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.
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4861
Report 5 years ago
#4861
(Original post by Choo.choo)
I should add that it will take less time to pay down a deficit of £7billion, than a deficit of £121 billion. The power of independence lies in being able to make decisions to grow the economy, in other words, plugging holes in over spending.
No it won't, when your national economy then shrinks to about 8% of the size.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4862
Report 5 years ago
#4862
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp? The Barnett formula is used to calculate Scotland's budget for spending. The Scottish Government make decisions on how to spend the block grant they get from Westminster.
Both are facts. Neither of which makes any difference to the fact that your statement - "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament" - was entirely false. When are you going to admit that?

I've now asked you, what, four times? If you cannot admit a clearly wrong statement is wrong, why on earth should anyone trust you to yield to any other facts?
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4863
Report 5 years ago
#4863
(Original post by L i b)

That is EU law. If you don't agree with it, you can't be in the EU.
Show me where it says that the Scottish Government are discriminating against students on tuition fees. That is the case right now. Scottish students, who live and work in Scotland, get tuition free. Those who don't live and work here have to pay. Scotland is in the EU just now. Why is it not discriminatory right now, but will be if Scotland becomes an independent country?
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4864
Report 5 years ago
#4864
(Original post by L i b)
Both are facts. Neither of which makes any difference to the fact that your statement - "Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament" - was entirely false. When are you going to admit that?

I've now asked you, what, four times? If you cannot admit a clearly wrong statement is wrong, why on earth should anyone trust you to yield to any other facts?
It is fact that spending is higher north of the border than in England, because devolved powers are protecting Scotland from assets which the UK Government could privatise. The UK Government are already pressing ahead with privatisation of the NHS south of the border, but it is still in public hands in Scotland. Because the NHS has not been privatised in Scotland, as just one example, public spending is higher.
0
CFL2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4865
Report 5 years ago
#4865
I don't really care if Scotland stays or goes from the Union, but as an English person working in the North Sea, it always amuses me when the anti-Union boys try and shoe-horn O&G revenues into their budget projections. However, they never seem to take into account the fact that by about 2030 decommissioning liabilities for all the infrastructure will be greater than the projected revenues from the fields. So I guess they'll be wanting to come back about then.


Still, Braveheart, nasty Tories, freeeedom etc etc............
1
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4866
Report 5 years ago
#4866
(Original post by Choo.choo)
It is fact that spending is higher north of the border than in England, because devolved powers are protecting Scotland from assets which the UK Government could privatise.
Assets are not matters of public spending. Assets are fixed items. Presumably if an asset is sold, it actually provides more public money to spend in a given year.

Anyway, none of this changes the wrongness of the assertion that the Scottish Government has control over the public spending limits in Scotland. It does not.

The UK Government are already pressing ahead with privatisation of the NHS south of the border, but it is still in public hands in Scotland. Because the NHS has not been privatised in Scotland, as just one example, public spending is higher.
Firstly, you've opened up health policy here - I really don't think that's another angle we should go down. In reality, the NHS has always had a huge private provision. The vast majority of NHS contact - whether through a GP, a pharmacy, a free eye test, a dental check-up or anything else - is provided by a private contractor. The average person can go decades of normal contact with the NHS, without ever touching any non-private part of the service.

Use of the private sector is growing in the Scottish NHS. According to NHS Scotland's own figures, its use increased by 60% in the last year - a figure widely reported in the newspapers in June.

The UK Government is not reducing expenditure to use private sector services (although that would seem to be an admission from you that you believe them to be substantially cheaper) - but in fact increasing the amount spent on the NHS year-on-year. This suggestion that the NHS in England is being cut is simply wrong.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4867
Report 5 years ago
#4867
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Show me where it says that the Scottish Government are discriminating against students on tuition fees. That is the case right now. Scottish students, who live and work in Scotland, get tuition free. Those who don't live and work here have to pay. Scotland is in the EU just now. Why is it not discriminatory right now, but will be if Scotland becomes an independent country?
I've already corrected you on the "live and work" thing. Work has nothing to do with it. What you are stating means if you don't have a job, you don't get free tuition. That's nonsense.

It is not the case right now. Students from other EU countries - right now - get their tuition paid for by the Scottish Government if they come over to study at a Scottish university. Didn't you know that?
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4868
Report 5 years ago
#4868
(Original post by Choo.choo)
It will be free for people "who live and work" in Scotland. I don't see how that is discriminatory. The people "who live and work" in Scotland are only getting a vote in the referendum. Is that discriminatory too?
Voting on a referendum to leave the UK is entirely different to going to university, I am sure you will agree. The very reason it is discriminatory is because the SNP propose to let students from outwith RUK but in the EU in for free as well as Scots-but not those from RUK.

That is quite clearly discriminating specifically against RUK, a fellow EU member, but not others. That is what's wrong with it. Nicola Sturgeon attempted to defend this on geographical grounds which is absurd for the reasons I have already outlined.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4869
Report 5 years ago
#4869
(Original post by Choo.choo)
I should add that it will take less time to pay down a deficit of £7billion, than a deficit of £121 billion. The power of independence lies in being able to make decisions to grow the economy, in other words, plugging holes in over spending.
There's that little thing called proportion you're forgetting.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4870
Report 5 years ago
#4870
(Original post by cowsforsale)
In defiance of EU law?

