Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Question a Progressive Scottish Nationalist Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    well you're still saying that this is what they assume
    I don't think they care too much in the end. They're not exactly going to turn back if they have to live in Scotland. I know a lot of migrants livimg in my area who couldnt care less.
    Immigration is something that generally benefits the UK
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TartanGibby)
    I saw DMcGovern post allowing members to ask questions about Irish Republicanism etc. So it gave me the idea to allow members to ask me (a Progressive Scottish Independence Advocate) questions about Scottish Independence/Scottish Nationalism and the political situation at present in Scotland.

    DMcGovern Thread
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4020923
    Hi! I'm a self-proclaimed "progressive" too! It's really a great idea to appoint yourself this position, even though everyone else sees you as self-centered, far from progressive, idiot.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Do you support a move to a proportional representation-based system for Westminster elections, bearing in mind that the SNP is now grossly overrepresented in Parliament?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roofas)
    What exactly makes you 'progressive'?

    (Independence is progressive, the alternative, the union, is regressive)

    Do you not feel shame at this attempt to hijack words and use them to show a positive light on whatever it is you're advocating? It's a form of social engineering and thought control you know, and you're either pursuing it or have been swallowed up by it yourself.

    "I want independence because I believe there is no-one better than the people who care the most about a country, the people living and working in a country to make the decisions affecting the country. Scotland's future should be in Scotland's hands."

    Why is this at all valid justification?

    Why are 'Scottish people' more able to govern Scotland?

    When the UK has a Scottish Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) and a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer (Alistair Darling) as was the case between around 2007 to 2010 was the entire UK geared towards supporting Scotland just because the two most senior members of Government were Scottish?

    Or was it the case that the interests of the UK constituent countries were pursued equally as they always have been regardless of the home nationality of our leaders?

    If that has been the case or if England has still received favour, how does that make Scottish people more able to look out for Scotland's needs if they have already had the opportunity but failed?

    Why does Scotland, a rather insignificant region in global comparisons of just 5.3m people and a landmass of just 77,933 km2 require total independence to achieve optimum governance while Texas can work just fine in the USA with a population of 27.4m people and a land area of 696,241 km2. How can entire countries like China, India, Russia and the USA manage with their vast territories and populations if every region is marginalised by a great number of others while Scotland only has to 'compete' with 3 in the UK and is still so apparently worse off for it?
    1. "progressive" - an advocate of social reform. What makes me a "progressive" ? I advocate independence as a means to social reform and economic/political/technological advancement.

    2. No I don't feel shame for "hijacking" the word because I am not "hijacking" the word, the word is how I identify myself and what my views are

    3/4. It is valid justification because the people of Scotland have a right to self determination and the people making the decisions about a country should be the people of that country, the people should be supreme and have their voices heard. The people of Scotland are more able to govern Scotland because they experience the everyday life of the people of Scotland and are actually more in touch with the people of Scotland and if people in our country are making decision then our voices can be better heard.

    5/6. No because it has nothing to do with nationality but sovereignty, it could be claimed all parts of the UK were treated equally although it is quite clear the Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling priority was the bankers and not the ordinary people of the countries within the UK.

    7. The people of Scotland are more able to make decisions about Scotland because they actually experience daily life in Scotland.

    8. Scotland has limited devolution, Texas has federalism so controls the majority of its own decisions and so they can't be compared. In addition to this Scotland is a country and Texas is a state within the US. Furthermore, Scotland is a nation, a country not a region competing with 3 others as you describe it. With all the country you referred to, they are all independent and make their own decisions for their people, Scotland is not independent and the decisions made are not made with much consideration for the people of Scotland. Finally, Scotland has contributed more than it has gotten back and Scotland is worse of as part of the UK because we don't make our own decisions, an out of touch Westminster government does it.

    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    I'm going to take a shot in the dark here - you want to remain in the EU amongst leaving the UK-union?
    I'm wondering if the fact that scots haven't been dealt the damage of immigration (housing, jobs and school place shortages being the biggest factors) has much to do with it
    I want an truly independent Scotland, independent from both the UK and the EU. Scotland has felt the damage of the EU through the attack on our fishing industry.

    (Original post by cbreef)
    Well I think we gain a lot more than we lose tbh.
    Leaving the EU seems like it would take a massive renegotiation of terms. The EU is good to us
    I don't agree with this, the EU wants to centralise more and more decisions and that is an attack on our sovereignty and democracy, decisions about Scotlasnd should be made in Scotland and we the people of Scotland have rejected austerity at the ballot box but that is something the EU would force upon us along with the TTIP trade deal if it gets passed which would threaten our public services.

