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

Poll: Should Scotland be an independent country?
YES (299)
32.12%
NO (632)
67.88%
This discussion is closed.
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3161
Report 6 years ago
#3161
(Original post by Midlander)
The SNP has a very similar agenda to Labour but hate England so earn more votes on that basis. As I said earlier Alex Salmond was expelled from the party for corruption but reinstated because he was earning them votes.

So much for their integrity.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Any evidence at all that the SNP hate England?

What is this expulsion you're talking about? The 79 Group? If so that was categorically not for corruption and he (along with the rest who were expelled then reinstated) was certainly not earning them votes. He wasn't a particuarly prominant politician at that time.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3162
Report 6 years ago
#3162
Well it's someone's opinion and it's a pretty poorly thought out piece.

If she was just criticising all forms of national identity, whether it's personal or state-related, fine, that at least would be consistent. But she's having a go at Scottish national identity while extolling Britishn national identity. British identiy isn't more inclusive than Scottish just because an internet blogger says so.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3163
Report 6 years ago
#3163
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
On balance: bad for Scotland, and bad for the UK, across a host of themes from security, through social and logistical factors, to economic and political ones

Also bad for those of us with mixed heritage/who identify with both territories. I'm not a Scottish resident but I have Scots ancestry and a Scottish surname, so what are these SNP fools saying?.. suddenly I'm no longer a Scot because some big fat, self important, dour faced Machiavellian ******* says so? Think not :beard:
Eh, no. Nobody is saying that.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3164
Report 6 years ago
#3164
A pro-Independence article in an extremely reliable source - The Daily Mail - England edition:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ON-HEFFER.html
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3165
Report 6 years ago
#3165
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Your whole point is nothing more than:

'The Scottish Independence movement doing nothing about the absence of Proportional Representation at Westminster'.

The issue about Blair-Westminster system and Merkel-German system had absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish Independence movement.

You have absolutely no understanding of Proportional Representation in Scotland and are just talking nonsense.

(Original post by punani)
You are very ignorant on almost everything. Every time you post, another person switches to the No campaign.
Why complain when you are in the No campaign, trying to give the impression that you are a Yes supporter?

Why else would you 'accuse' the Scottish Independence movement of not making a stand on the absence of Proportional Representation at Westminster?

But do point out the ignorance in my most recent posts:

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Scotland has a democratic system which can be called 'Proportional Representation' and gives similar representation as in most countries in the EU.

Westminster has one of the most, if not the most, undemocratic system in the EU which can be called 'Skewed Representation'.

But of course arch opponents of Scottish Independence like L i b want undemocratic and unrepresentative Westminster rule over Scotland for their own vested interests and always downplay anything positive about Scotland.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
That RACIST nonsense again so soon after it was debunked?

UK governments (mis)rule the UK as a whole and the Englishness, Scottishness, Welshness or Irishness of ministers makes no difference whatsoever.

They are not there to promote the interests of England, Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland respectively.

What did those "high proportion of Scottish ministers" do that benefitted Scotland at the expense of rUK?

Blair represented an English constituency at Westminster.

And the campaign for Scottish independence is to end Westminster (mis)rule over Scotland.

It is not to get rid of non-Scottish MSPs (English, French, Italian, Pakistani, Irish, Other?) from the Scottish parliament.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
A fairer society has not arisen after 300 years of Westminster (mis)rule and there is almost zero possibility that it will arise in the next 600 years.

The gap between the rich and poor was WIDER after 13 years of Westminster Labour (mis)rule.

Society is becoming less fair by the second under current Westminster Tory-LibDem (mis)rule.

Only Scottish Independence can bring a fairer society in Scotland, and provide a catalyst for a fairer society in rUK.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
So you will stop being a Scot if Scotland becomes an independent nation again?

You would stop feeling like a Scot if "some big fat, self important, dour faced Machiavellian ******* told you you were not a Scot?

All those with "Scots ancestry and a Scottish surname" living in the USA and throughout the world are not Scots?

All your relatives living in Scotland will suddenly feel 'foreigners' to you if Scotland becomes an independent nation?

You will start hating them then, because everyone in 'One Nation' hates foreigners?

