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:
?
#8261
Report 5 years ago
#8261
(Original post by Boab)
What has that got to do with anything?

Millions of pounds were spent on celebrating the anniversary of the battle.
Was it?

We spend money commemorating things.

I tend to find its those without a grasp of history that try and argue this point.

I have no problem with taxpayers money being spent to commemorate pivotal moments in global history......especially when there's people still alive who had to endure it. Lest we forget and all that. but there comes a time (normally after 200 years) when members of society latch into some obscure historical event, twist it into a perceived wrong, and use it fir political gain.

I've git mates who were involved in excavating mass graves in the corner Yugoslavia. That was all kicked off by nationalists twisting and distorting centuries old historical events.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8262
Report 5 years ago
#8262
(Original post by Boab)
So was MS36's comment that it was Scots fighting Scots in all these battles. It was the Scots dying on the battlefield no doubt, but often lead by English commanders or those loyal to the English.
Far from it. They were loyal to the crown. The Jacobite revolution was in effect a civil war. You can try and dress culloden up however you wish. But it was basically a nonce who thought he had a right to the throne. He tried to use nationalism and a perceived sense of victim hood to further his aims as well.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8263
Report 5 years ago
#8263
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Was it?

We spend money commemorating things.
You missed the point. I wasn't slating it. Midlander tried to insinuate Bannockburn live was anti-English by celebrating its anniversary. Trafalgar celebrations is just mere evidence that the English/British do it too!
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8264
Report 5 years ago
#8264
(Original post by Midlander)
So every good thing in Scotland can be attributed to the SNP and nobody else?
Show me where I said that?

If the English want devolution they need to fight for it just as the Scots did.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8265
Report 5 years ago
#8265
(Original post by Midlander)
So Wallace was loyal to the Inglash?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Eh?
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8266
Report 5 years ago
#8266
(Original post by Boab)
You missed the point. I wasn't slating it. Midlander tried to insinuate Bannockburn live was anti-English by celebrating its anniversary. Trafalgar celebrations is just mere evidence that the English/British do it too!
Bannockburn live is anti-English, that surely isn't in dispute.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8267
Report 5 years ago
#8267
(Original post by Midlander)
You're in Dundee? Come over to Fife some time


Posted from TSR Mobile
That would be an enthralling conversation......

yes

no

yes

no

YES

NO
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8268
Report 5 years ago
#8268
(Original post by Boab)
Eh?
You said the commanders were loyal to England. William Wallace sure wasn't!


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8269
Report 5 years ago
#8269
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You can try and dress culloden up however you wish.

But it was basically a nonce who thought he had a right to the throne.
History is so simple when you explain it!
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8270
Report 5 years ago
#8270
(Original post by Midlander)
Bannockburn live is anti-English, that surely isn't in dispute.


Posted from TSR Mobile
As anti-English as Trafalgar celebrations were anti-French or DDay celebrations are anti-German.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8271
Report 5 years ago
#8271
(Original post by Midlander)
You said the commanders were loyal to England. William Wallace sure wasn't!


Posted from TSR Mobile
On one side man, Jesus!
0
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8272
Report 5 years ago
#8272
(Original post by Boab)
You consider a cartoon character to be Dundee's greatest icon? Well as cartoon characters go Dennis ain't even in the mix, it is Desperate Dan that has a statue on the High St and Oor Wullie is much more beloved around here.
He's on a bus and I don't recall the Dandy being printed.

Anyway that's like saying there's a Minnie the Minx statue, so therefore she's more iconic and well known than Dennis the Menace.

I am disappoint at the lack of Bananaman though, hopefully the film will do it justice. The style did inspire Burnt Face Man.
0
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8273
Report 5 years ago
#8273
(Original post by Midlander)
Another false stereotype.
But it's the only thing that we do go on about. Closest thing to Bannockburn.

It's because England on its own has been at war with many different countries whereas Scotland on its own was only at war with England and when the Irish invaded Pictland.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8274
Report 5 years ago
#8274
(Original post by Snagprophet)
He's on a bus and I don't recall the Dandy being printed.

You don't recall the Dandy being printed?!!
There's lots of cartoon characters on Dundee buses.


Anyway that's like saying there's a Minnie the Minx statue, so therefore she's more iconic and well known than Dennis the Menace.

Desperate Dan was chosen ahead of Dennis for that statue. Simples!

