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:
?
#7701
Report 5 years ago
#7701
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Why are the likes of you responding to my posts then????????

Because the likes of you have been caught lying time and again but have no shame whatsoever.

IF my posts really were "bizarre rants", then there would be no need at all for the likes of you to respond.

The likes of you can no longer take all of the people of Scotland for fools.

If the people of Scotland were believing Better Together's 'facts', the No side would have a massive lead now, not just a 52% share.

The conclusion is, the likes of you can rant as much as you like, the No share is 52%, AND GOING DOWN.

Even MatureStudent36's record has grudgingly moved from 30% to 40%.

Could you answer Stalin's question to you:



If you don't, I will provide him with a reasoned answer!
You're still very shouty aren't you?

This time next week all if your posts will be in block capitals again.

Do you actually believe everything you read on newsnetscotland without question?
0
morethanafeeling
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7702
Report 5 years ago
#7702
(Original post by abbii)
They want our money, we want their oil. And even if that weren't the case, no-one would do anything because they don't want the hassle of something with a distinct chance of turning into a civil war.
The incredibly narrow minded and untrue view painted by the Scottish leader. Brilliant.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7703
Report 5 years ago
#7703
(Original post by L i b)
It's a bit like staying a sheep is a cow, being questioned on it, and responding with a lengthy and boring tirade about how you get white cows sometimes, and that this very woolly cow happens to be white.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
By definition, that WAS a BIZARRE RANT.

(Original post by euphful)
It seems pretty reasonable to me, and doesn't rely on unnecessary capitalisation to get a point across...
Ok, I will leave you 'reasonable', 'rational' anti-Scottish Independence posters to carry on the debate among yourselves.

The reasoning that 52% is just under 2/3rds (67%) is beyond me!

I'll have to become Johann Lamont's student for understanding such wonderful reasoning!
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7704
Report 5 years ago
#7704
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Ok, I will leave you 'reasonable', 'rational' anti-Scottish Independence posters to carry on the debate among yourselves.

The reasoning that 52% is just under 2/3rds (67%) is beyond me!

I'll have to become Johann Lamont's student for understanding such wonderful reasoning!
Can I just say I'm not anti-independence at all. I fully support the principles of self-determination and I don't doubt that Scotland would be fine if it did go independent.

What I am against is the distortion of fact and reality by the SNP in a desperate attempt to win. I genuinely think they'd have decent chance of a 'yes' vote if they were open and honest on issues like the EU, currency union, NATO and such like. As it is, they expect people to believe that Scotland will be able to dictate terms to the rest of the world, which just won't happen.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7705
Report 5 years ago
#7705
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Ok, I will leave you 'reasonable', 'rational' anti-Scottish Independence posters to carry on the debate among yourselves.

The reasoning that 52% is just under 2/3rds (67%) is beyond me!

I'll have to become Johann Lamont's student for understanding such wonderful reasoning!
Have you always been so angry?

Any comment on this?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-...itics-26520067
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7706
Report 5 years ago
#7706
(Original post by Stalin)
In this day and age it's almost impossible to avoid getting into debt as a new country.
Not really, assuming you've got initial assets. I thought the whole idea where was getting out of debt?

Later you talk about the IMF. Now, I don't know if the IMF would lend under such conditions. After all, Scotland's status and problems would be primarily of their own making. The IMF's loans are conditional on specifically set-down remedial action - not only would Scotland have virtually no independence in fiscal policy, the most obvious condition to impose would be to simply take on the national debt on the relatively favourable conditions offered by the UK Government to do so.

Terrorism is a major issue, but being part of NATO isn't going to solve it. In fact, it would appear that Ireland and Switzerland, which aren't NATO member states, are 'safer' than their NATO counterparts, precisely because they have nothing to do with an alliance which many of the Islamic fundamentalists seek to attack.

And I'll level with you: how on earth, in 2014, can the European Union justify blocking Scotland's entry into the EC? We aren't talking about Albania, Turkey or Ukraine, but rather a newly independent country which is currently part of numerous European projects because of its partnership with the rUK.

