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.
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4161
Report 5 years ago
#4161
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
My comment was not addressed to YOU - you jumped onto it.

I am not comparing my posts to YOUR posts. Follow the trail to understand.

You can post whatever you like but unlike you, I don't think the matter of Scottish independence is a joke.
Joke and fun mean different things you know. I find hill walking fun, never find it funny though.

But it is fun that Yes campaigners say Scotland will be better off and seem to just assume the transition will be cost free. Then again, who knows I might make a few bucks out it so perhaps I shouldn't be pointing this out
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4162
Report 5 years ago
#4162
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
But you don't have the guts or honesty to give a direct answer?

Put it in black and white if you do.
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here. My answer is obvious if you cannot work it out then that's your issue not mine.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4163
Report 5 years ago
#4163
(Original post by Quady)
Because you said it would take less than 15 years from the vote. And although you didn't challenge it will cost a pretty penny, by saying the Scottish deficit won't increase you'll need substantial tax rises to pay for the new infrastructure of the state..
15 years? Eh, I don't think so.
We inherit the existing system and then we modify it to our requirements. Don't see any reason why it would be expensive and don't see why we can't make the changes we want relatively quickly. Everything required to run Scotland is already in place, somewhere in the UK. Nothing in terms of social security, etc, is starting from scratch.

But, the jobs that are currently undertaken in London or elsewhere will be moved to Scotland. We might see an increase in 5000 jobs to run the Independent civil service. It's cost-free because we were already paying for these jobs through taxation but many of them would be located elsewhere. It's win, win.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4164
Report 5 years ago
#4164
(Original post by Choo.choo)
15 years? Eh, I don't think so.
We inherit the existing system and then we modify it to our requirements. Don't see any reason why it would be expensive and don't see why we can't make the changes we want relatively quickly. Everything required to run Scotland is already in place, somewhere in the UK. Nothing in terms of social security, etc, is starting from scratch.

But, the jobs that are currently undertaken in London or elsewhere will be moved to Scotland. We might see an increase in 5000 jobs to run the Independent civil service. It's cost-free because we were already paying for these jobs through taxation but many of them would be located elsewhere. It's win, win.
Ahhhh right, easy!

Apart from the the Scottish Govt doesn't have either the capability or commercial arrangements to make changes to any of those systems (some written in the early 80s). Even if it did it will find it tricky/impossible to find hardware to run them. You'll need those contracts/servers before making changes anyway.

IDS has so far thrown £425m at Universal Credit and still doesn't have a system built on the complexity of the existing systems. I forget how much was thrown at ID cards which was built on top of existing systems but it wasn't 'low'.

Preceeding this as you suggest there will need to be a wide scale recruitment to start forming the required contracts/transition. 5,000 is low I would have thought 20-30,000. The UK Deptartment for International Development is 2,700 people, which is small but just scratches the surface of new stuff thats needed. A version of DVLA (5,600 employees) would need setting up, policy, corporate services and management tiers the Scottish versions of HMRC and DWP (around 5,000 each), naturally Scottish versions would be smaller when running normally, but during transition are likely to be larger.

And the time to decde the changes (how much will a Scottish passport be? What will be the tax on a bottle of whisky ect) will take 4-5 years to work up. Rates of things would be easy to change when the systems are up, but introducing new things will take time and decent amounts of cash - for example reassessing disabled people in a non-ATOS way.
0
Parliament
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4165
Report 5 years ago
#4165
It won't be voted through. Cameron has been clever by bifurcating the options to two extremes, when the majority really want neither. It's not especially democratic, but it will work. The Scots will stay in, because they have to, now that no further devolution is on the table.
0
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4166
Report 5 years ago
#4166
(Original post by Parliament)
It won't be voted through. Cameron has been clever by bifurcating the options to two extremes, when the majority really want neither. It's not especially democratic, but it will work. The Scots will stay in, because they have to, now that no further devolution is on the table.
I think it makes more sense to have the two options. If all 3 were there, then chances are none of them would get over 50%. So then you'd be making changes (or not) without the approval of the majority. A referendum should deal with a single question, and further devolution is a distinctly different thing to independence.

I don't think it's any less democratic having a yes/no question.
0
Parliament
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4167
Report 5 years ago
#4167
(Original post by Psyk)
I think it makes more sense to have the two options. If all 3 were there, then chances are none of them would get over 50%. So then you'd be making changes (or not) without the approval of the majority. A referendum should deal with a single question, and further devolution is a distinctly different thing to independence.