I am disappoint at the lack of Bananaman though, hopefully the film will do it justice. The style did inspire Burnt Face Man.
As for Bananaman, I think we just try and ignore him.
0
flugelr
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8275
Report 5 years ago
#8275
(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
I just want our country to be run by the people we vote for instead of the conservatives based in West Minster
Like who? The SNP? In 2011 more people voted specifically against the SNP than voted for them, yet we still have an SNP government. That is just how democracy works.

While you can justifiably criticise Westminister for being London centric, the Scottish Parliament is no different. As someone from the same part of the world as you (Johner) I don't see why a Central Belt-centric Scottish Government is any better for the North East than a London-centric UK Government.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
and to shake up the inequality that is the distribution of wealth in the United Kingdom.
How exactly will Scotland voting to leave help make London more equal?

Wealth distribution across the UK is actually pretty good. This recent report by the University of Stirling shows that the UK is a much more equal country than we all think, the problem is that London and the South East are very unequal and skew the statistics for the rest of us. Scotland is more equal than Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Ireland (among others). If you don't want the read the whole thing, the conclusion is on page 25. The report finishes with this:
(Original post by University of Stirling)
However, given that many of the drivers of inequality are linked to global trends in technology, trade, and family formation practices, there are likely to be limits to the extent that a small open economy can mitigate them. Scottish independence would provide opportunities, but it would also come with constraints.
Food for thought

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
Scotland is a wealthy nation but Scotland's wealth is being transferred to London and our economy is being held back. We generate 9.9% of tax in the United Kingdom but we only receive 9.3% of U.K total spending, so the idea that we are subsided by England is a fallacy.
It actually varies each year. For example, in FY 2012-2013, Scotland raised 9.1% (£53.1 Billion) of UK revenue, but spent 9.3% (£65.2 Billion). This gap in revenue vs spending was largely caused by a fall in the price of oil.

If we had been independent, that would have been a real issue as quite literally overnight we would have had to make cuts equivalent to our entire education budget.

As part of a large UK economy it isn't a problem. In the bad years we can get help from the rest of the UK and in good years we give help to other areas of the UK.

Furthermore, I'd challange the basis of your point; that we put in more than we get out and this is a bad thing. We pay in our taxes and while most of it comes back to us, some of our money is spent on helping particularly depressed areas of the UK or on funding national assets like our international embassy network.

If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, then you are arguing we should become like South Africa; A few small extremely wealthy fortified villages who pay for their own security and their own upkeep, surrounded by grinding poverty where people cannot afford anything.

I happen to think that redistributive taxation is a good thing.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
This wealth can be put to better use an example is poverty, my family has been affected by this and I see others in Montrose that have/are suffered/ing in the same way. With a de-centralised government from west minster we can effectively tackle this and many more issues.
Since when did geographic proximity guarentee good government?

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
The statistics came from Business for Scotland.)
Business for Scotland is directed by a man called Ivan McKee. In his "30 year business career" Mr McKee has never run a successful business. Indeed, all three businesses he has previously run have gone into administration under his leadership.

I don't know about you, but if I needed advice, I wouldn't ask Mr McKee.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
What are your reasons for voting no?
For me there are several reasons why I've decided that I'm against independence.

First, I really don't like the basic premise of the debate. The UK is a union that has done some terrible, but also some inspirational, things. It abolished slavery, it fought two world wars, it introduced parliamentary democracy and - although many do not know this - it developed ideas of social mobility and equality. We spend 200 years working together, but when we think we can use our natural resources to our advantage, we decide to unilaterally split off from the rest of the UK and go it alone so that we don't have to split the benefits? I don't know about you but I find that a totally morally vacuous argument.

Second, I find the idea that Scots are so different from the English, Welsh or Northern Irish that we couldn't possibly continue living together absolutely absurd. I often hear that England is moving to the right or, "going in a different direction to Scotland" and that may be true (although I don't think it is), however, it has no bearing on Scotland. This is for two reasons, firstly, we already have a devolved Scottish Parliament which means that any right-wing social policies would have to be introduced by MSPs in the Scottish Government. Secondly, the Government of the UK isn't elected on a England vs Scotland vs Wales vs Northern Ireland basis, it is elected through individual constituencies.

