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.
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8921
Report 5 years ago
#8921
(Original post by euphful)
In 1997 Labour was elected, with a landslide result, on 43.2% of the vote. Higher than any number between 30-39.

In 2001 Labour was elected, with a landslide result, on 40.7% of the vote (with a much reduced turnout). Again, higher than the number you gave of in the 30s

In 2005 Labour won but not with a landslide. Your assertion was on landslides with not much more than 30%... Care to try again?

By the way, I'm an advocate of PR and electoral reform, I just couldn't let yet another nationalist make it up as they go along.
As you have failed to answer the question fully, let me repeat it:

What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1983 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1987 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 1997 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2001 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2005 and what % of the seats?
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8922
Report 5 years ago
#8922
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Other countries AGREEING to accept a country as a member is the same as ONE COUNTRY SIGNING ANOTHER COUNTRY'S MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT ON ITS BEHALF in your opinion?
Well of course, if Scotland was going to enter the EU through treaty change then the only way to bring about that change within the mechanisms of the EU would be for the UK (as the member state) to negotiate that, if Scotland wanted a deal before Independence Day. Otherwise they could wait for independence and then apply externally. Do you know how the EU works at all? I can promise you I've got an exam on it in a few weeks and it's wry dry and very dull if you're not in to that sort of thing. It is not, however, as simple as you seem to be suggesting. Scotland can't negotiate anything until it is independent.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8923
Report 5 years ago
#8923
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
As you have failed to answer the question fully, let me repeat it:

What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1983 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1987 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 1997 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2001 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2005 and what % of the seats?
Your assertion was that FPTP delivered landslide results on vote-shares in their 30s. I asked you when this had happened. You changed the goal posts and now that you've realised that your assertion that landslide results happen on vote shares in the 30s is a load of twoddle you're desperately trying to save face. I'm not interested in debating the merits of FPTP with you, just in debunking this myth that you peddled regarding landslide results and vote shares.

The burden of proof is on you my friend, I'm not here to answer questions that you should be answering in response to your wild claims.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8924
Report 5 years ago
#8924
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1983 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1987 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 1997 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2001 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2005 and what % of the seats?
I asked you when there had been a landslide result for any party with a vote share in the 30s. You made that assertion, I asked you when it had happened. It is not up to me to answer questions not even relating to the original assertion.

Back up your claim or retract it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8925
Report 5 years ago
#8925
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Lie number 6:



Truth: The Scottish parliament is NOT a "far way off being proportional" and it HAS 'proportional representation', unlike Westminster.

Unlike your beloved Westminster parliament where little more than 30% of the popular vote can result in 'landslide' wins in parliament.

45% of the votes cast giving a majority in the Scottish parliament is much more democratic than the little more than 30% of the votes cast giving a 'landslide' majority in Westminster.

How many Tory MSPs would we have if we had Westminster style 'democracy'?

The Tory leader Ruth Davidson came a miserable 4th in her constituency with about 8% of the votes cast.
Just so you can see this clearly, can you again please tell us when there has ever been a landslide victory for any party who received a vote share in the 30s?

I've given you examples of recent landslide results which disprove your assertion. Maybe you could clarify your statement for us?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8926
Report 5 years ago
#8926
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The likes of yourself, L i b and Midlander will never change your spots.

No matter how many times your lies have been exposed, you return with the same ones again and again and again.
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Which lies would they be?

Lie number 9:

(Original post by L i b)
As I've said before, I'm done wasting my time being your unremunerated personal tutor to be met only with abuse and lunatic rants.
Truth: L i b hates to be caught out lying and is forced to follow one lie with another:

Lie number 2:

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
A good chunk of which was created in Scotland as well.
Truth: Not a single penny of the 1.3 TRILLION POUNDS UK National Debt was created IN Scotland.

The Scottish government, to date, has only spent the money it receives from Westminster, not a penny more.

(Original post by L i b)
I think we are all quite aware that Scotland has run a budget deficit fairly consistently - in fact, in 20 of the last 21 years! A good portion of that national debt is attributable to, and was spent on, Scotland.

Quite frankly the bizarre misreading of what was said to imply that it's somehow the office block a decision was made in that matters just makes you look foolish.
Truth needs to be repeated:

Not a single penny of the 1.3 TRILLION POUNDS UK National Debt was created IN Scotland or BY Scotland.

The decisions were made at Westminster and the funds squandered to fund illegal wars and weapons of mass destruction.

An independent Scotland would have spent and borrowed if necessary according to Scotland's needs, not Westminster's needs.

Almost every developed country has been running a budget deficit for many years.

Don't quote dodgy figures which don't include all Scotland's revenues but include a share of Westminster's expenses on illegal wars and weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the unelected House of Lords where the likes of Lord 'Bomb Edinburgh & Glasgow airports' Fraser of Carmyllie claim £300 per day in expenses for just turning up.