    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    benefits to scotland? or the UK?
    if scotland leaves the UK and applies for membership, then they too shall get swamped with migrants as well. do they really want that? because that's not how the EU contemporarily brings them benefits, because all the migrants go to england, not scotland, because england is richer
    I don't see there being benfits to Scotland or the UK for staying in the EU. Scotland needs immigration because our population is aging more than other parts of the UK but that immigration in my opinion needs to be controlled and that can't be done inside the EU. As for saying England is richer than Scotland, London and the South East may be richer but Scotland has contributed more than we have gotten out meaning, we have pretty much subsidised rUK.

    (Original post by balanced)
    Hi! I'm a self-proclaimed "progressive" too! It's really a great idea to appoint yourself this position, even though everyone else sees you as self-centered, far from progressive, idiot.
    I identify myself as a Progressive Scottish Nationalist in the same way one may identify themselves as a socialist or conservative, would you class the later as self-proclaimed? Was there really a need to resort to name-calling? It makes you look bad and is quite pathetic to be honest.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Ewwww
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Do you support a move to a proportional representation-based system for Westminster elections, bearing in mind that the SNP is now grossly overrepresented in Parliament?
    Yes I do. I believe their should be proportional representation in all forms of election system and that is despite any consequence it could have on any particular party because it is a matter of principle that the people of our country/countries should be represented. Personally, I favour AMS but with the first past the post section replaced with STV. So pretty much STV for constituencies and the list for regions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TartanGibby)
    3/4. It is valid justification because the people of Scotland have a right to self determination and the people making the decisions about a country should be the people of that country, the people should be supreme and have their voices heard. The people of Scotland are more able to govern Scotland because they experience the everyday life of the people of Scotland and are actually more in touch with the people of Scotland and if people in our country are making decision then our voices can be better heard.
    (Original post by TartanGibby)
    7. The people of Scotland are more able to make decisions about Scotland because they actually experience daily life in Scotland.
    Scotland isn't fundamentally different from the rest of the UK. It's hardly different from parts of Northern England. Can you actually, truly describe any real differences between Scotland or Scottish people and the rest of the United Kingdom and the English/Welsh/Irish in regards to culture, aims or geopolitical outlook?

    (Original post by TartanGibby)
    5/6. No because it has nothing to do with nationality but sovereignty, it could be claimed all parts of the UK were treated equally although it is quite clear the Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling priority was the bankers and not the ordinary people of the countries within the UK.
    Yes yes the Bankers make everything awful and hold the British Government to ransom don't they /sarcasm.

    Do you really believe the SNP narrative that the UK is ran by an aging gentlemen's club of posh aristocrats, their banker friends and newspaper baron paymasters? It verges on lunacy, this conspiracy.

    (Original post by TartanGibby)
    8. Scotland has limited devolution, Texas has federalism so controls the majority of its own decisions and so they can't be compared. In addition to this Scotland is a country and Texas is a state within the US. Furthermore, Scotland is a nation, a country not a region competing with 3 others as you describe it. With all the country you referred to, they are all independent and make their own decisions for their people, Scotland is not independent and the decisions made are not made with much consideration for the people of Scotland. Finally, Scotland has contributed more than it has gotten back and Scotland is worse of as part of the UK because we don't make our own decisions, an out of touch Westminster government does it.
    It doesn't matter whether Texas is a state or not, it has far more 'personal' issues relevant to just Texans than Scotland could ever imagine requiring due to Texas's larger population and land area. The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is home to 202 million people, why can this exist in a larger union but not Scotland - that is the point I'm making. The fact that Scotland is a 'country' is just a word with semantic connotations, it has no bearing on how much blanket autonomy it requires. Those who want Scotland independent are opposed to a federal UK anyway.

    Scotland has a devolved parliament while England doesn't. Scottish people have more say over Scottish laws than English people have over English laws. Scottish people even have more say over English laws than English people. The hypocritical SNP have no problem voting on England-only matters because they say that decisions in England may affect Scotland, never mind how Scotland leaving the UK would affect the rUK.

    (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35756258)

    "The SNP has said it is to vote against UK government plans to change Sunday trading laws in England and Wales.Proposals to allow English and Welsh councils to permit larger stores to open for more than six hours will not directly affect Scotland, where there are no trading restrictions in place.But the SNP said it had concerns over the knock-on effects on Scottish pay."

    The proposed law change was blocked because more MPs voted against the measure. If the SNP MPs had abstained the measure would have passed. This directly shows that Scottish MPs have more power than English MPs, what you're saying is complete fantasy.

    Scotland does not contribute more to the UK than it get's in return. Scotland is fundamentally poorer regardless of oil money. Scottish policies of free prescriptions and free university are funded by English taxpayers. You say the Scottish people didn't vote for austerity but Scotland would be in an economy abyss right now had it voted for independence. Oil is a dying commodity and Scotland alone cannot afford the Nordic social models and green energy that the SNP want. I think if Scotland had been due to become independent next month then months ago you would be dealing with brutal cuts right now and secession would have been put on hold, if the rUK allowed it that is.