It is also worth pointing out that the United Kingdom is comprised of more than two countries. While large areas of England do vote Tory, Wales consistantly votes for Labour at every election. No government in the UK gets into office through the votes of one of the constituent nations alone - it has to be a pan-UK vote. The 2010 election was a bit of an irregularity in that although the Tories gained in Wales and England (they did better in Wales, up 4.7% compared to 3.9% in England), they only gained marginally in Scotland (0.9%). Even with that small increase, the Tories only polled 79,000 (or 3% of the electorate) fewer than the SNP did in the general election!

Third, I don't see how Scotland will be more independent than we are now. Upon independence Scotland's currency options would be to join the Euro, to convince the rest of the UK to create a monetary union with us, to use £Sterling without the consent of the rest of the UK or to create our own seperate currency. If we go for the Euro - which we may be oblidged to join when we join the EU - then our fiscal policy will be dictated by the European Central Bank. If we continue to use £Sterling as part of a monetary union then the Scottish Chancellor would have to submit his/her budgets to the Bank of England and we would have to adjust things like our interest rates to suit the larger partner (rUK). If we continue to use £Sterling without being in a monetary union then the Scottish Government would only be able to make marginal adjustments to things like tax and interest rates and our economy would be controlled by the Bank of England, although they wouldn't nessecarily act as our lender of last resort. The only way to have full fiscal control is by having an independent currency - something that would be hugely problematic to implement after 300 years of using £Sterling. None of those options seem to give us any real degree of independence in my view. As part of the UK we get to have our own independent currency that is recognised around the globe and which we can control through the Bank of England. Seems like a good deal to me.

Fourth, the UK has a large, diverse, stable economy which spreads risk. A smaller Scottish economy that would be overly dependent on a few areas like services and energy would be very vulnerable to shocks and would leave us exposed to the kind of issues we can see in small nations like Greece or Ireland. Being in the UK brings thousands of extra jobs to Scotland that wouldn't otherwise be here, for example, building and refitting warships for the Royal Navy. The UK has one of the world's largest defence budgets and big build projects like the T45, QE-Class Carriers and - in a couple of years - the T26 create and sustain jobs that are totally reliant on the UK. After being built these ships are constantly being refitted and upgraded in world-class facilities like Rosyth. It has been said that Scotland would continue to build warships for the UK but this simply is not true. There are shipyards in Glasgow, Barrow, Belfast, Appledore, Rosyth, Liverpool and Portsmouth that have built or refitted Royal Navy ships. Lets be honest, what politician would go to the House of Commons and say, "We'll shut the shipyards in Portsmouth and Appledore and we will build the ships abroad in Scotland". It would total career suicide. Plus, as far as I know the Royal Navy hasn't built a warship abroad since WW2 anyway; the MARS tankers being built in South Korea at the moment aren't warships and all the sensitive equipment will be fitted in the UK.

Fifth, being in the UK means that Scotland gets a genuine say in global affairs and rather than being dictated to by the bigger nations, we sit right at the top table making the decisions. For example, the UK is a permanant member of the UN Security Council, a Briton is the current EU Foreign Minister, recently a Scot was the NATO Secretary General and the UK is a key member of organisations ranging from the G8 to the WTO to the Commonwealth of Nations. The UK Diplomatic Service is one of the largest in the world. We have embassies in almost every country on earth. This means that a Scottish business can go anywhere in the world with the British Embassy providing vital local backing and knowledge that can open new doors. Not to mention the fact that they bail you out if your passport gets lost! Furthermore, the UK is ranked top in the global, "soft power" ratings. What this means is that brand 'UK' has more power globally than any other nation when it comes to fashion, music, films, TV programmes, cars etc. This matters because it means we get more tourists and we export more. More people see Britain and want British stuff thus boosting our economy. This is something that Scotland as part of the UK can - and does - tap into.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
If its the debate about Europe, we are an already existing European Member for over 40 years and it should simple be a renegotiation.
No, the UK has been a member of the EU for over 40 years, not Scotland. That might mean nothing to you but it counts in international law.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
The rest of the United Kingdom would have to re apply
The 1707 Acts of Union (England and Scotland) were superseded by the 1800 Acts of Union (Great Britain and Ireland). Legally speaking, we are not voting to annul the United Kingdom, we are voting to leave the United Kingdom. This means that the UK does not end if Scotland chooses leave, the UK is the successor state while Scotland is leaving to form a new country.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
What ever the course of the independence we will still be building ships because we have the skills and technology to do so.
As I explained above, the rest of the UK also has the skills and technology.