I don't think it's any less democratic having a yes/no question.
Honestly, what most Scottish people want is more devolution, which Cameron has denied offering them. If he offered (per se) the choice between 'More Devolution', 'Stay as you are' or 'Leave entirely' I can guarantee that the first would get passed with a large majority, as that's what the Nationalists really want- not independence. Even they know that that's total folly, as they have no means of sustaining their economy after splitting with the UK.

As for further devolution being distinct from independence, whilst this is naturally true, most Scottish people (a) don't really care so long as it doesn't impact them too much, or (b) want more power devolved to them from Westminster. I sound like a broken record, but they would all really like a referendum on devolution max, rather than independence vs. as you are. Cameron has simply not given them that option, which just points out an issue with direct democracy, more than anything else.
0
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4168
Report 5 years ago
#4168
(Original post by Parliament)
Honestly, what most Scottish people want is more devolution, which Cameron has denied offering them. If he offered (per se) the choice between 'More Devolution', 'Stay as you are' or 'Leave entirely' I can guarantee that the first would get passed with a large majority, as that's what the Nationalists really want- not independence. Even they know that that's total folly, as they have no means of sustaining their economy after splitting with the UK.

As for further devolution being distinct from independence, whilst this is naturally true, most Scottish people (a) don't really care so long as it doesn't impact them too much, or (b) want more power devolved to them from Westminster. I sound like a broken record, but they would all really like a referendum on devolution max, rather than independence vs. as you are. Cameron has simply not given them that option, which just points out an issue with direct democracy, more than anything else.
You're assuming devo max is never going to be an option. What would be the point in working out the details of what that actually means, if it turns out the majority wants full independence?

It makes more sense to me to get the independence question out of the way, then figure out devolution if there's a no vote.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4169
Report 5 years ago
#4169
(Original post by Parliament)
Honestly, what most Scottish people want is more devolution, which Cameron has denied offering them. If he offered (per se) the choice between 'More Devolution', 'Stay as you are' or 'Leave entirely' I can guarantee that the first would get passed with a large majority, as that's what the Nationalists really want- not independence. Even they know that that's total folly, as they have no means of sustaining their economy after splitting with the UK.

As for further devolution being distinct from independence, whilst this is naturally true, most Scottish people (a) don't really care so long as it doesn't impact them too much, or (b) want more power devolved to them from Westminster. I sound like a broken record, but they would all really like a referendum on devolution max, rather than independence vs. as you are. Cameron has simply not given them that option, which just points out an issue with direct democracy, more than anything else.
England has no devolution whatsoever but we don't go demanding independence.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4170
Report 5 years ago
#4170
(Original post by Parliament)
Honestly, what most Scottish people want is more devolution, which Cameron has denied offering them. If he offered (per se) the choice between 'More Devolution', 'Stay as you are' or 'Leave entirely' I can guarantee that the first would get passed with a large majority, as that's what the Nationalists really want- not independence. Even they know that that's total folly, as they have no means of sustaining their economy after splitting with the UK.

As for further devolution being distinct from independence, whilst this is naturally true, most Scottish people (a) don't really care so long as it doesn't impact them too much, or (b) want more power devolved to them from Westminster. I sound like a broken record, but they would all really like a referendum on devolution max, rather than independence vs. as you are. Cameron has simply not given them that option, which just points out an issue with direct democracy, more than anything else.
None of the public consultations showed a desire for devo max. Nobody even knows what devo max is. If we're running a deficit as it is then is like to see how devo max is going to plug that shortfall. It's also not really feasible for 5 million people out of a population of 65 million to start deciding what they will and won't pay for when the majority of public spending is on universal issues such as health, education, welfare and pensions.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4171
Report 5 years ago
#4171
(Original post by L i b)

The SNP cannot run a budget deficit by law, but their expenditure is responsible for the UK budget deficit. They've always supported more and more spending. They have no sense of fiscal responsibility.
How on earth is the 'SNP's expenditure' responsible for the UK budget deficit?

The Scottish government, whether SNP or anyone else, has absolutely no say in what funds it gets from the UK Treasury.

You are a complete LIAR.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4172
Report 5 years ago
#4172
(Original post by Aj12)
I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here. My answer is obvious if you cannot work it out then that's your issue not mine.
So YOUR "obvious" answer, which you don't have either the guts or the honesty to put in black and white, is:

'The Bank of England's monetary policy TAKES INTO ACCOUNT the needs of the economies of Scotland and the North of England.'