    Finally, what you need to realise is that Scotland isn't a neglected province, colony or protectorate. Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and has had an equal role in the every aspect of British society and culture. Scotland wont be becoming independent, it will be seceding.

    Only one country will be born and the UK's assets will remain with the UK which will carry on as the world's 5th largest economy with a place on the UN permanent security council, protected by nuclear weapons and an elite military. The Scottish population will be 'made up' by immigration relatively quickly and everyone would soon forget about it in the UK. In Scotland I think there would be a much harder landing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How does it feel to be the cuckold of nationalism?

    'Progressive', sigh what is it with Scots and this new-age liberal balderdash
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roofas)
    Scotland isn't fundamentally different from the rest of the UK. It's hardly different from parts of Northern England. Can you actually, truly describe any real differences between Scotland or Scottish people and the rest of the United Kingdom and the English/Welsh/Irish in regards to culture, aims or geopolitical outlook?



    Yes yes the Bankers make everything awful and hold the British Government to ransom don't they /sarcasm.

    Do you really believe the SNP narrative that the UK is ran by an aging gentlemen's club of posh aristocrats, their banker friends and newspaper baron paymasters? It verges on lunacy, this conspiracy.



    It doesn't matter whether Texas is a state or not, it has far more 'personal' issues relevant to just Texans than Scotland could ever imagine requiring due to Texas's larger population and land area. The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh is home to 202 million people, why can this exist in a larger union but not Scotland - that is the point I'm making. The fact that Scotland is a 'country' is just a word with semantic connotations, it has no bearing on how much blanket autonomy it requires. Those who want Scotland independent are opposed to a federal UK anyway.

    Scotland has a devolved parliament while England doesn't. Scottish people have more say over Scottish laws than English people have over English laws. Scottish people even have more say over English laws than English people. The hypocritical SNP have no problem voting on England-only matters because they say that decisions in England may affect Scotland, never mind how Scotland leaving the UK would affect the rUK.

    (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35756258)

    "The SNP has said it is to vote against UK government plans to change Sunday trading laws in England and Wales.Proposals to allow English and Welsh councils to permit larger stores to open for more than six hours will not directly affect Scotland, where there are no trading restrictions in place.But the SNP said it had concerns over the knock-on effects on Scottish pay."

    The proposed law change was blocked because more MPs voted against the measure. If the SNP MPs had abstained the measure would have passed. This directly shows that Scottish MPs have more power than English MPs, what you're saying is complete fantasy.

    Scotland does not contribute more to the UK than it get's in return. Scotland is fundamentally poorer regardless of oil money. Scottish policies of free prescriptions and free university are funded by English taxpayers. You say the Scottish people didn't vote for austerity but Scotland would be in an economy abyss right now had it voted for independence. Oil is a dying commodity and Scotland alone cannot afford the Nordic social models and green energy that the SNP want. I think if Scotland had been due to become independent next month then months ago you would be dealing with brutal cuts right now and secession would have been put on hold, if the rUK allowed it that is.

    Finally, what you need to realise is that Scotland isn't a neglected province, colony or protectorate. Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and has had an equal role in the every aspect of British society and culture. Scotland wont be becoming independent, it will be seceding.

    Only one country will be born and the UK's assets will remain with the UK which will carry on as the world's 5th largest economy with a place on the UN permanent security council, protected by nuclear weapons and an elite military. The Scottish population will be 'made up' by immigration relatively quickly and everyone would soon forget about it in the UK. In Scotland I think there would be a much harder landing.
    1. Scotland has its own language - Gaelic although not widely spoken. In addition to this Scotland doesn't vote tory, the rUK clearly do hence the majority Tory government. Scotland also has its own education system, legal system, national church and national football team and many of these things listed have existed before devolution.

    2. The Westminster government is out of touch with the people of Scotland as I said previously Scotland doesn't vote tory and the Westminster government don't know a thing about the people of Scotland's life, they only know their own elitist lifestyle and the bankers are bad, they are responsible for the 2008 recession and have gotten away with their actions when they should be in jail and we shouldn't of bailed them out.

    3. A federal UK is realistically not going to happen and even then Scotland would not have full control of its own destiny, in regards to your India example, if they people wanted independence then that is their given right to have self determination and to democractically make that decison so they would have my support.