Note "we believe" (in other words, their interpretations of the law). They could probably have gotten a definite answer had the rUK bothered to get advice from Brussels directly - which Scotland can't.

What's to stop the government from charging everyone but offering bursary to Scottish residents?

Anyway, all of this stuff is pure waffle. The topic is all about the referendum afterall, not about what SNP will or will not apply if they are in power.

:rolleyes: I'm just as confused. I thought all of us kilt-wearing, haggis-eating, Anglophobic thugs would all vote SNP.

By the way, if you do go to Sturgeon's talk, please take a camera with you. It'd be a shame if all of that Anglophobic abuse goes amiss. :rolleyes:

There is no need to seek legal advice when the law is already very clear-you cannot discriminate between EU member states but the SNP intend to do otherwise. If fees were charged across the board it would detract EU students from coming-and weaken Scottish institutions accordingly.

How come what's in the white paper is waffle just because it doesn't suit your cause to support bigoted education policies? It is all a part of 'Scotland's future' and so has to be factored in when deciding on which way to vote-which is the end purpose of the document.

People have claimed so many times that Scottish voters are more liberally minded, and that the Tories have no presence. The Holyrood elections showed quite the opposite.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4871
Report 5 years ago
#4871
(Original post by Midlander)
There is no need to seek legal advice when the law is already very clear-you cannot discriminate between EU member states but the SNP intend to do otherwise. If fees were charged across the board it would detract EU students from coming-and weaken Scottish institutions accordingly.
Which would be a valid arguement were iScotland a nation in the EU...
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4872
Report 5 years ago
#4872
(Original post by Quady)
Which would be a valid arguement were iScotland a nation in the EU...
And the government fully intends to be an EU member. If they want to renege on that and go solo, by all means they can charge what the hell they want.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4873
Report 5 years ago
#4873
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Scottish students, who live and work in Scotland, get tuition free. Those who don't live and work here have to pay. Scotland is in the EU just now.
I'm not clear why you think work is relevant to student fees; it isn't.

You don't seem to grasp the situation, so I'll explain it accurately and clearly.

Currently, the Scottish government offers free tuition to Scots and all other EU citizens except those from elsewhere in the UK. It is allowed to do this only because discrimination against your own citizens is not illegal under EU law (which insists all countries have to offer the same deal to EU citizens that they offer to their own).

Post-independence, it would be illegal for Scotland (if it were in the EU) not to offer the same deal to UK students. However, this is exactly what the SNP proposes to do. They will lose the very first test case and incur big fines.
1
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4874
Report 5 years ago
#4874
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Spending is higher north of the border because of protection of the NHS and so on from devolved powers in the Scottish parliament. South of the border, the UK government are privatising everything. So yes, I agree with you that spending is higher for a reason. Independence will protect Scotland from the outrageous actions of the UK Government.
Not quite true though is it.

Many of those services that you're saying are being privatised are devolved issues. NHS England for example is outsourcing, not privatising, many deliverables. That's just a way of making money go farther.
0
cowsforsale
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4875
Report 5 years ago
#4875
(Original post by Midlander)
There is no need to seek legal advice when the law is already very clear-you cannot discriminate between EU member states but the SNP intend to do otherwise.
You can see into the future...?

"Scotland's education secretary, Mike Russell, is also seeking to close the loophole that sees nearly 16,000 EU students attend Scottish education establishments, costing the taxpayer £75m a year. It is, he said, a funding loophole that is "no longer tenable"." - Link

If fees were charged across the board it would detract EU students from coming-and weaken Scottish institutions accordingly.
Right because fees have put off rUK students thus far?

How come what's in the white paper is waffle just because it doesn't suit your cause to support bigoted education policies?
You're calling me out for bias? Pot, kettle..

It is all a part of 'Scotland's future' and so has to be factored in when deciding on which way to vote-which is the end purpose of the document.
Actually, the referendum will be won or lost by who gives a clearer account of what the economy will be like in an independent Scotland in my opinion. All of the big hitters from the Better Together campaign know Scotland can go it alone.. Plus, where is the document from BT to suggest what things will be like in the event of no?

The exact details should be clearer once the referendum is done and some of the more important issues (EU negotiations, currency etc..) are solved then imo.
1
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4876
Report 5 years ago
#4876
(Original post by cowsforsale)
You can see into the future...?

"Scotland's education secretary, Mike Russell, is also seeking to close the loophole that sees nearly 16,000 EU students attend Scottish education establishments, costing the taxpayer £75m a year. It is, he said, a funding loophole that is "no longer tenable"." - Link

Right because fees have put off rUK students thus far?

You're calling me out for bias? Pot, kettle..

Actually, the referendum will be won or lost by who gives a clearer account of what the economy will be like in an independent Scotland in my opinion. All of the big hitters from the Better Together campaign know Scotland can go it alone.. Plus, where is the document from BT to suggest what things will be like in the event of no?