Currently shipyards in Rosyth, Govan, Scotstoun, Hebburn, Middlesborough, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Appledore, Birkenhead, Barrow and Belfast are capable of shipbuilding, refitting and heavy fabrication.

You'll notice that 3 of those yards are in Scotland, 1 is in Northern Ireland and 8 are in England. After independence, why would an MP stand up in the House of Commons and say that the rUK Government is awarding large contracts to Scotland (a foreign country remember) at the expense of English and Northern Irish jobs?

It would be total career suicide. That is why it won't happen.

I suspect our shipbuilding industry would go the same way as the Irish one did. Currently the Irish Navy build their ships in the UK.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
An example of a Royal Naval craft build abroad are the royal refueling tankers currently being built in South Korea costing £400 million , so if they can be built abroad why can't they be built here?
First, they are not Royal Navy ships. The oil tankers will not be owned by the Royal Navy, operated by the Royal Navy or crewed by naval personel. They are merchant ships and will have merchant crews.

Second, the last time an oil tanker was built in the UK was about 20 years ago. The skills do not exist here. If we had built them in the UK as well as paying the cost of the ships themselves, we would have needed to pay for all of the shipyard workers to be trained in oil tanker construction. At the moment the UK is cash strapped so the Government took the decision to build the basic ship in South Korea (who build hundreds of tankers each year) and all of the sensitive equipment will be fitted at UK shipyards (I think Cammell Laird has the contract).

It is one of the best examples of sensible government procurement I can think of.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
Currently there are 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with only three members carrying nuclear deterrents, America, France and the U.K . The number of nuclear weapons in Europe under Americas sharing policy has decreased from 2400 to 400 because of Germanys stance against nuclear weapons, so this shows that in nato we can have a view that nuclear weapons should not be the last resort.
It is a requirement for all NATO countries to contribute to the defence of NATO nations, including facilitating the "nuclear umbrella". Furthermore, every country has to accept NATO's nuclear first-strike policy.

According to 'Yes Scotland' and the SNP, Scotland will have a written constitution that will forbid the use or deployment of nuclear weapons in Scottish territory.

The two simply do not add up.

(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
( I would also like to refer, that when you turn 16 you can marry in Scotland and we can serve our country by joining the army
You can only serve in the army with the written consent of your parents. You are not deemed responsible enough to make the decision yourself.
3
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8276
Report 5 years ago
#8276
(Original post by Snagprophet)
But it's the only thing that we do go on about. Closest thing to Bannockburn.

It's because England on its own has been at war with many different countries whereas Scotland on its own was only at war with England and when the Irish invaded Pictland.
Our tabloid press does, nobody I know does. Scotland as part of the UK has been at war with a lot more countries than just 2...


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8277
Report 5 years ago
#8277
(Original post by Midlander)
Our tabloid press does, nobody I know does. Scotland as part of the UK has been at war with a lot more countries than just 2...


Posted from TSR Mobile
The UK has been at war with a lot more countries than just two. Much much much more. In fact as war goes, we are pretty much world leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Great_Britain
0
Scotch Whiskey
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8278
Report 5 years ago
#8278
(Original post by flugelr)
Like who? The SNP? In 2011 more people voted specifically against the SNP than voted for them, yet we still have an SNP government. That is just how democracy works.

While you can justifiably criticise Westminister for being London centric, the Scottish Parliament is no different. As someone from the same part of the world as you (Johner) I don't see why a Central Belt-centric Scottish Government is any better for the North East than a London-centric UK Government.


How exactly will Scotland voting to leave help make London more equal?

Wealth distribution across the UK is actually pretty good. This recent report by the University of Stirling shows that the UK is a much more equal country than we all think, the problem is that London and the South East are very unequal and skew the statistics for the rest of us. Scotland is more equal than Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Ireland (among others). If you don't want the read the whole thing, the conclusion is on page 25. The report finishes with this:

Food for thought


It actually varies each year. For example, in FY 2012-2013, Scotland raised 9.1% (£53.1 Billion) of UK revenue, but spent 9.3% (£65.2 Billion). This gap in revenue vs spending was largely caused by a fall in the price of oil.

If we had been independent, that would have been a real issue as quite literally overnight we would have had to make cuts equivalent to our entire education budget.

As part of a large UK economy it isn't a problem. In the bad years we can get help from the rest of the UK and in good years we give help to other areas of the UK.

