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.
DavidSilvaMCFC
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3561
Report 5 years ago
#3561
I'd understand why the Scots would want independence. No matter who they vote for they never really get a say. Barely anybody in Scotland vote Tory yet they keep on getting Tory governments. I don't want the Scots to get independence simply because we in England would have a permanent Tory government thereafter.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3562
Report 5 years ago
#3562
(Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
How is that of any relevance to now?
It established a principle. Scotland, as another poster so repetitively says, had no national debt when the union was formed but was compensated in the union treaty with a truly enormous compensation payment (in cash) for taking on a share of the national debt that England had accumulated and the continuing debt that the new union would have. It can't walk away without taking on its share of the current debt. It also received tax breaks and over-representation in parliament.

What the Scots chose to spend that compensation payment (called the Equivalent)on is irrelevant. They set up a company to do so which later became the Royal Bank of Scotland. They perhaps shouldn't have been so corrupt as to pay the money out to the Scottish aristocracy, but it was a purely Scottish decision that is no concern of the English, Welsh and Irish among us. In fact, the money strongly benefitted the Scottish economy. One could argue that the receiving nobles were the Scottish economy, in fact.

The pro-independence lobby seems to think the English gave the Equivalent direct to Scottish nobles but this isn't really the case; it was paid over as a result of a treaty commitment (which can only be made with a country's government, not with individuals). An additional £20,000 was paid over by England to individuals, which could more likely be called a bribe, but even that is controversial as it seems to have been compensation, at least in part, for lost income.

Of course, not having a national debt doesn't mean Scotland was wealthy before 1707. Its economy was in a poor state and it had lost about a quarter of its total assets in the Darien Scheme a few years before and was therefore in great financial difficulty. It also didn't have access to England's colonial markets and had a very weak currency. So it benefited in a big way from political, economic and monetary union, thought there were difficulties, in both England and Scotland, over a lengthy period of adjustment.
1
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3563
Report 5 years ago
#3563
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Can someone provide the answers?
I'm no specialist in this are but I believe the Norwegian bank is currently issuing bills at a typical discount of 1.3% while the BoE is issuing bills at a typical discount of 0.28%, which is certainly rather better. However, I am only aware of three-month sterling bills and one-year Norwegian bills.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3564
Report 5 years ago
#3564
(Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC)
I'd understand why the Scots would want independence. No matter who they vote for they never really get a say. Barely anybody in Scotland vote Tory yet they keep on getting Tory governments. I don't want the Scots to get independence simply because we in England would have a permanent Tory government thereafter.
250,000 people voted Tory. In fact, Margaret Thatcher received more votes than the SNP ever has. Although Scotland tends to vote Labour, there's huge areas of England and Wales that also vote labour . Northern Ireland aren't likely to get a DUP majority at Westminster either.

I do wish people wouldn't turn this into a Tory thing. So far the Tories have lowered the tax rate of low earners, raised the tax rate of high earners and introduced policies that firstly needed to be made but also have broad support from the electorate irrespective of political persuasion.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3565
Report 5 years ago
#3565
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
It is now one week but MatureStudent36 has failed to prove his/her claim.

Was he lying or misleading?

Can someone provide the answers?
Sorry. Been in holiday.

uk interest rate 2.84%
norway interest rate 3.02%

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/coun...nment-bond-10y
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3566
Report 5 years ago
#3566
(Original post by Gordon1985)
I'd certainly favour increased devolution over the status quo, but not over independence.

I'm not aware of any main UK parties articulating any kind of plan for a significant increase in devolved powers and I certainly don't think anyone in favour of devo max should be looking at voting No, rather than Yes, as a means to whatever end they support devo max for.
No-one supports Devo Max. It just happened to be a suggestion that had a rather catchy title.

Devo Max, insofar as it is articulated at all in the National Conversation documents, is an inherently unstable constitutional structure. It was undoubtedly designed to be so. Let's not forget, it was after all entirely created by the SNP - who don't want it, but see any devolution solely in terms of pushing along the break-up of the UK.

There are plenty of well-drafted alternative options out there, from the current Scotland Act 2012 powers to DevoPlus, DevoMore, the Lib Dems Home Rule/Federalism policies. Devo Max is nothing more than a red herring.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3567
Report 5 years ago
#3567
(Original post by Left Hand Drive)
Why does it matter if you or any other English person is against it? Its not your country.
It most certainly is their country. The devolution proposals we have now were designed to have minimal cross-border impact. Most schemes of enhanced devolution would have such impacts.

