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:
?
#4361
Report 5 years ago
#4361
(Original post by Kattt_452)
You've studiously read the 670 pages already? You are a clever lot!
There's nothing new in there. I'm going through. Fortunately they've used big font so its not as daunting as it seems. But as I say, there's nothing new in there so far. It is however lacking a significant punt if detail.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4362
Report 5 years ago
#4362
(Original post by Kattt_452)
oppressed by the ongoing control of Westminister, though I know you'll deny that of course.
But there is not yet anything to explain how they wouldn't be oppressed by Hollyrood.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4363
Report 5 years ago
#4363
[QUOTE=FinalMH;45320733]So emotional language is a nationalistic trait now? " I hope that the Scottish people take that leap of faith next year - otherwise I would seriously struggle to continue living in this country thereafter." What happens if you're wrong? and you make it even worst then it already is? Will that be fine because of the leap of faith you took? What matters more? For one thing you will be losing money because of the lost income of the rebate. (Yeah no country in the EU is giving Scotland any extra money)[/QUOTE]

In a book which took a neutral stance on Scottish independence 'Scotlands Choices' by Iain McLean.

"The UK rebate is unpopular with other member states, as it was negotiated at a time when the UK was relatively poorer than it is now. It is unlikely that any rebate would be offered to an independent Scotland, but it might not be needed, as Scotland might do relatively better than the UK from agricultural subsidies"
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4364
Report 5 years ago
#4364
(Original post by Kattt_452)
Yep, that's because Better Together is basically "what we have now". Who's convinced?
Compared to the 15 years of transition costs its pretty appealing.

Basically it depends how well you're doing currently, if you in a ****ty place then blame 'Westminister' for your problems and vote yes. People doing alright will vote to keep the status quo.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4365
Report 5 years ago
#4365
(Original post by Kattt_452)
Garbage-anyone who questions the SNP's promises is called a scaremongerer who is belittling Scotland. They are actually doing the opposite-Alex Salmond is selling the Scots a false vision and somebody has to scrutinise it so they don't make a dreadful mistake.

Not true. Perhaps you aren't a 'scaremongerer' - but I do think that many people in England are too far removed from the situation to understand and see what is really going on up here. I would say that lots of people are scaremongerers - I certainly wouldn't say all are. I don't think any politician has ever produced a perfected vision that they followed through on on all accounts. But the SNP have made some promises that they have followed through on so far, and that inspires some confidence.

You're sick of reading about it, I'm sick of experiencing it. Westminster don't run NHS Scotland, they don't dictate the Scottish curriculum and Scotland enjoys more money spent per head on it than other constituents courtesy of the Barnett formula. The Scottish Government enjoys a wealth of autonomy it makes little use of because for now, it doesn't strengthen their agenda to do so.

A strong criticism of Westminister government does not translate to anglophobia. Please don't make that mistake.

Just because the current government does things you disagree with that is no reason at all just to up and leave-that's outright fickle. It doesn't matter, for example, that the present Westminster set-up allowed Scottish MPs to approve tuition fee hikes in England.

Just because? Just? Are you telling me it's okay to brutally murder innocent people and then think it's okay to be 'fickle' when desiring to be set apart from such an inhumane action? It it far from fickle. Peoples lives are far more important than some of the more shallow concerns people have, like "oh no, will we still have a Team GB?!" like was in the BBC News today.


Do you know what else is absurd? Slapping a one-size-fits-all label on Scots by saying the entire SNP campaign is about anglophobia. We are thousands of people with different desires for what we would like to see in an independent country. I'm not saying you have champagne glasses. But I am suggesting that you perhaps haven't experienced/empathised with a level of inequality that would allow you to understand why true change becomes imperative.

Um, well the English screwed us over repeatedly in the past - it isn't a lie made up by Yes campaigners. King Henry VII and several others used to tell Scotland 'Do this or what we'll show you want happens when you don't agree with us". The last thing a referendum would produce is having "everything the same" - you are right in saying there are a few similarities and I think Salmond has put those forward (like keeping the Monarch for example) so he doesn't scare everyone at once.