Furthermore, I'd challange the basis of your point; that we put in more than we get out and this is a bad thing. We pay in our taxes and while most of it comes back to us, some of our money is spent on helping particularly depressed areas of the UK or on funding national assets like our international embassy network.

If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, then you are arguing we should become like South Africa; A few small extremely wealthy fortified villages who pay for their own security and their own upkeep, surrounded by grinding poverty where people cannot afford anything.

I happen to think that redistributive taxation is a good thing.


Since when did geographic proximity guarentee good government?


Business for Scotland is directed by a man called Ivan McKee. In his "30 year business career" Mr McKee has never run a successful business. Indeed, all three businesses he has previously run have gone into administration under his leadership.

I don't know about you, but if I needed advice, I wouldn't ask Mr McKee.


For me there are several reasons why I've decided that I'm against independence.

First, I really don't like the basic premise of the debate. The UK is a union that has done some terrible, but also some inspirational, things. It abolished slavery, it fought two world wars, it introduced parliamentary democracy and - although many do not know this - it developed ideas of social mobility and equality. We spend 200 years working together, but when we think we can use our natural resources to our advantage, we decide to unilaterally split off from the rest of the UK and go it alone so that we don't have to split the benefits? I don't know about you but I find that a totally morally vacuous argument.

Second, I find the idea that Scots are so different from the English, Welsh or Northern Irish that we couldn't possibly continue living together absolutely absurd. I often hear that England is moving to the right or, "going in a different direction to Scotland" and that may be true (although I don't think it is), however, it has no bearing on Scotland. This is for two reasons, firstly, we already have a devolved Scottish Parliament which means that any right-wing social policies would have to be introduced by MSPs in the Scottish Government. Secondly, the Government of the UK isn't elected on a England vs Scotland vs Wales vs Northern Ireland basis, it is elected through individual constituencies.

It is also worth pointing out that the United Kingdom is comprised of more than two countries. While large areas of England do vote Tory, Wales consistantly votes for Labour at every election. No government in the UK gets into office through the votes of one of the constituent nations alone - it has to be a pan-UK vote. The 2010 election was a bit of an irregularity in that although the Tories gained in Wales and England (they did better in Wales, up 4.7% compared to 3.9% in England), they only gained marginally in Scotland (0.9%). Even with that small increase, the Tories only polled 79,000 (or 3% of the electorate) fewer than the SNP did in the general election!

Third, I don't see how Scotland will be more independent than we are now. Upon independence Scotland's currency options would be to join the Euro, to convince the rest of the UK to create a monetary union with us, to use £Sterling without the consent of the rest of the UK or to create our own seperate currency. If we go for the Euro - which we may be oblidged to join when we join the EU - then our fiscal policy will be dictated by the European Central Bank. If we continue to use £Sterling as part of a monetary union then the Scottish Chancellor would have to submit his/her budgets to the Bank of England and we would have to adjust things like our interest rates to suit the larger partner (rUK). If we continue to use £Sterling without being in a monetary union then the Scottish Government would only be able to make marginal adjustments to things like tax and interest rates and our economy would be controlled by the Bank of England, although they wouldn't nessecarily act as our lender of last resort. The only way to have full fiscal control is by having an independent currency - something that would be hugely problematic to implement after 300 years of using £Sterling. None of those options seem to give us any real degree of independence in my view. As part of the UK we get to have our own independent currency that is recognised around the globe and which we can control through the Bank of England. Seems like a good deal to me.

Fourth, the UK has a large, diverse, stable economy which spreads risk. A smaller Scottish economy that would be overly dependent on a few areas like services and energy would be very vulnerable to shocks and would leave us exposed to the kind of issues we can see in small nations like Greece or Ireland. Being in the UK brings thousands of extra jobs to Scotland that wouldn't otherwise be here, for example, building and refitting warships for the Royal Navy. The UK has one of the world's largest defence budgets and big build projects like the T45, QE-Class Carriers and - in a couple of years - the T26 create and sustain jobs that are totally reliant on the UK. After being built these ships are constantly being refitted and upgraded in world-class facilities like Rosyth. It has been said that Scotland would continue to build warships for the UK but this simply is not true. There are shipyards in Glasgow, Barrow, Belfast, Appledore, Rosyth, Liverpool and Portsmouth that have built or refitted Royal Navy ships. Lets be honest, what politician would go to the House of Commons and say, "We'll shut the shipyards in Portsmouth and Appledore and we will build the ships abroad in Scotland". It would total career suicide. Plus, as far as I know the Royal Navy hasn't built a warship abroad since WW2 anyway; the MARS tankers being built in South Korea at the moment aren't warships and all the sensitive equipment will be fitted in the UK.