I don't think we can talk about any further powers for the Scottish Parliament without broad support for them across the UK.

(Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC)
I'd understand why the Scots would want independence. No matter who they vote for they never really get a say. Barely anybody in Scotland vote Tory yet they keep on getting Tory governments. I don't want the Scots to get independence simply because we in England would have a permanent Tory government thereafter.
Barely nobody equating to 413,000 in the last election out of a voting population of 2,465,000? It's by no means leading the way, but it's still a significant number. Not far off the number voting Lib Dem and SNP either.

But that doesn't matter at all. This is a democracy. It's not some weird government by people of vague identities. I don't care, for example, if the majority of British Asian people vote Labour, or the majority of women voted UKIP, or the majority of Hampshire voted Tory. What would matter would be the outcome across the country. If you want to self-define as a minority, you'll always be able to find some characteristic that makes you one.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3568
Report 5 years ago
#3568
(Original post by Chibelta)
Domestically, and for the people, it would be wonderful. I've been going to university in St Andrews for over a year now, and the further north you go, the more different the people get. I came here completely opposed to the idea of Independence, but now I see how Scottish Scotland really is. Only Scots can understand what I mean by that.
I'm Scottish and I don't have the faintest clue what you're on about.

Numerous countries have cultural differences - in comparison to places like China, Switzerland, Belgium - hell, countless other countries - the UK is exceptionally homogeneous.

Moreover, it's becoming more so - it's not remarked upon much, but since the war the UK is becoming culturally closer. Regional dialects are dying out, people are reading much the same newspapers, digesting most of the same influences, united by many post-war concepts like the welfare state and the NHS.

Many people grumble that Scotland would not be economically self-sufficient to be able to apply for EU membership, but what is the big deal there? Who says they should involve themselves internationally?
I'm not quite sure you've got the argument there, but in either case Scotland without free trade with its closest partners would very soon end up in a major economic crisis. That's a pretty big deal.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3569
Report 5 years ago
#3569
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Let me test YOUR "basic comprehension" skills.

MY "basic comprehension" of the above statement is: There is anarchy in England - England isn't "run by anybody".

I did point out that England IS RUN BY WESTMINSTER, but the poster insisted that his statement quoted above was accurate.


What is YOUR "basic comprehension" of the statement quoted above?
Anyone with half a brain would conclude that it means that England doesn't have its own government-which it doesn't. The same MPs who so vehemently oppose tuition fees in their own country helped make it law for English students despite it having nothing to do with them.

You still don't see England pushing for independence.
0
DavidSilvaMCFC
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3570
Report 5 years ago
#3570
(Original post by L i b)
It most certainly is their country. The devolution proposals we have now were designed to have minimal cross-border impact. Most schemes of enhanced devolution would have such impacts.

I don't think we can talk about any further powers for the Scottish Parliament without broad support for them across the UK.



Barely nobody equating to 413,000 in the last election out of a voting population of 2,465,000? It's by no means leading the way, but it's still a significant number. Not far off the number voting Lib Dem and SNP either.

But that doesn't matter at all. This is a democracy. It's not some weird government by people of vague identities. I don't care, for example, if the majority of British Asian people vote Labour, or the majority of women voted UKIP, or the majority of Hampshire voted Tory. What would matter would be the outcome across the country. If you want to self-define as a minority, you'll always be able to find some characteristic that makes you one.
Fair enough, I'm beaten. I'm not saying I support independence but I can understand why a large number of them want it. I agree with your reply to Chibelta. I don't support their independence because I don't agree with nationalism. I don't agree with creating divisions among people. I don't see why the Scots are really any different from anyone else in the UK. I don't even see why a person from England is really so different ot a person from Russia for example.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3571
Report 5 years ago
#3571
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
That is FALSE.

The state of Scotland had a ZERO National Debt at the time of union.

The cash payments from England went to the bankrupt aristocrats who sold out Scotland for personal gain.

"And so the negotiations with the Scottish nobles began. With power concentrated in the hands of only a few men, the deal was far easier to swing, and a crucial part of the proposed Treaty was Article 14 – a direct bribe to the nobles. It granted £398,085 and 10s to Scotland, to offset future liability towards the English national debt. Scotland, it should be noted, had no national debt of its own at the time – the Darien Scheme having been entirely privately funded."