Let me tell you this:

Scots would remain Scots even if Scotland, cut off at the border with England with a pair of scissors, sank permanently into the sea.

And throughout the world Scots would continue to be recognised as Scots.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The reason for the blind hatred of the SNP by Tory-Labour-LibDem opponents of Scottish Independence?

Because in just over 6 years an SNP government in Scotland has done a million times more for the people of Scotland than Tory-Labour-LibDem governments ever did.

The most the Tory-Labour-LibDem opponents of Scottish Independence are worried about is their own priveleges at Westminster will come to an end after independence.

And that they will never be elected in Scotland unless they care more about the people of Scotland than their own vested interests.

Hence the 'No Scotland' view that there will only be SNP governments in Independent Scotland. Because the Tory-Labour-LibDem politicians have no intention of mending their ways. Otherwise we would have had a fairer society a long time ago.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
So distinct that Johann Lamont's 'opinion' on any subject at all has to be communicated to her by Labour party headquarters in London.

There is no such thing as 'Scottish' Labour.

Johann Lamont is the figurehead leader of the Scottish parish sub-branch of the Labour Party based in London.

In the Scottish parliament, she reads out a script written for her by her bosses in London.

As a Labour Party insider, do you know Johann Lamont's 'opinion' on nuclear weapons? When did Milliband convey it to her?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3166
Report 6 years ago
#3166
(Original post by Midlander)
As I said earlier Alex Salmond was expelled from the party for corruption but reinstated because he was earning them votes.
(Original post by Midlander)
Nothing on Alex Salmond's corruption then.
(Original post by Gordon1985)
What is this expulsion you're talking about? The 79 Group? If so that was categorically not for corruption and he (along with the rest who were expelled then reinstated) was certainly not earning them votes. He wasn't a particuarly prominant politician at that time.

Do you consider the FOUR TIMES 'flipping' of homes by Alistair Darling, Chairman of 'Better Together', for personal gain at taxpayers' expense to be corruption?
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3167
Report 6 years ago
#3167
(Original post by Gordon1985)
Any evidence at all that the SNP hate England?

What is this expulsion you're talking about? The 79 Group? If so that was categorically not for corruption and he (along with the rest who were expelled then reinstated) was certainly not earning them votes. He wasn't a particuarly prominant politician at that time.
There have been countless social media faux pas from party members. Ruth Davidson pointed them out in an FMQs session this year and Salmond denied any responsibility.

My understanding of the expulsion was that he had been fiddling expenses in Peterhead and got chucked out for it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3168
Report 6 years ago
#3168
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Do you consider the FOUR TIMES 'flipping' of homes by Alistair Darling, Chairman of 'Better Together', for personal gain at taxpayers' expense to be corruption?
It is, but few politicians are whiter than white. That was my point to those claiming the SNP to be a beacon of perfection.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3169
Report 6 years ago
#3169
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
A pro-Independence article in an extremely reliable source - The Daily Mail - England edition:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ON-HEFFER.html
The same paper which recently talked trash about Miliband's dead father as part of a smear campaign?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3170
Report 6 years ago
#3170
(Original post by Gordon1985)
Well it's someone's opinion and it's a pretty poorly thought out piece.

If she was just criticising all forms of national identity, whether it's personal or state-related, fine, that at least would be consistent. But she's having a go at Scottish national identity while extolling Britishn national identity. British identiy isn't more inclusive than Scottish just because an internet blogger says so.
It is her opinion and I agree with it-not stating it as fact. It does however say a lot even for a unionist Scot to admit to expressing Anglophobic views and that Anglophobia is an elephant in the room.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3171
Report 6 years ago
#3171
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
So distinct that Johann Lamont's 'opinion' on any subject at all has to be communicated to her by Labour party headquarters in London.

There is no such thing as 'Scottish' Labour.

Johann Lamont is the figurehead leader of the Scottish parish sub-branch of the Labour Party based in London.

In the Scottish parliament, she reads out a script written for her by her bosses in London.

As a Labour Party insider, do you know Johann Lamont's 'opinion' on nuclear weapons? When did Milliband convey it to her?
It was founded separately and has different roots to UK Labour. Miliband is called a socialist if he opposes things like the nuclear option and a sell out if he backs it.




Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3172
Report 6 years ago
#3172
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Can anyone see 'SNP' anywhere in there:






The reason for the blind hatred of the SNP by Tory-Labour-LibDem opponents of Scottish Independence?

Because in just over 6 years an SNP government in Scotland has done a million times more for the people of Scotland than Tory-Labour-LibDem governments ever did.

The most the Tory-Labour-LibDem opponents of Scottish Independence are worried about is their own priveleges at Westminster will come to an end after independence.

And that they will never be elected in Scotland unless they care more about the people of Scotland than their own vested interests.

Hence the 'No Scotland' view that there will only be SNP governments in Independent Scotland. Because the Tory-Labour-LibDem politicians have no intention of mending their ways. Otherwise we would have had a fairer society a long time ago.
Yes, Salmond is perfect and his government has no flaws. In the fattest nation in Europe with a widely panned education system, I can see why it's Lond-I mean England's fault. It always is.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3173
Report 6 years ago
#3173
(Original post by Maths Tutor)

But do point out the ignorance in my most recent posts:
I do wish you would stop shouting. It detracts from your message very badly.

Anyway, let's take this preposterous statement, with the shouting toned down:

A fairer society has not arisen after 300 years of Westminster (mis)rule and there is almost zero possibility that it will arise in the next 600 years.
Society is not fairer now than it was when the union was formed? Are you serious?

In 1717 nobody was entitled to a free education; they are now.

In 1717 there was no genuine freedom of worship; there is now.

In 1717 there was no welfare state; there is now.

In 1717 capital punishment was in use; it isn't now.

In 1717 laws to protect consumers were primitive and ineffective; now they are sophisticated and reasonably effective.

In 1717 only the rich had any say in the government process; now everyone has a vote.

In 1717 women were excluded from decision-making and effectively chattels of their husbands; not now.

In 1717 homosexual behaviour was illegal; now it is legal.

That covers a few of the bigger issues. Apart from that, we have developed a fairer society massively in countless smaller ways (such as tenants' rights). To claim that it hasn't been done is just ridiculous, ignorant even.

Or do you believe none of these things have either not been done since the union or haven't contributed to a fairer society?
1
Doc.Daneeka
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3174
Report 6 years ago
#3174
(Original post by Good bloke)
I do wish you would stop shouting. It detracts from your message very badly.

Anyway, let's take this preposterous statement, with the shouting toned down:



Society is not fairer now than it was when the union was formed? Are you serious?

In 1717 nobody was entitled to a free education; they are now.

That is pretty late in the day to be saying that this is due to the formation of the union. Moreover, it's not due to the union but rather due to devolution.

In 1717 there was no genuine freedom of worship; there is now.


In 1717 there was no welfare state; there is now.

In 1717 capital punishment was in use; it isn't now.

In 1717 laws to protect consumers were primitive and ineffective; now they are sophisticated and reasonably effective.

In 1717 only the rich had any say in the government process; now everyone has a vote.

In 1717 women were excluded from decision-making and effectively chattels of their husbands; not now.

In 1717 homosexual behaviour was illegal; now it is legal.

That covers a few of the bigger issues. Apart from that, we have developed a fairer society massively in countless smaller ways (such as tenants' rights). To claim that it hasn't been done is just ridiculous, ignorant even.

Or do you believe none of these things have either not been done since the union or haven't contributed to a fairer society?
Most of those points are relatively recent developments, so it seems difficult to say whether it came from being part of a union- it could have occurred as social expectations and scientific knowledge increased (e.g., homosexuality's status as a mental disease was only changed in the 60s, which helped to lead to it's de-legalisation in the UK)

I agree that society is fairer now than it was pre-union, but that doesn't mean that the union caused society to be fairer.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3175
Report 6 years ago
#3175
(Original post by Doc.Daneeka)
Most of those points are relatively recent developments, so it seems difficult to say whether it came from being part of a union- it could have occurred as social expectations and scientific knowledge increased (e.g., homosexuality's status as a mental disease was only changed in the 60s, which helped to lead to it's de-legalisation in the UK)

I agree that society is fairer now than it was pre-union, but that doesn't mean that the union caused society to be fairer.
Nobody, least of all me, claimed that the union is responsible for those changes. We cannot tell how different the UK would be from Scotland if the union had not taken place.

