also overrepresented. As said above, MPs are there to debate British policy, not Scottish, so unless you can come up with a real conspiracy among Scottish MPs to procure something beneficial to Scotland at the cost of the rest of the UK, then your line of criticism is totally specious and ridiculous.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2969
Report 6 years ago
#2969
(Original post by Copperknickers)
The double standards inherent in the view that, because Scottish politicians are over-represented in Westminster (arguably, I wouldn't tend to agree), Scotland's interests are also overrepresented. As said above, MPs are there to debate British policy, not Scottish, so unless you can come up with a real conspiracy among Scottish MPs to procure something beneficial to Scotland at the cost of the rest of the UK, then your line of criticism is totally specious and ridiculous.
You'll have to expand n that. Maths Tutor was claiming that the media is anti Scottish. I was merely asking how. I don't get what you're trying to say.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2970
Report 6 years ago
#2970
(Original post by punani)
Right then. Second time lucky. Firstly, let's clear up a few matters. By describing you as "delusional" and "an ambulance chaser", I did not intend for this to come across as abusive and if you feel that it did I apologise.
OK, I wouldn't want to make to much of a bit of back-and-forth.

Do you really think I was not aware that the UK hadn't signed this treaty and that few countries actually had? It's one of the first points that is made when you search for information about the treaty. Far be it from me to argue with a Law graduate about international law, but I was under the impression that very little in International law is actually set in stone. In discussions I have had with other legal professionals and students I was made to believe that It was more a set of conventions and norms that are sometimes followed and sometimes not. Usually depending on what nation state has broken them and whether it is feasible to sanction them. Year in year out international conventions and norms are broken and nothing is done. Perhaps I am mistaken in this belief, yet a quick search tells me that my assertion is probably correct.
What I suspect about your assumptions isn't really going to help either way. But it strikes at the entire heart of the validity of your argument. You may well quote the law of Belgium to an American asking a question about his legal position.

Laws are broken, yes. Go to your average town centre on a Saturday night and you'll see them being regularly broken, often with impunity. That does not change what the law is or render it meaningless: it places duties on us all.

It strikes me as rather odd that you'd make a legal argument then, a couple of posts later, dismiss the law as somewhat irrelevant. I, for one, think it is very relevant. I also recognise that the vast majority of what we're dealing with here is an internal matter for the UK, not international law.

Again, I am aware of this, the fact that I included only half the definition of a dependent territory in that particular post made me confident that you would also understand I was being facetious but alas, not.
I can't say I've ever come across anyone being facetious with a use of an international law definition before. But if that's your humour, I am happy to accept it.

I believe on some issues you focus more on ideology rather than reason and as such it restrains you from thorough research and makes you appear ill-informed. I suppose we all suffer from this to some extent, questioning everything constantly would become rather tiresome. How much of this 5 years was spent studying International Law? 1 or 2 modules? Yet you seem to dismiss research produced by professional, academic researchers, solely because it doesn't reaffirm your long-held beliefs.
I don't think I dismissed any research produced by any academics. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I can't go through all your examples tonight, but here's a flavour of my responses--

Texas seceded from Mexico and was briefly an Independent State before joining the US. It never inherited any debt.
An illegal military secession that resulted in a war between the US and Mexico. When the war was settled, the US agreed to pay $15 million to Mexico in general settlement.

When Panama seceded from Columbia it never inherited any of the debt.
The secession was an unlawful military overthrow.

When Pakistan seceded from India it never inherited any of the debt.
Pakistan didn't secede from India. Under British rule, it was part of an informal Indian empire - which was a mish-mash of ruled areas, princely states and so on. India and Pakistan were granted independence from the UK at the same time as separate and equal dominions from the outset.

When Estonia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Georgia................and all the other soviet states seceded from the USSR they did not inherit any of the debt, Russia was deemed to be the successor state (and wanted to be such) and inherited it all.
Not true. Some of the smaller states were ignored, but there was indeed a division of national debt between former states of the USSR. It was only later, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, that Russia said it would take on the debt as part of an agreement with the other states.

Moreover, this wasn't a secession - it was a state collapsing.


... and I'm off to bed. Hopefully resume this at some point.
0
CartoonHeart
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2971
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#2971
Wow... sorry I asked.
1
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2972
Report 6 years ago
#2972
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You'll have to expand n that. Maths Tutor was claiming that the media is anti Scottish. I was merely asking how. I don't get what you're trying to say.
You can't read, even when I write in bold especially for the likes of you.

You can't understand, even something written in clear English.

You call yourself "Mature".

You spend your waking life here, twisting others' posts.

Your hero L i b claims he/she hates being Scottish.

(I don't believe he/she is Scottish and I don't believe he/she lives in Scotland)

What is your position:

- are you Scottish?

- do you live in Scotland?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2973
Report 6 years ago
#2973
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
You can't read, even when I write in bold especially for the likes of you.

You can't understand, even something written in clear English.

You call yourself "Mature".

You spend your waking life here, twisting others' posts.

Your hero L i b claims he/she hates being Scottish.

(I don't believe he/she is Scottish and I don't believe he/she lives in Scotland)

What is your position:

- are you Scottish?

- do you live in Scotland?
yes to both.