The exact details should be clearer once the referendum is done and some of the more important issues (EU negotiations, currency etc..) are solved then imo.
Fees for RUK students were lower in Scotland than elsewhere until Scottish institutions got the go ahead to charge £9k recently-considering that it is a long way to go for the majority of RUK applicants it's not an unreasonable consideration. If Mike Russell wants to openly break EU law then he is of course welcome to try-and I'd be interested to see Scotland's chances of joining the EU having publicly stated an intention to defy legislation.

There is a very simple reason as to why BT can't give one white paper on post-referendum prospects. That being that the campaign is cross party, whereas the Yes campaign is almost solely being spearheaded by the SNP, which allows their white paper to double up as an election manifesto. The major political parties behind BT will have different visions for how they wish to govern the UK and so don't have the same liberties.

The SNP vision has gaping holes in it where there should be concrete assurances. It is not acceptable to leave matters such as currency to be decided after the referendum.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4877
Report 5 years ago
#4877
(Original post by cowsforsale)
You can see into the future...?

"Scotland's education secretary, Mike Russell, is also seeking to close the loophole that sees nearly 16,000 EU students attend Scottish education establishments, costing the taxpayer £75m a year. It is, he said, a funding loophole that is "no longer tenable"." - Link



Right because fees have put off rUK students thus far?



You're calling me out for bias? Pot, kettle..



Actually, the referendum will be won or lost by who gives a clearer account of what the economy will be like in an independent Scotland in my opinion. All of the big hitters from the Better Together campaign know Scotland can go it alone.. Plus, where is the document from BT to suggest what things will be like in the event of no?

The exact details should be clearer once the referendum is done and some of the more important issues (EU negotiations, currency etc..) are solved then imo.
Here's a document from the SNP that will tell us what the future will be like. They SNP are being very coy about what the real future will entail.

http://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee0..._u9m6vd74f.pdf
0
cowsforsale
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4878
Report 5 years ago
#4878
Since we are being critical about SNP's treatment towards rUK students, what do we make of this?

Scottish lives considered cheap by UK defence bosses

The Ministry of Defence says that the nuclear submarines currently housed on the Clyde could not be moved to the Devonport base in Plymouth because an accident there would endanger too many lives.

Responding to a Freedom of Information request from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the MoD said: “Neither the Devonport naval base nor the dockyard safety case permit the berthing of an armed submarine.”

At least 11,000 Plymouth citizens could be killed in a worst-accident scenario envisaged by the MoD, and that is deemed an unacceptable risk.

Why then does the MoD insist it’s fine to keep these killers anchored just 40 miles from Scotland’s biggest city and centre of population? Put starkly, Scots lives are worth less. Back in 2000 the MoD envisaged a hypothetical accident involving Trident in Faslane. It concluded “societal contamination” resulting from such a disaster was OK.
MoD 'places' its toxic tank shells in Solway Firth

The Ministry of Defence has been evading an international ban on dumping radioactive waste at sea by redefining thousands of uranium weapons fired in the Solway Firth as "placements".
0
cowsforsale
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4879
Report 5 years ago
#4879
(Original post by Midlander)
There is a very simple reason as to why BT can't give one white paper on post-referendum prospects.
What can't hurt BT's cause is a debate between David Cameron and Alex Salmond - afterall DC is still representing the 5.3m in Scotland.
The public want it, yet he refuses, calling it an issue for "Scots to decide". So why use your New Year's message to convince Scots to vote no, Dave?

The SNP vision has gaping holes in it where there should be concrete assurances. It is not acceptable to leave matters such as currency to be decided after the referendum.
Quick question, do you have a definitive answer to what your life will be like a year on from now?

Now consider what you're expecting the SNP to do, but for 5.3 million people.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4880
Report 5 years ago
#4880
(Original post by cowsforsale)
Since we are being critical about SNP's treatment towards rUK students, what do we make of this?

Scottish lives considered cheap by UK defence bosses



MoD 'places' its toxic tank shells in Solway Firth
Your first post is sensationalist journalism at its worst. There are strict guidelines relating to the storage of ammunition. The story was related to the storage of trident missiles, not war heads. An idea had been banded around about storing the missiles at Devonport, but there was concern about storing sixty odd rockets each with several tonnes of rocket fuel next to a housing estate. Its the same reason why no houses are built next door to Grangemouth. A required safety distance is required between something that goes bang and houses. Coulport doesn't have that problem as the houses in the vicinity of the compex are the required distance away.

As for Di rounds. DU rounds aren't toxic in solid form. Its when they're fired and hit a solid target like a tank that there is a belief that the impact of the round creates uranium oxide which is believed to be harmful. Those rounds are at the bottom of the sea and would involve a huge salvage effort at great cost for no benefit.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199117/kcb_dusurvey_marine_report_pt2_2 011.pdf

I thought the yes campaign was trying to be positive. So far you're throwing fear stories and perceived persecution.
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 (55)
67.9%
No I haven't decided yet (17)
20.99%
Yes but I might change my mind (9)
11.11%

Watched Threads

View All