We are discussing whether the government at Westminster has created a fairer society. Maths Tutor claimed that the UK government at Westminster hadn't done anything to produce a fairer society - and calls it 300 years of misrule.

I have given examples of major changes that have been brought about by Westminster legislation. One might claim that not making those changes would have been misrule, but to complain that Westminster has not brought about a fairer society is ridiculous.
0
Doc.Daneeka
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3176
Report 6 years ago
#3176
(Original post by Good bloke)
Nobody, least of all me, claimed that the union is responsible for those changes. We cannot tell how different the UK would be from Scotland if the union had not taken place.

We are discussing whether the government at Westminster has created a fairer society. Maths Tutor claimed that the UK government at Westminster hadn't done anything to produce a fairer society - and calls it 300 years of misrule.

I have given examples of major changes that have been brought about by Westminster legislation. One might claim that not making those changes would have been misrule, but to complain that Westminster has not brought about a fairer society is ridiculous.
Well, I think it's a platitude to say that Westminster has brought in and amended legislation that make life today better than it had been pre-Union. So I agree with you on that point- apologies for jumping in there.

What is interesting though is that if Westminster with it's various powers over Scottish life has been a force for good, then has the EU not done the same thing for the whole of the UK, particularly re: human rights? It seems a bit odd to me that the Tories can be talking about a referendum on getting out of the EU when they're trying to argue to the Scots that we're stronger together. All I get from their referendum for UK independence is that the more legislative powers that a state has the better that state can be, so it seems to go against the idea of the Union to me :/
0
Piazetta
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3177
Report 6 years ago
#3177
Undoubtedly a bad thing. A region can only legitimately secede from a state if its inhabitants are being denied basic liberal democratic rights, or fewer rights than their compatriots in other parts of the state (Look at East Timor). Democrats have always hidden behind nationalists when trying to prevent secession (e.g. - The 'Better Together' campaign), but in all honesty secession is a menace to democracy, follow it to its logical conclusion and voters who backed the losing party and now disagree with a government decision have the right to remove themselves from the state's jurisdiction individually.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3178
Report 6 years ago
#3178
(Original post by Midlander)
There have been countless social media faux pas from party members. Ruth Davidson pointed them out in an FMQs session this year and Salmond denied any responsibility.

My understanding of the expulsion was that he had been fiddling expenses in Peterhead and got chucked out for it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not going to try and say there's no Anglophobia in Scotland at all or that some of it doesn't attach itself to the SNP or the Yes campaign. But it's not a significant part of either the SNP or the independence movement. Internet faux pas don't really change that I don't think.

If we went trawling for anti-Scottish "faux pas" in English media (social or otherwise) I'm sure we'd find some. Doesn't mean anti-Scottishness is significant in England.
0
Gordon1985
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3179
Report 6 years ago
#3179
(Original post by Midlander)
It is her opinion and I agree with it-not stating it as fact. It does however say a lot even for a unionist Scot to admit to expressing Anglophobic views and that Anglophobia is an elephant in the room.


Posted from TSR Mobile
There's an element of unionist Scots who are very happy to play up Anglophobia in Scotland (Mature Student being one) to try and discredit the independence movement and it's supporters. It's hadly surprising.

Her point basically boiled down to saying "Can you imagine an English person being allowed to call themselves Scottish?" Presumabley we all say "No. How uninclusive Scotland is".

Well I'm a Scot living in England, can you tell me how long it will be before my English friends and colleagues consider me English?
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3180
Report 6 years ago
#3180
(Original post by Gordon1985)
I'm not going to try and say there's no Anglophobia in Scotland at all or that some of it doesn't attach itself to the SNP or the Yes campaign. But it's not a significant part of either the SNP or the independence movement. Internet faux pas don't really change that I don't think.

If we went trawling for anti-Scottish "faux pas" in English media (social or otherwise) I'm sure we'd find some. Doesn't mean anti-Scottishness is significant in England.
We will have to agree to disagree here.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

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

Personalise

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

Loving it - gonna be a great year (110)
17.92%
It's just nice to be back! (166)
27.04%
Not great so far... (221)
35.99%
I want to drop out! (117)
19.06%

Watched Threads

View All