I'm not quite sure I understand why you'd feel like a foreigner? I heard Alistair Carmichael saying something to that effect the other day "If Scotland becomes a foreign country, we'll treat it like one." Honestly, what the...

Look, Midlander, when it comes down to it Westminister is a mess, a mess that is adversely affecting both Scotland and England. We want the chance to break free and for me at least, that is not rooted in any kind of dislike of English people or annoyances about the past. I am very much interested in the present and future; I just wish some people could be more open-minded about the reasons why we have felt the need to take this step.
Lots of 'its Westminsters fault. No mention of Holyroods rather not insignificant mistakes.

Which illegal wars are you talking about?

Iraq? Check out who went along.
Afghanistan? Check out who's involved there.
Libya? Check out who was involved in that one.

You'll be pleased to know that every nation Alex has told us we can be like has been there. Norway has been involved in all three in a rather active position.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4366
Report 5 years ago
#4366
(Original post by Kattt_452)
Hardly emotive language. I'm not "oppressed" at this moment in time but I know what it's like to struggle. I have also worked closely with people in this country who have struggled and who are still struggling. They are oppressed by the ongoing control of Westminister, though I know you'll deny that of course.

I don't thrive on negativity. I thrive on optimism. I have been raised by people who are in the SNP (now, though the majority were in the Labour party until a few years back) and in that time have learned what it is to keep striving for a better, more equal future. I have always been encouraged to believe in the sky being the limit (so negative, hey?). We don't need to 'try and portray ourselves' as victims in Scotland because we are victims to a large extent. There I said it. In varying degrees, maybe, but if you want to use a blanket term we are still a victim of Westminister. And we won't break free from that until we get a 'yes' vote and are able to look forward to a more hopeful future.
You thrive on conspiracies about the Westminster government being out to victimise Scotland-just swap Cameron for Longshanks and we're back in that well known Mel Gibson film. I am sick of divisive rhetoric, I am sick of these accusations being levelled at my country-what I want is for us to do what we have been doing for the last 300 years, which is putting aside our historical differences to make this island strong.

You are not oppressed by Westminster and nor is anybody posting here. It does an injustice to those in other parts of the world to claim as such.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4367
Report 5 years ago
#4367
(Original post by Kattt_452)
the English screwed us over repeatedly in the past - it isn't a lie made up by Yes campaigners. King Henry VII and several others used to tell Scotland 'Do this or what we'll show you want happens when you don't agree with us".
Eh? Scotland was an independent country when Henry VII was on the throne, and was treated by England pretty well as England treated any other foreign country. It was after this, during the reign of Henry VIII, that James IV decided to invade England, which I think you'll agree is doing a bit more than screwing England over. Unfortunately for him, James came to a sticky end at Flodden.

What happened 500 years ago is irrelevant.
0
Kattt_452
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4368
Report 5 years ago
#4368
(Original post by Midlander)
It's all this talk about England and Scotland that has me talking about Anglophobia. There is never, and I mean never, talk about 'well what do I have in common with someone from south Wales' or 'Scotland brings more in per head than Northern Ireland'. It is always emphasising cultural differences with South East England, complaining about being ruled by London, that makes me apply the Anglophobic label. You know what? Just because times are hard now doesn't mean they always will be. Just because the Tories are in now doesn't mean they always will be.

People will always have to contend with things they don't like-huge numbers after all didn't vote for an SNP government at Holyrood.
Well that's true, but you can hardly pin that on the Scots. Do you often find yourself pondering the question of what you have in common with someone from South Wales, for example?

It doesn't mean they always will be, but they have been for a long time and there's no indication that the situation will improve any time soon. It's not just the Tories - Blair was a nightmare as well. And to be honest we had Thatcher and now we have Cameron, so it's becoming a trend. Heck, if Labour were even to get there act together again there might be hope on their side again (someday...). But we want to act on what we have known for a long time and what we know now. I have a friend who is in the Labour party but working for the Yes campaign - he sees an independent Scotland as the best way forward, but hopes Labour will get into power again later. The only way that is going to happen though is they turn themselves around and start producing something people can believe in/is worthwhile.