Your "obvious" answer is a LIE.
0
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4173
Report 5 years ago
#4173
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
None of the public consultations showed a desire for devo max. Nobody even knows what devo max is. If we're running a deficit as it is then is like to see how devo max is going to plug that shortfall. It's also not really feasible for 5 million people out of a population of 65 million to start deciding what they will and won't pay for when the majority of public spending is on universal issues such as health, education, welfare and pensions.
My impression is that people like the idea of Scotland having more autonomy. But as you say, no one seems to have any idea of what devo max actually is.

Which is why I don't think it makes sense to deal with it at the same time as the independence referendum. It would take a lot of time, effort and negotiation to come up with a new devolution settlement, which would all go to waste if Scotland votes for independence. And if you gave the option of all 3 in a single referendum, you wouldn't really know which the electorate actually prefers.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4174
Report 5 years ago
#4174
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
So YOUR "obvious" answer, which you don't have either the guts or the honesty to put in black and white, is:

'The Bank of England's monetary policy TAKES INTO ACCOUNT the needs of the economies of Scotland and the North of England.'

Your "obvious" answer is a LIE.
So the Midlands, South West, Wales and NI still don't exist in your eyes.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4175
Report 5 years ago
#4175
Of all the forums debating Independence I've seen, this is far the most pointless. Just a few profiles dominating either side who have not conceded even the slightest detail either way. Stuck in the trenches arguing a case that the other will never accept. Give up and save yourselves some spare time!
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4176
Report 5 years ago
#4176
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
So YOUR "obvious" answer, which you don't have either the guts or the honesty to put in black and white, is:

'The Bank of England's monetary policy TAKES INTO ACCOUNT the needs of the economies of Scotland and the North of England.'

Your "obvious" answer is a LIE.
Do you ever read what you write before you hit the "submit" button? So much of it is complete nonsense. The BoE's role is to take to account of the economic needs of the whole of the UK when making the policy decisions assigned to it. This includes all the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
0
Parliament
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4177
Report 5 years ago
#4177
(Original post by Psyk)
You're assuming devo max is never going to be an option. What would be the point in working out the details of what that actually means, if it turns out the majority wants full independence?

It makes more sense to me to get the independence question out of the way, then figure out devolution if there's a no vote.
You've missed the point, I fear. Cameron DOES NOT WANT Scottish independence. He also does not want devolution max, or, in fact, any more power to go to the Scots. Why would he do what you suggested in your last sentence? He doesn't want to 'figure out devolution' upon the no vote for independence. He wants to say 'Look: I gave you your choice, and you decided you liked the UK, so you'll stay. No more discussion!' I agree that that's undemocratic, as the option he's giving them is not the option they want, but that's what he wants to do.

(Original post by Midlander)
England has no devolution whatsoever but we don't go demanding independence.
This is a blatant logical fallacy. England devolving power from... Westminster, England? We have defeated referenda on devolution for a North Eastern Assembly (quite overwhelmingly, in fact). Your post is just moronic, I must be brutally honest, and it's also off topic.

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
None of the public consultations showed a desire for devo max. Nobody even knows what devo max is. If we're running a deficit as it is then is like to see how devo max is going to plug that shortfall. It's also not really feasible for 5 million people out of a population of 65 million to start deciding what they will and won't pay for when the majority of public spending is on universal issues such as health, education, welfare and pensions.
Why does it matter whether or not Scots know what Devolution Max is? All that matters is that they generally want more power from Westminster without becoming totally independent. In other words, they want devolution max, but they don't know how to phrase what they want. You then get muddled and confused about debt and shortfalls, which is frankly irrelevant, and not at all clearly stated by you. Then you start talking about how it's: 'undemocratic for the Scots to decide what should happen to their country' and justify this with a completely irrelevant tangent about paying for pensions and welfare. It's clearly democratic for the Scots to decide what should happen to Scotland, because if you involved England then I guarantee that Scotland would be forced to stay in the UK, as you have 48 million people who mostly want Scotland to stay against 5 million people who want devolution max. In the hypothetical situation that we have a devo max referendum, and England is involved, it could be 5 million YES against 48 million NO- the whole of Scotland want it, but they have been checked by England- obviously undemocratic. It's right to not involve England at all, of course.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4178
Report 5 years ago
#4178
(Original post by Parliament)
You've missed the point, I fear. Cameron DOES NOT WANT Scottish independence. He also does not want devolution max, or, in fact, any more power to go to the Scots. Why would he do what you suggested in your last sentence? He doesn't want to 'figure out devolution' upon the no vote for independence. He wants to say 'Look: I gave you your choice, and you decided you liked the UK, so you'll stay. No more discussion!' I agree that that's undemocratic, as the option he's giving them is not the option they want, but that's what he wants to do.