Not only that, but on a renewable energy level, it would seem ridiculous and downright stupid to leave Scotland in the cold..
The Union doesn't admit new members, the other member-states do. Member-states frequently exclude countries who are seen as behaving improperly.

In terms of things like renewables, trade or Salmond's favourite - fish - it's not significant. The rUK is Scotland's biggest trading partner by a huge margin, and even it wouldn't much care - so try selling the argument of Scotland being somehow an essential member to, say, Slovakia.

But it is the interest of both parties - Scotland and the rUK - to allow Scotland to retain the pound.
In the context of a political union, yes. But the Treasury made many arguments as to why it shouldn't be in a currency union as independent states. The SNP point to their Fiscal Commission Working Group - well, the Treasury's analysis was, to my mind, far more robust.

Believe it or not, the UK Government actually do believe a currency union is not in the rUK interest. So do the people of England. It is a credible and reasonable position to take - not being able to recognise that this is a serious view and hinging hopes on a grand turnaround of opinion will only mean that when reality hits, it hits even harder.

You seem to underestimate Scotland's card: it won't accept its share of the debt.

Besides, it isn't far-fetched to imagine that Scotland would be able to forge strong trade agreements with the rest of the world. For starters, there's the oil and gas, renewable energy, whisky, agriculture, textiles, banking and tourism. And it could always build China and Russia the aircraft carriers they desire.....

Not too shabby for a population of five million people.

On a side note, if Scotland becomes independent will you stay or move south?
Not being able to tax and not having a welfare system might be more problematic than acquiring an extra 8% or so of national debt. While obviously the rUK wants Scotland to pay its debt, it won't cause huge damage to the UK if Scotland doesn't. After all, the departure of an independent Scotland could be said to have some financial advantages to the rest of the UK anyway.

I'm not sure why Russia and China would want their aircraft carriers built in Scotland, or indeed what view the west would take of that.

But we've glossing over the point here: Scotland would be internationally ostracised for behaving in an improper way, at least for a good period of its initial development: when we'd need allies the most. Our credit rating would hit the floor despite our deficit and I doubt it would return to a normal level for decades. All this for a currency union that there a serious case to suggest we don't even want.

I will most likely be moving out of Scotland for a few years regardless of whether there is a yes or no vote. However if Scotland did vote for independence, I doubt I'd be particularly inclined to come back. I would not accept Scottish citizenship and, if granted it, would renounce it.
0
CFL2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7707
Report 5 years ago
#7707
(Original post by Boab)
Your condescending attitude is hardly helped by your argument. Democratic stick huh? Shall we consider the percentage of the electorate that will have even noticed what Darling said, let alone cared?.
It is no handy political stick, just a pathetic attempt by you to justify this confused message. Rocket science? lol

Before the leak the majority of Scots who held an opinion on the matter believed that rUK were lying over the currency union. Since the leak the majority of political commentators I have heard have agreed that it backs up that theory.

So you won't mind if I don't get too upset by your irrelevant opinion will you?
You truly are nuts. Your arguments and logic are all over the place.

I think a lot of the Yes cheerleaders in here are having a few issues with what a currency union actually entails. It essentially involves a common interest rate and a shared money supply, which allows a government and the central bank to control the economy (to an extent). It's not a case that the BoE has a big wedge of notes and is refusing to give an iScotland its share. The physical 'assets' (i.e. traditionally, gold) that Sterling represents WOULD be shared on independence, no-one is disputing that, but Sterling itself is an instrument of the governments monetary control and is not going to be shared. It is in no way in the rUKs interest to do so, and I have yet to see a single reason as to why it would be. All it would bring to the rUK is exposure and risk.

An example as to why it would also be bad for Scotland: following independence, iScotland and rUKs economies diverge. iScotland would have a proportionally large energy and financial sector, both known to be volatile. This could mean the economy needs an interest rate rise to keep inflation down. However, the rUK economy is still fragile and isn't ready for this (as it would mean fewer people spending as the price of credit increased).

So, here you have two governments, two economies and one central bank. What do you do with the interest rate? Because one country is going to get shafted, and it isn't going to be the one with 90% of the population. Sound good for iScotland? It would mean instant tax rises or cutting of public spending to balance the books, or increased borrowing to cover the shortfall.