Fifth, being in the UK means that Scotland gets a genuine say in global affairs and rather than being dictated to by the bigger nations, we sit right at the top table making the decisions. For example, the UK is a permanant member of the UN Security Council, a Briton is the current EU Foreign Minister, recently a Scot was the NATO Secretary General and the UK is a key member of organisations ranging from the G8 to the WTO to the Commonwealth of Nations. The UK Diplomatic Service is one of the largest in the world. We have embassies in almost every country on earth. This means that a Scottish business can go anywhere in the world with the British Embassy providing vital local backing and knowledge that can open new doors. Not to mention the fact that they bail you out if your passport gets lost! Furthermore, the UK is ranked top in the global, "soft power" ratings. What this means is that brand 'UK' has more power globally than any other nation when it comes to fashion, music, films, TV programmes, cars etc. This matters because it means we get more tourists and we export more. More people see Britain and want British stuff thus boosting our economy. This is something that Scotland as part of the UK can - and does - tap into.


No, the UK has been a member of the EU for over 40 years, not Scotland. That might mean nothing to you but it counts in international law.


The 1707 Acts of Union (England and Scotland) were superseded by the 1800 Acts of Union (Great Britain and Ireland). Legally speaking, we are not voting to annul the United Kingdom, we are voting to leave the United Kingdom. This means that the UK does not end if Scotland chooses leave, the UK is the successor state while Scotland is leaving to form a new country.


As I explained above, the rest of the UK also has the skills and technology.

Currently shipyards in Rosyth, Govan, Scotstoun, Hebburn, Middlesborough, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Falmouth, Appledore, Birkenhead, Barrow and Belfast are capable of shipbuilding, refitting and heavy fabrication.

You'll notice that 3 of those yards are in Scotland, 1 is in Northern Ireland and 8 are in England. After independence, why would an MP stand up in the House of Commons and say that the rUK Government is awarding large contracts to Scotland (a foreign country remember) at the expense of English and Northern Irish jobs?

It would be total career suicide. That is why it won't happen.

I suspect our shipbuilding industry would go the same way as the Irish one did. Currently the Irish Navy build their ships in the UK.


First, they are not Royal Navy ships. The oil tankers will not be owned by the Royal Navy, operated by the Royal Navy or crewed by naval personel. They are merchant ships and will have merchant crews.

Second, the last time an oil tanker was built in the UK was about 20 years ago. The skills do not exist here. If we had built them in the UK as well as paying the cost of the ships themselves, we would have needed to pay for all of the shipyard workers to be trained in oil tanker construction. At the moment the UK is cash strapped so the Government took the decision to build the basic ship in South Korea (who build hundreds of tankers each year) and all of the sensitive equipment will be fitted at UK shipyards (I think Cammell Laird has the contract).

It is one of the best examples of sensible government procurement I can think of.


It is a requirement for all NATO countries to contribute to the defence of NATO nations, including facilitating the "nuclear umbrella". Furthermore, every country has to accept NATO's nuclear first-strike policy.

According to 'Yes Scotland' and the SNP, Scotland will have a written constitution that will forbid the use or deployment of nuclear weapons in Scottish territory.

The two simply do not add up.


You can only serve in the army with the written consent of your parents. You are not deemed responsible enough to make the decision yourself.
On the first part, a country where 1 in 4 children live in poverty, and the 5 wealthiest families own more than the poorest 5 million is not equal. The wealth distribution is clearly not as fair as it could and should be.


The Scottish parliament's makeup in itself is produces a more equal system. Each region has a representative 7 MSPs and one for each constituency. It produces significantly better representation and thus wouldn't lead to a central belt centric parliament. However, I would like to see powers decentralised; decisions are best taken at the most local level.


The mention of South Africa is ludicrous and the point is moot. You know that's not at all what we advocate.


If you want to belittle the referendum to one man, should I vote no because Gordon Brown supports a no vote - a man that oversaw the financial crash? Of course not. It is ridiculous to whittle this debate down to one man's business credentials.