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-lette...darien-scheme/
You child are a liar.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3572
Report 5 years ago
#3572
(Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC)
I'd understand why the Scots would want independence. No matter who they vote for they never really get a say. Barely anybody in Scotland vote Tory yet they keep on getting Tory governments. I don't want the Scots to get independence simply because we in England would have a permanent Tory government thereafter.
There are 16 Tory MSPs and you will find they run the SNP close in a good number of rural areas. It's total nonsense to say that nobody in Scotland votes Conservative.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3573
Report 5 years ago
#3573
(Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC)
Fair enough, I'm beaten. I'm not saying I support independence but I can understand why a large number of them want it. I agree with your reply to Chibelta. I don't support their independence because I don't agree with nationalism. I don't agree with creating divisions among people. I don't see why the Scots are really any different from anyone else in the UK. I don't even see why a person from England is really so different ot a person from Russia for example.
Ultimately, they aren't. I may not share a lot in common with old Karl Marx, but one of the things he pointed out is that social class is far more important in terms of self-identity and commonality than nation. In fact, I could suggest a number of characteristics that are far more significant than this 'nation' nonsense.

Yet for some reason, some folk think it naturally to base political states around this ill-defined, contradictory and downright simplistic understanding of 'nations'. It's crap from beginning to end.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3574
Report 5 years ago
#3574
(Original post by Chibelta)
Domestically, and for the people, it would be wonderful. I've been going to university in St Andrews for over a year now, and the further north you go, the more different the people get. I came here completely opposed to the idea of Independence, but now I see how Scottish Scotland really is. Only Scots can understand what I mean by that.

Alex Salmond has already proposed that he steps down if Independence is won, by the way, so he doesn't necessarily come in to it.

The main problem lies with water politics, I feel. Scotland have all the water, but they sold us their oil. Here would begin a complicated an expensive relationship for both countries if any tax or change were to occur with current energy and water supplies, particularly as we are already short.

Many people grumble that Scotland would not be economically self-sufficient to be able to apply for EU membership, but what is the big deal there? Who says they should involve themselves internationally?


The biggest frustration of all is the change in the referendum itself: they were going to present us all with a YES or NO, option to "Do you wish Scotland to be independent?" and then if you were no tick NO, there would have been another question: "Do you wish Scotland to have an element of independence" or words to that effect. I.e, to review the idea independence and select different policies. Rather like our relationship with the Isle of Mann: all domestic policies they handle themselves, any international policies are supported by the British Government.

But that idea got scrapped, and very few will vote yes.

As a side note: I have seen ZERO propaganda whilst being in Scotland, which is extremely confusing, particularly as St Andrews is such a political place. So that's more food for thought.
I can only assume that you've been living in a remote cave on the beach if you've avoided independence talk in St Andrews-there's a student society devoted to it and Yes campaign newsletters find their way into most people's homes. Most of the student population is Conservative minded so it might be a bit subdued but it's definitely there.

The idea of international influence is the whole point of independence, at least nominally-giving Scotland a greater voice for itself in the international community. The reality of it all is that nationalist Scots see Scotland as an exclusive 'club' which you have to meet different criteria to fill.

Unless you can trace your ancestry back to Wallace's time then you're not a 'real' Scot. And God help you if you're English and wear a kilt.
0
Tigers
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3575
Report 5 years ago
#3575
Finance or political system shouldn't be the prime reason of the vote.It should be PRIDE.Scots,are you proud of Scotland and do you want your nation to exist and be recognised by the world?Then vote yes to independence like Americans,Australian,Canadians,I ndians,South Africans did.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3576
Report 5 years ago
#3576
(Original post by Tigers)
Finance or political system shouldn't be the prime reason of the vote.It should be PRIDE.Scots,are you proud of Scotland and do you want your nation to exist and be recognised by the world?Then vote yes to independence like Americans,Australian,Canadians,I ndians,South Africans did.
I'm a proud scot and I'll be voting no.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3577
Report 5 years ago
#3577
(Original post by Tigers)
Then vote yes to independence like Americans,Australian,Canadians,I ndians,South Africans did.
Not one of those countries voted for independence, though South Africa held a referendum when deciding whether to become a republic many years after independence.
0
Tigers
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3578
Report 5 years ago
#3578
(Original post by Good bloke)
Not one of those countries voted for independence, though South Africa held a referendum when deciding whether to become a republic many years after independence.
they did more,they gave their lives.
0
Tigers
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3579
Report 5 years ago
#3579
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I'm a proud scot and I'll be voting no.
not proving this pride with facts.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3580
Report 5 years ago
#3580
(Original post by Tigers)
not proving this pride with facts.
I think the facts have been well explained about the negatives outweighing the positives in the very unlikely event of a yes vote.
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