And yes, I am having difficulty understanding your posts as they don't seem to make any sense.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2974
Report 6 years ago
#2974
(Original post by sa00109102)
As an Englishman I can only answer for myself. But for myself it would indeed be a great loss. Together the UK, at some point including the Republic of Ireland, need to unite on an entirely economic basis as-to confront the EU and give us the strength to finally leave it and for good. We also should, together, oust our signing-off-on-war etc. Queen and restore the Jacobite heir to the throne. But that's just MY opinion. :rolleyes: As for the army, etc. remember WW1/2 and how we DO require joint-arms. As for Trident, who says anyone in ENGLAND actually wants it? Even in SCOTLAND? Our answers to that quandary are one and the same! Yet it's used as an 'excuse' (damn you Salmond) as to how England are taking advantage of Scotland. PLEASE. I love you Scotland, but don't blame those south of the border for Westminsters' mistakes!

(Original post by sa00109102)
Everyone in the UK votes. We're ALL to blame for the mess in Westminster. Not least because we haven't united against them despite the blatant move towards a permanent Coalition style dictatorship. When Scottish people refer to Westminster, they blame England FOR Westminster. And refer to England as being the SOURCE of their many problems. We in England suffer the same plight as Scotland in many respects. To quote much-of Scottish opinion "why should we have to moor-up Trident in Scotland against Scotland's public opinion? Take Trident back to England!" Etc. etc. and all the reasons in between. The system we have voted for is the system we're constantly as odd with.
Actually, we are NOT all to blame for the mess in Westminster.

The UK gets the governments that ENGLAND elects.

http://graphicalyes.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-to-stop.html

So Scotland is right to blame England for Westminster misrule.

And if a majority in England wants nuclear weapons, they should keep them in England.

Unity on an economic basis which you seek can only happen after political independence.

Nothing will ever change under the current totally corrupt and undemocratic political system at Westminster.

In Scotland, we already have proportional representation and will have it after Independence.

In fact the only hope for change for the better in England is Scottish Independence.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2975
Report 6 years ago
#2975
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Actually, we are NOT all to blame for the mess in Westminster.

The UK gets the governments that ENGLAND elects.

http://graphicalyes.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-to-stop.html

So Scotland is right to blame England for Westminster misrule.

And if a majority in England wants nuclear weapons, they should keep them in England.

Unity on an economic basis which you seek can only happen after political independence.

Nothing will ever change under the current totally corrupt and undemocratic political system at Westminster.

In Scotland, we already have proportional representation and will have it after Independence.

In fact the only hope for change for the better in England is Scottish Independence.
Are you peter Dow by any chance?
0
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2976
Report 6 years ago
#2976
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Whenever Andy Murray won he was 'British', whenever he lost he was 'Scottish'.
People keep saying that, but is it actually true? It wouldn't be difficult to do a study on it and come up with some actual figures to prove or disprove that point. Simply using anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
I stand corrected, thanks.

But it still doesn't include the flags of Wales and Northern Ireland, right?
Northern Ireland doesn't have a flag. But informally the St Patrick's saltire represents them as it used to represent all of Ireland.

I'd like to see Wales included in it though. St David's cross would fit the theme.
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2977
Report 6 years ago
#2977
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Actually, we are NOT all to blame for the mess in Westminster.

The UK gets the governments that ENGLAND elects.

http://graphicalyes.blogspot.co.uk/2...s-to-stop.html

So Scotland is right to blame England for Westminster misrule.

And if a majority in England wants nuclear weapons, they should keep them in England.

Unity on an economic basis which you seek can only happen after political independence.

Nothing will ever change under the current totally corrupt and undemocratic political system at Westminster.

In Scotland, we already have proportional representation and will have it after Independence.

In fact the only hope for change for the better in England is Scottish Independence.
Most Scots seem to want Nuclear weapons, as does Salmond, he wants nuclear weapons or he would not want to join NATO, it amounts to the same thing. HE just does not want to pay for them but wants the benefits
0
Left Hand Drive
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2978
Report 6 years ago
#2978
(Original post by Joeman560)
It's bad. Nothing good will come of it, especially for Scotland. Also I dislike Alex Salmond.

Salmonds campaign is based on nothing but lies and fudged figures, he hates England so much he would destroy his own country to be away from it. He is openly racist and gets away with it and even encourages racism in his supporters.
What ****. Don't most no campaigners accept Scotland would do well as an independent nation?
0
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2979
Report 6 years ago
#2979
(Original post by Psyk)
People keep saying that, but is it actually true? It wouldn't be difficult to do a study on it and come up with some actual figures to prove or disprove that point. Simply using anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything.
I suspect it's not true. It started out as a joke, but now seems to be accepted as fact by a lot of bitter Scots.

Another example that gets me is England's World Cup win in 1966. Most Scottish people hate the media mentioning - or 'going on' about - it, but mentioning Celtic winning the European Cup in 1967 seems immune to scrutiny.
0
Left Hand Drive
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2980
Report 6 years ago
#2980
(Original post by pane123)
I suspect it's not true. It started out as a joke, but now seems to be accepted as fact by a lot of bitter Scots.

Another example that gets me is England's World Cup win in 1966. Most Scottish people hate the media mentioning - or 'going on' about - it, but mentioning Celtic winning the European Cup in 1967 seems immune to scrutiny.
Well the fans of the recently deceased Rangers were not too happy about it! We see England as our footballing rivals why would we like it.
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

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.13%
No (216)
76.87%

Watched Threads

View All