Now to deal with each point individually.


1) If it ain't broke don't fix it, famous words. If it worked I wouldn't want to fix it, but I believe that maintaining the status quo is not right for the people of Scotland. We are enduring policies that we didn't vote for, and despite past successes of the Union, we need to look at the current proposition and see if it's working for us. You mentioned business, if you were a partner in a business that was successful 50 years ago, but was failing now, would you still stick? I know I wouldn't...


2) The Scottish parliament only deals with devolved issues. Currently we see Scottish MPs effecting no change at Westminster. They voted against the bedroom tax, trident, Iraq war, privatisation of the Royal Mail, increase on VAT but that all happened anyway. Scotland has little to no say in reserved matters.


The Tories have one MP in Scotland that point is null and void. If we were dealing in a PR system, the point would hold some substance, but we're not and it doesn't. One out of 59 and that party governs.
Seems awfully fair to me.


3) I'm not an economist, but economists have recommended a currency union as the best deal for Scotland. I cannot remember the full details, but a country can only control 2 of the 3 monetary levers; exchange rate, interest rates and another. Seeing as
Scotland would want to be on a par with the UK, and indeed with Europe, not having control over one of the levers would be the same with our own currency and thus is no more independent than a currency union.


4) It should be noted that Scotland too has a strong and diverse economy; recent reports - such as the GERS report - suggested that our finances are stronger than the UK's. Standard and Poor said that we would get a AAA credit rating. Greece didn't collect taxes, and Ireland had an IT based economy that collapsed when the housing market collapsed. Scotland's dynamic is different to both countries. It's worth remembering that the UK has slashed defence jobs in Scotland and that an independent Scotland would be able to offer our shipyards to the world. It doesn't have to be warships for the UK. A Scottish Navy, cruise liners, other vessels, there's huge scope.


5) Scotland is underrepresented at the top table with the lack of its own seat. For years, the UK has failed to stand up properly for Scotland's fishing and agriculture industries. Scotland needs it's own voice to stand up for itself. Scotland's capacity for renewable energy would also make it a vital asset to the EU, perhaps furthering the say that Scotland would have. Scotland currently has 6 MEPs, Luxembourg has more. Scotland may have a smaller voice than the UK, but it would be its own voice.


On the NATO point, there's nothing that states that NATO members must contribute to the nuclear weapons held by three countries. Only 8 out of NATO's 28 members are involved in the nuclear sharing programme; 20 are not. Scotland would be the 21st. Any conflict entered into has to be accepted by the Scottish parliament, as Libya would have been and Iraq wouldn't have been. It's quite simple really. Scotland doesn't need to have WMDs on its soil as a member of NATO, and thus the constitution isn't contradictory. Please feel free to retort, I've done my best to address the points raised.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8279
Report 5 years ago
#8279
(Original post by Scotch Whiskey)
On the first part, a country where 1 in 4 children live in poverty, and the 5 wealthiest families own more than the poorest 5 million is not equal. The wealth distribution is clearly not as fair as it could and should be.


The Scottish parliament's makeup in itself is produces a more equal system. Each region has a representative 7 MSPs and one for each constituency. It produces significantly better representation and thus wouldn't lead to a central belt centric parliament. However, I would like to see powers decentralised; decisions are best taken at the most local level.


The mention of South Africa is ludicrous and the point is moot. You know that's not at all what we advocate.


If you want to belittle the referendum to one man, should I vote no because Gordon Brown supports a no vote - a man that oversaw the financial crash? Of course not. It is ridiculous to whittle this debate down to one man's business credentials.


Now to deal with each point individually.


1) If it ain't broke don't fix it, famous words. If it worked I wouldn't want to fix it, but I believe that maintaining the status quo is not right for the people of Scotland. We are enduring policies that we didn't vote for, and despite past successes of the Union, we need to look at the current proposition and see if it's working for us. You mentioned business, if you were a partner in a business that was successful 50 years ago, but was failing now, would you still stick? I know I wouldn't...


2) The Scottish parliament only deals with devolved issues. Currently we see Scottish MPs effecting no change at Westminster. They voted against the bedroom tax, trident, Iraq war, privatisation of the Royal Mail, increase on VAT but that all happened anyway. Scotland has little to no say in reserved matters.


The Tories have one MP in Scotland that point is null and void. If we were dealing in a PR system, the point would hold some substance, but we're not and it doesn't. One out of 59 and that party governs.
Seems awfully fair to me.