This is exactly the problem Greece is seeing at the moment. I'm not saying iScotland would 'do a Greece,' but the principle is the same. They desperately need to devalue and restructure (which would allow them to 'inflate' some of their crippling debt away), but they can't because their money supply and interest rate is run in the interests of a much bigger partner economy (in this case, mainly the Germans and their exports). This is why there is mass unemployment, huge tax rises and sod all difference to their budget deficit, apart from what has been unwound and written off.

How some of the Yes campaign can't get their head around why this is a truly terrible idea and will not be happening is absolutely bizarre.

On the issue of 'reneging' on the debt, this is also simply not going to happen. Beside the fact that the international credit markets would absolutely crucify iScotland with punitive interest rates, the rUK would remain iScotlands biggest trading partner and export market (and Scotland is not the rUKs by a long way, whatever Yes may say. It is the Eurozone, and even the States, before Scotland. Maybe we should adopt the Dollar to save 'transaction fees?' ). Starting a trade war with them would be suicidal. There is also the issue that the rUK could easily withhold FX currency and gold reserves, public sector pension annuities, govt bonds/gilts etc to name but a few assets to the debts value.

Now this is not 'anti-independence.' I think Scotland should be allowed to do whatever it wants, the people who live there should decide. But they should be under no illusions; a currency union will not happen, and they will take a proportionate share of the national debt.
2
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7708
Report 5 years ago
#7708
(Original post by Boab)
Presumption presented as fact!

U-turns happen all the time as you well low and I'm sure the rUK has far more pressing issues than a currency union.
Thank you for speaking for the rest of us and telling us what our priorities should be. Thought that's what Scotsmen like yourself were whining about?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7709
Report 5 years ago
#7709
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Ok, I will leave you 'reasonable', 'rational' anti-Scottish Independence posters to carry on the debate among yourselves.

The reasoning that 52% is just under 2/3rds (67%) is beyond me!

I'll have to become Johann Lamont's student for understanding such wonderful reasoning!
MS, please just accept you made a mistake here so this lunatic stops going on about it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7710
Report 5 years ago
#7710
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Why are the likes of you responding to my posts then????????

Because the likes of you have been caught lying time and again but have no shame whatsoever.

IF my posts really were "bizarre rants", then there would be no need at all for the likes of you to respond.

The likes of you can no longer take all of the people of Scotland for fools.

If the people of Scotland were believing Better Together's 'facts', the No side would have a massive lead now, not just a 52% share.

The conclusion is, the likes of you can rant as much as you like, the No share is 52%, AND GOING DOWN.

Even MatureStudent36's record has grudgingly moved from 30% to 40%.

Could you answer Stalin's question to you:



If you don't, I will provide him with a reasoned answer!
There you go trying to 'out' Lib as English.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7711
Report 5 years ago
#7711
(Original post by Midlander)
MS, please just accept you made a mistake here so this lunatic stops going on about it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I made a generalisation. One third this. Two thirds that. Sounds better than one third this, 7/12ths that etc.


Do you think that would stop them?

Maths tutor calls anybody who backs up their arguments with fact a liar.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7712
Report 5 years ago
#7712
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I made a generalisation. One third this. Two thirds that. Sounds better than one third this, 7/12ths that etc.


Do you think that would stop them?

Maths tutor calls anybody who backs up their arguments with fact a liar.
Well you should go with the actual state of affairs and not give him more ammunition. If we convince ourselves things are better than they are we will be in trouble come September.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7713
Report 5 years ago
#7713
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The reasoning that 52% is just under 2/3rds (67%) is beyond me!
Are you still doing this? Asperger's is not an argument for independence.
0
Cryptographic
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7714
Report 5 years ago
#7714
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Why are the likes of you responding to my posts then????????

Because the likes of you have been caught lying time and again but have no shame whatsoever.

IF my posts really were "bizarre rants", then there would be no need at all for the likes of you to respond.

The likes of you can no longer take all of the people of Scotland for fools.

If the people of Scotland were believing Better Together's 'facts', the No side would have a massive lead now, not just a 52% share.