No, they won't always have to contend. Why should they? The French revolution happened because normal people were sick of a ridiculously wealthy royal family ruling over them and that was the end of that. So what I mean is that people shouldn't have to just contend with things - everyone should have a better chance at shaping the country than simply having to put up with things.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4369
Report 5 years ago
#4369
(Original post by Quady)
Reality doesn't need to be 'haha Salond is in fantasy-land with made up numbers' it should be a positive articulation of how the people of Scotland are 'better together'. How the UK is big enough to absorb a financial collapse without going bankrupt, how the buying power of the NHS reduces expenditure per head, how a single tax code reduces admin between the two countries, how bloody awesome the BBC regional coverage is, how the UK can provide effective aid in humanitarian disasters, how a joined up boarder/intelligence force for the island is helpful.

Fantasy or not, the Yes campaign is a positive movement - it can't be anything else, but Better Together are failing to present their arguments as a positive vision for Scotland.
Alistair Darling was hardly an inspirational choice for a figurehead to be honest. Gordon Brown would have been far better, as his speeches on independence show.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4370
Report 5 years ago
#4370
(Original post by Midlander)
Alistair Darling was hardly an inspirational choice for a figurehead to be honest. Gordon Brown would have been far better, as his speeches on independence show.
I think Darling was a good choice. I'd say probably one if the better Chancellors we've had. Ignoring the s**t storm he had to deal with, his handling of it, although with 20 20 hindsight could've been handled better, did quite a good job at avoiding a complete economic breakdown.


You also need to remember that Salmond won't debate with him.

Anybody seen in the news what our favourite Edinburgh based bank has been doing? Of course, even though Salmond supported them in the good times, his disciples will argue that it would never have happened.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4371
Report 5 years ago
#4371
(Original post by Kattt_452)
Well that's true, but you can hardly pin that on the Scots. Do you often find yourself pondering the question of what you have in common with someone from South Wales, for example?

It doesn't mean they always will be, but they have been for a long time and there's no indication that the situation will improve any time soon. It's not just the Tories - Blair was a nightmare as well. And to be honest we had Thatcher and now we have Cameron, so it's becoming a trend. Heck, if Labour were even to get there act together again there might be hope on their side again (someday...). But we want to act on what we have known for a long time and what we know now. I have a friend who is in the Labour party but working for the Yes campaign - he sees an independent Scotland as the best way forward, but hopes Labour will get into power again later. The only way that is going to happen though is they turn themselves around and start producing something people can believe in/is worthwhile.

No, they won't always have to contend. Why should they? The French revolution happened because normal people were sick of a ridiculously wealthy royal family ruling over them and that was the end of that. So what I mean is that people shouldn't have to just contend with things - everyone should have a better chance at shaping the country than simply having to put up with things.
My roots in the Midlands aren't at all far from Wales, but it's probably university where I've thought about this the most, with decent numbers from both places. More so with the Northern Irish-they are the ones who genuinely have suffered the most for staying in the union and if anybody should be getting independence, it should be them. They after all have had British soldiers on their soil in military occupation-things in Scotland have never been that bad. It's not acceptable to say 'well the Scots aren't to blame'-you are displaying the same arrogance you accuse Westminster of when you exclude them from any talk of independence.

We had three straight terms under Blair in between Major and Cameron-so it's hardly a trend. The unpleasant reality for you is that when the UK has prospered, so has Scotland-this goes back to the days of Empire and as recently as the boom years under Blair. All parts now are struggling, not just Scotland, and there is precious little the SNP can do about that when the country runs at a deficit of billions even with their calculation of oil income. You complain about illegal wars yet building ships for the navy has kept thousands on the Clyde in employment.

You can try and portray the UK has some evil entity which Scotland needs to get shot of for its own good, but, even as an Englishman, I will be voting no because I genuinely think Scotland already has it quite good.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4372
Report 5 years ago
#4372
(Original post by Kattt_452)
The French revolution happened because normal people were sick of a ridiculously wealthy royal family ruling over them and that was the end of that. So what I mean is that people shouldn't have to just contend with things - everyone should have a better chance at shaping the country than simply having to put up with things.
What planet do you people live on? You're now likening this to the French Revolution.