3) I'm not an economist, but economists have recommended a currency union as the best deal for Scotland. I cannot remember the full details, but a country can only control 2 of the 3 monetary levers; exchange rate, interest rates and another. Seeing as
Scotland would want to be on a par with the UK, and indeed with Europe, not having control over one of the levers would be the same with our own currency and thus is no more independent than a currency union.


4) It should be noted that Scotland too has a strong and diverse economy; recent reports - such as the GERS report - suggested that our finances are stronger than the UK's. Standard and Poor said that we would get a AAA credit rating. Greece didn't collect taxes, and Ireland had an IT based economy that collapsed when the housing market collapsed. Scotland's dynamic is different to both countries. It's worth remembering that the UK has slashed defence jobs in Scotland and that an independent Scotland would be able to offer our shipyards to the world. It doesn't have to be warships for the UK. A Scottish Navy, cruise liners, other vessels, there's huge scope.


5) Scotland is underrepresented at the top table with the lack of its own seat. For years, the UK has failed to stand up properly for Scotland's fishing and agriculture industries. Scotland needs it's own voice to stand up for itself. Scotland's capacity for renewable energy would also make it a vital asset to the EU, perhaps furthering the say that Scotland would have. Scotland currently has 6 MEPs, Luxembourg has more. Scotland may have a smaller voice than the UK, but it would be its own voice.


On the NATO point, there's nothing that states that NATO members must contribute to the nuclear weapons held by three countries. Only 8 out of NATO's 28 members are involved in the nuclear sharing programme; 20 are not. Scotland would be the 21st. Any conflict entered into has to be accepted by the Scottish parliament, as Libya would have been and Iraq wouldn't have been. It's quite simple really. Scotland doesn't need to have WMDs on its soil as a member of NATO, and thus the constitution isn't contradictory. Please feel free to retort, I've done my best to address the points raised.
Firstly, the SNP only returned 6 MPs out of 59. Irrespective of that every MP gets a vote in Westminster. I'd like to know how being part of the 6th largest global economy, the fastest growing economy in the developed world and on track to be the largest economy in Europe by 2025 is broken.

Your second point about Iraq is sheer fantasy. You may have forgotten that it was labour under a Scottish born PM, Scottish Chancellor and overly Scottish represented cabinet that took us into Iraq. So upset were the people if Scotland with that decision, we overwhelmingly voted them back in.

Selected economists have said a currency union would be good fir Scotland. Selected economists also advised Salmond that the £ was a millstone around Scotland's neck and we should adopt the €. The same selected economists can say what they like about a currency union. The simple fact is that the major partner of any currency union has said that its not happening. This is also backed up by the electorate they repreSent. That deal is therefore a non starter. That's also completely ignoring the obvious fact that entry into the EU requires the adoption of the €. So we'll end up with a currency union. The currency union that the SNP originally wanted.

You may want to read the actual Standard and Poor report. At no point whatsoever does it state that I Scotland would have a AAA rating. That little bit of bull S*** was pushed out by an SNP backed website.

I'm glad you've finally acknowledged that there's a nuclear sharing programme and several non nuclear NATO member nations are happy to deliver some instant sunshine on NATOs behalf. The others don't need to have nuclear sharing. There's a whole host of technical, financial and political reasons for that. The main political reason is storing tactical nukes in a former Warsaw Pact nation would be seen provocative to Russia. Remember Russia? The now peaceful nation that's just annexed part of the Ukraine and has just reminded everybody that the Cold War never really went away.

If you're a NATO member state and NATO does a job. You'll tend to find that your sort of obliged to go. You'd be amazed about how active the Norwegians were in Libya. I guess they used the oil fund to finance the amount of ordinance they dropped in Libya. Then again, I have no problem with NATOs involvement in Libya. I see it as payback for Lockerbie.thats here in Scotland.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8280
Report 5 years ago
#8280
(Original post by Boab)
The UK has been at war with a lot more countries than just two. Much much much more. In fact as war goes, we are pretty much world leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Great_Britain
Yes, and what is Scotland presently part of? We have Scotsman Tony Blair to thank for a couple...


Posted from TSR Mobile
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 (58)
66.67%
No I haven't decided yet (19)
21.84%
Yes but I might change my mind (10)
11.49%

Watched Threads

View All