    4. Majority of English laws are made by the Westminster government in which English MP's are the majority, if we are truly and equal family of nations then surely all 4 parts of the UK should have equal amount of MP's and that way every part of the UK would have an equal voice.SNP MP's for years did not vote on English only issues, the reason they are partially doing it now (still only voting on issues that have impact on Scotland) is because Scotland was promised more powers (devo to the max/as near to federalism as you can get) but they weren't delivered so the people of Scotland were conned into voting no. If people don't like Scottish MP's voting on English laws then give us our independence by giving us another referendum or kicking us out. In addition to this, English MP's are trying to silence Scottish MP's anyway with the EVEL legislation and the example you gave says "direct impact" just because the impact is not direct doesn't mean their won't be an impact. Scottish MP's don't have more influence than English MP's because there are 59 Scottish MP's and 500+ English MP's. In regards to the effect Scotland leaving the UK would have on rUK, the people living and working in Scotland are entitled to make the decision about independence whereas with the EU is it only people of British citizenship regardless whether they live and work in the UK or not, people in other EU countries who are British can vote but not all people in Britain can vote which is wrong.

    5. Scotland does contribute more to the UK than we get back, we contribute £50 billion+ annually but get £30 billion for our budget back and that is decreasing. In addition to this, this article shows Scotland more than pays her way
    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/th...8-union-public
    http://wingsoverscotland.com/information-retrieval/
    http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...n-9-9-indyref/
    This idea Scotland is subsidised by the English taxpayer is a myth and shows delusions on the English people's behalf. Scotland economy would not be in an abyss because we would take different decisions to Westminster and the UK has a £60+ billion defict with a £1.5 trillion debt and no-one says the UK is bankrupt and Scotland would be in a much better position compared to that.

    6. Scotland would note be "seceding" we would be becoming an independent self-governing democracy which is open to the world and would play a key part in the world by being world leaders on climate change (1% of Europes population but 20% of renewable energy potential). If the rUK was taking all the assets then it would also have to take all the liabilities which would mean Scotland would not have to take any share of the UK debt which has been ran up by successive Westminster governments. Furthermore, weapons of mass destruction that can never be used are a waste of money not an asset and where are you going to put them if you can no longer dump them up here in Scotland? Scotland's population wouldn't be made up of immigrants fairly quickly and immigration is a positive thing. What is you problem with immigrants?

    Finally allow me to ask you some questions, do you live in Scotland and your profile picture indicates you support leaving the EU but here you are saying Scotland shouldn't leave the UK, a tad hypocritical backing Independence for one but not the other don;t you think?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TartanGibby)
    When Scotland voted to stay apart of the UK, it was on a promise, a vow of significant more powers (devolution max) which wasn't delivered but it was also of a promise that voting no to independence was the only way to stay apart of the EU.
    Both of these things are false--

    (1) The Vow was for significant more powers. The Scotland Bill gave significantly more powers - going beyond anything outlined by any of the three pro-union parties before the referendum - in a framework negotiated and agreed by all five parties in Scotland - not by the UK Government, or anyone else.

    (2) No-one suggested that voting for the Union would guarantee Scotland would be in the EU for ever. It was well known there'd be a referendum on it if the Conservatives won the election (and probably even if they didn't). No-one suggested for a moment that foreign affairs would be devolved.

    However it was clearly stated both by the EU and by legal advice taken by the UK Government that Scotland would be outside the EU if it voted to leave the UK. It could have applied for membership, but that would involve a process - and Scotland would have likely found itself admitted on very much poorer conditions than the UK (with its range of opt-outs and privileges, quietly negotiated over decades) has.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TartanGibby)
    In addition to this Scotland doesn't vote tory
    When do you think the last time the Tories won an election in Scotland was?

    Clue: it wasn't as long ago as you think.

    4. Majority of English laws are made by the Westminster government in which English MP's are the majority, if we are truly and equal family of nations then surely all 4 parts of the UK should have equal amount of MP's
    Yes, when apartheid was looking close to collapse in Zimbabwe and South Africa, a number of racists made a similar case. Equality between whites and blacks could only be secured if they were equally represented (despite the black population making up the overwhelming majority of the population).

    Whatever you may call it, it is the complete polar opposite of democracy. In a UK context, what you are essentially saying is that instead of being broadly equal, an Englishman's vote should count for a tenth of that of a Scotsman.

    That only works if you depersonalise individuals, try to carry on that your weird idea of "nations" are concious, living entities more important than people and tell us all that democracy is just a lot of old Tory, Unionist nonsense. That's not progressive, it's old, regressive, collectivist codswallop.

    Scotland does contribute more to the UK than we get back, we contribute £50 billion+ annually but get £30 billion for our budget back and that is decreasing. In addition to this, this article shows Scotland more than pays her way
    That's entirely false. Scotland gets £15 billion more in public spending every year than it raises in taxation.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Surely "progressive" and "nationalist" are essentially polar opposites?
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.