People can shape their future, but I tend to find that its best to shape it by not destroying it. Its also a good idea to start off with a sense if reality to begin with. The SNP just seem to be shouting the same crap that labour were spouting in the 70s. Guess what. It does not work.
0
Kattt_452
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4373
Report 5 years ago
#4373
(Original post by Good bloke)
Eh? Scotland was an independent country when Henry VII was on the throne, and was treated by England pretty well as England treated any other foreign country. It was after this, during the reign of Henry VIII, that James IV decided to invade England, which I think you'll agree is doing a bit more than screwing England over. Unfortunately for him, James came to a sticky end at Flodden.

What happened 500 years ago is irrelevant.
According to historical evidence, Henry hated his Scottish cousin and seemed to constantly have his neck on a metaphorical noose by saying all would be fine (and no heads would be cut off) just as long as he continued to agree with him. His daughter Elizabeth then went on to kill Mary Queen of Scots.

Anyway I wasn't saying it was relevant. But Midlander seemed to be suggesting oppression of any kind from the English > Scottish was all fallacy when it's fact. It happened, whether it's relevant or not is another matter.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4374
Report 5 years ago
#4374
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I think Darling was a good choice. I'd say probably one if the better Chancellors we've had. Ignoring the s**t storm he had to deal with, his handling of it, although with 20 20 hindsight could've been handled better, did quite a good job at avoiding a complete economic breakdown.

Anybody seen in the news what our favourite Edinburgh based bank has been doing? Of course, even though Salmond supported them in the good times, his disciples will argue that it would never have happened.
He sums up the Better Together campaign-too passive, too reserved in expression of its argument in favour of remaining in the union. I deplore what the Yes campaign stands for but it is far more likely to win over a neutral at this moment in time. It's too late to replace Darling now but I would get Brown more into the fold pronto.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4375
Report 5 years ago
#4375
(Original post by Kattt_452)
According to historical evidence, Henry hated his Scottish cousin and seemed to constantly have his neck on a metaphorical noose by saying all would be fine (and no heads would be cut off) just as long as he continued to agree with him. His daughter Elizabeth then went on to kill Mary Queen of Scots.

Anyway I wasn't saying it was relevant. But Midlander seemed to be suggesting oppression of any kind from the English > Scottish was all fallacy when it's fact. It happened, whether it's relevant or not is another matter.
I did mean modern day oppression-that should have been obvious.
0
Kattt_452
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4376
Report 5 years ago
#4376
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
What planet do you people live on? You're now likening this to the French Revolution.

People can shape their future, but I tend to find that its best to shape it by not destroying it. Its also a good idea to start off with a sense if reality to begin with. The SNP just seem to be shouting the same crap that labour were spouting in the 70s. Guess what. It does not work.
I didn't mean to liken it directly. I just meant that systems that have long been in place can be disbanded and replaced with something more equal according to the people. People should not have to put up and shut up.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4377
Report 5 years ago
#4377
(Original post by Midlander)
He sums up the Better Together campaign-too passive, too reserved in expression of its argument in favour of remaining in the union. I deplore what the Yes campaign stands for but it is far more likely to win over a neutral at this moment in time. It's too late to replace Darling now but I would get Brown more into the fold pronto.
Passive is good. Firebrands have a habit of stirring uup minorities.
0
Kj91
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4378
Report 5 years ago
#4378
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I think Darling was a good choice. I'd say probably one if the better Chancellors we've had. Ignoring the s**t storm he had to deal with, his handling of it, although with 20 20 hindsight could've been handled better, did quite a good job at avoiding a complete economic breakdown.


You also need to remember that Salmond won't debate with him.

.
Alex Salmond will debate Darling.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...end.1382027965
2
Minnie21
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4379
Report 5 years ago
#4379
Change is good. Will make things interesting.


Not looking forward to hearing this line: ''England have not had a Wimbledon winner in 75 years''
1
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4380
Report 5 years ago
#4380
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Passive is good. Firebrands have a habit of stirring uup minorities.
He doesn't need to be a firebrand. He just has to do more than he is now.
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

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (129)
64.82%
No I haven't decided yet (41)
20.6%
Yes but I might change my mind (29)
14.57%

Watched Threads

View All