This is a blatant logical fallacy. England devolving power from... Westminster, England? We have defeated referenda on devolution for a North Eastern Assembly (quite overwhelmingly, in fact). Your post is just moronic, I must be brutally honest, and it's also off topic.



Why does it matter whether or not Scots know what Devolution Max is? All that matters is that they generally want more power from Westminster without becoming totally independent. In other words, they want devolution max, but they don't know how to phrase what they want. You then get muddled and confused about debt and shortfalls, which is frankly irrelevant, and not at all clearly stated by you. Then you start talking about how it's: 'undemocratic for the Scots to decide what should happen to their country' and justify this with a completely irrelevant tangent about paying for pensions and welfare. It's clearly democratic for the Scots to decide what should happen to Scotland, because if you involved England then I guarantee that Scotland would be forced to stay in the UK, as you have 48 million people who mostly want Scotland to stay against 5 million people who want devolution max. In the hypothetical situation that we have a devo max referendum, and England is involved, it could be 5 million YES against 48 million NO- the whole of Scotland want it, but they have been checked by England- obviously undemocratic. It's right to not involve England at all, of course.
I'd expect someone with your user name to understand that Westminster is the UK parliament, from which Scotland takes its devolved powers, not England's parliament. England has no devolved powers at all, and has rejected them.

I'm pretty sure the English collectively probably think that devolution has gone far enough and further devolution would be a step too far and, if the Scots are given another referendum on devo max (whatever it is supposed to mean), the English might well start to demand a say in whether such powers are to be devolved.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4179
Report 5 years ago
#4179
(Original post by Parliament)
This is a blatant logical fallacy. England devolving power from... Westminster, England? We have defeated referenda on devolution for a North Eastern Assembly (quite overwhelmingly, in fact). Your post is just moronic, I must be brutally honest, and it's also off topic.

Garbage. The seat of the UK Parliament has to be placed somewhere in the UK and it just so happens to be the biggest city in the country. This doesn't mean that England has devolved powers-it has no government specifically set up to run its affairs like the other three constituents. Scottish MPs wouldn't have been allowed to approve the tuition fee hikes otherwise.


Why does it matter whether or not Scots know what Devolution Max is? All that matters is that they generally want more power from Westminster without becoming totally independent. In other words, they want devolution max, but they don't know how to phrase what they want. You then get muddled and confused about debt and shortfalls, which is frankly irrelevant, and not at all clearly stated by you. Then you start talking about how it's: 'undemocratic for the Scots to decide what should happen to their country' and justify this with a completely irrelevant tangent about paying for pensions and welfare. It's clearly democratic for the Scots to decide what should happen to Scotland, because if you involved England then I guarantee that Scotland would be forced to stay in the UK, as you have 48 million people who mostly want Scotland to stay against 5 million people who want devolution max. In the hypothetical situation that we have a devo max referendum, and England is involved, it could be 5 million YES against 48 million NO- the whole of Scotland want it, but they have been checked by England- obviously undemocratic. It's right to not involve England at all, of course.
You are mistaken-until Salmond came along the vast majority of English people would have been indifferent to Scottish independence and after all of the jingoistic nonsense from the Yes campaigners, quite a few would vote in favour just to get rid of these chip on shoulder folk from north of the border.

Your post reeks of someone who assumes everyone in England to think like a Home Counties toff, and not like the majority who are no different to the average Scot (and Scottish toffs most certainly do exist).
1
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4180
Report 5 years ago
#4180
(Original post by Good bloke)
I'd expect someone with your user name to understand that Westminster is the UK parliament, from which Scotland takes its devolved powers, not England's parliament. England has no devolved powers at all, and has rejected them.

I'm pretty sure the English collectively probably think that devolution has gone far enough and further devolution would be a step too far and, if the Scots are given another referendum on devo max (whatever it is supposed to mean), the English might well start to demand a say in whether such powers are to be devolved.
Exactly-the NHS, education, and how to spend the budget are all put in the Scottish Government's hands. Not to mention the cushy Barnett formula giving Scots more than other regions.
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 (139)
17.77%
It's just nice to be back! (211)
26.98%
Not great so far... (281)
35.93%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.31%

Watched Threads

View All