The conclusion is, the likes of you can rant as much as you like, the No share is 52%, AND GOING DOWN.

Even MatureStudent36's record has grudgingly moved from 30% to 40%.

Could you answer Stalin's question to you:



If you don't, I will provide him with a reasoned answer!
They are mad rants. It is like you are trippin' on Nationalist Marajiuna.
0
FinalMH
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7715
Report 5 years ago
#7715
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
In other words, OR ELSE.

A 'fair' settlement WILL include a currency union..
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpre...ncy-nightmare/

If you don't believe Lib (who is backed up by evidence), you should read this article by a professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7716
Report 5 years ago
#7716
(Original post by CFL2013)
There is also the issue that the rUK could easily withhold FX currency and gold reserves, public sector pension annuities, govt bonds/gilts etc to name but a few assets to the debts value.
I agree with your post, but a minor correction: there are no public sector annuity assets to share. Public sector pensions are paid from current taxation by the government on a pay-as-you-go basis and are, therefore, a liability.
1
CFL2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7717
Report 5 years ago
#7717
(Original post by Good bloke)
I agree with your post, but a minor correction: there are no public sector annuity assets to share. Public sector pensions are paid from current taxation by the government on a pay-as-you-go basis and are, therefore, a liability.
A totally fair point, but you could also look at it that Scottish people who have been paying national insurance to the UK for years for won't see the return on that particular investment (should the debt be ignored that is, which it obviously won't). Although you are correct that it is more PAYG in practice.

The major point was that the rUK would hold easily enough assets that should rightly go to iScotland in the case of independence that they could keep if iScotland started acting like some tin-pot backwater on their share of liabilities.

As a quick example, the BoE holds approx 400 billion in gold and currency reserves, 10% of which would be iScotlands in the event of secession. If iScotland refused the debt, rUK would be keeping that straight away. That's approx half their share of the debt cleared already.

I'm sure it stirs the more excitable and ill-informed Nats when Salmond starts all this nonsense, but in practice is would be economic suicide.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7718
Report 5 years ago
#7718
(Original post by CFL2013)
A totally fair point, but you could also look at it that Scottish people who have been paying national insurance to the UK for years for won't see the return on that particular investment (should the debt be ignored that is, which it obviously won't).
You can't look at it like that at all, as there is no such fund. Public pensions just don't work like that.

The only measure that would strike home would be to veto Scotland's membership of NATO, the EU, the EEA and so on. But, as you say, not taking the debt would be a silly move by Scotland as the consequences would be both economic and diplomatic, as well as being long-lasting. I would imagine a lot of British people would boycott Scottish goods and services too. Scotland would not be making a good start in life if it upsets its biggest export market.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7719
Report 5 years ago
#7719
(Original post by Stalin)
But it is the interest of both parties - Scotland and the rUK - to allow Scotland to retain the pound.
It really, really isn't. I can see why Scotland benefits - it avoids the euro, has a lender of last resort and save transaction costs on most of its trade. However, there is no way on earth that the UK, in saving some transaction costs, gets value for money on the risk that it will have to bail out Scotland's banking sector in a crisis.

For starters, the IMF will cover Scotland's debt.
Why? How?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7720
Report 5 years ago
#7720
(Original post by Good bloke)
You can't look at it like that at all, as there is no such fund. Public pensions just don't work like that.

The only measure that would strike home would be to veto Scotland's membership of NATO, the EU, the EEA and so on. But, as you say, not taking the debt would be a silly move by Scotland as the consequences would be both economic and diplomatic, as well as being long-lasting. I would imagine a lot of British people would boycott Scottish goods and services too. Scotland would not be making a good start in life if it upsets its biggest export market.
Sadly not. Salmond appears to think he's negotiating from a position of strength. He believes his own rhetoric.

This would end up like most messy divorces. No winners other than the lawyers.
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

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (26)
7.07%
They might tell the bully (35)
9.51%
I don't think they'd understand (56)
15.22%
It might lead to more bullying (143)
38.86%
There's nothing they could do (108)
29.35%

Watched Threads

View All