IF AND ONLY IF you want to know the TRUTH about what revenues Scotland has contributed to the Westminster Treasury, look here:

WARNING: NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-historical-debt/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/before-the-oil-the-deluge/
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8927
Report 5 years ago
#8927
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Lie number 9:



Truth: L i b hates to be caught out lying and is forced to follow one lie with another:

Lie number 2:



Truth: Not a single penny of the 1.3 TRILLION POUNDS UK National Debt was created IN Scotland.

The Scottish government, to date, has only spent the money it receives from Westminster, not a penny more.



Truth needs to be repeated:

Not a single penny of the 1.3 TRILLION POUNDS UK National Debt was created IN Scotland or BY Scotland.

The decisions were made at Westminster and the funds squandered to fund illegal wars and weapons of mass destruction.

An independent Scotland would have spent and borrowed if necessary according to Scotland's needs, not Westminster's needs.

Almost every developed country has been running a budget deficit for many years.

Don't quote dodgy figures which don't include all Scotland's revenues but include a share of Westminster's expenses on illegal wars and weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the unelected House of Lords where the likes of Lord 'Bomb Edinburgh & Glasgow airports' Fraser of Carmyllie claim £300 per day in expenses for just turning up.

IF AND ONLY IF you want to know the TRUTH about what revenues Scotland has contributed to the Westminster Treasury, look here:

WARNING: NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-historical-debt/

http://wingsoverscotland.com/before-the-oil-the-deluge/
Frankly, if your response to 'lie number 9' contains as many untruths as the ramblings surrounding 'lie number 6' you may as well save yourself the bother.

Laughable.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8928
Report 5 years ago
#8928
Lie number 10-

The earth is round


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8929
Report 5 years ago
#8929
Lie number 11-

The sky is blue


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8930
Report 5 years ago
#8930
Lie number 12-

Gravity


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
skunkboy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8931
Report 5 years ago
#8931
Like russians in Ukrain,Scottish people should be let to control their own destiny.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8932
Report 5 years ago
#8932
(Original post by skunkboy)
Like russians in Ukrain,Scottish people should be let to control their own destiny.

Posted from TSR Mobile
The great thing about Scottish independence is that, if achieved, it will have been a free and fair referendum that is legal and just.

Nothing about what Russia is doing in Ukraine is comparable.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8933
Report 5 years ago
#8933
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The likes of yourself, L i b and Midlander will never change your spots.

No matter how many times your lies have been exposed, you return with the same ones again and again and again.
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Which lies would they be?

Lie number 10:

(Original post by L i b)
But it would be the UK government that would finally be signing any agreement on the dotted line.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
In which universe does one country sign agreements on behalf of a 'foreign' country?
(Original post by euphful)
The same universe that requires every member state of the EU to agree on an outside nation becoming a member. Sorry.
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Other countries AGREEING to accept a country as a member is the same as ONE COUNTRY SIGNING ANOTHER COUNTRY'S MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT ON ITS BEHALF in your opinion?
(Original post by euphful)
Well of course, if Scotland was going to enter the EU through treaty change then the only way to bring about that change within the mechanisms of the EU would be for the UK (as the member state) to negotiate that, if Scotland wanted a deal before Independence Day. Otherwise they could wait for independence and then apply externally. Do you know how the EU works at all? I can promise you I've got an exam on it in a few weeks and it's wry dry and very dull if you're not in to that sort of thing. It is not, however, as simple as you seem to be suggesting. Scotland can't negotiate anything until it is independent.
Truth:

Like L i b, you are lying by avoiding the issue and trying to suggest that other members AGREEING is the same as Scotland SIGNING.

Only SCOTLAND as an independent nation can sign on the dotted line to be a member of the EU, NOT rUK.

That will happen on the actual date of independence, if not earlier.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Scotland will be a member of the EU on Day 1 of independence.

I don't think one country has ever signed an agreement on behalf of another country.

As 'Bitter Together' are fond of saying, Scotland will be a 'foreign' country after independence.

If you believe one country can sign on behalf of a 'foreign' country and accept Barosso's interpretation of how the EU works regarding Scotland, you will surely fail your exam.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8934
Report 5 years ago
#8934
(Original post by euphful)
I asked you when there had been a landslide result for any party with a vote share in the 30s. You made that assertion, I asked you when it had happened. It is not up to me to answer questions not even relating to the original assertion.

Back up your claim or retract it.
I will be happy to retract my claim it if is wrong if you provide a full answer:

What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1983 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Thatcher get in 1987 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 1997 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2001 and what % of the seats?

What % of the vote did Blair get in 2005 and what % of the seats?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8935
Report 5 years ago
#8935
(Original post by euphful)
I asked you when there had been a landslide result for any party with a vote share in the 30s. You made that assertion, I asked you when it had happened. It is not up to me to answer questions not even relating to the original assertion.

Back up your claim or retract it.
I have now checked the figures and I accept that I made a mistake.

Little more than 40% of the popular vote can and does result in 'landslide' wins in the Westminster parliament.

Not little more than 30% as I had stated earlier.

However, otherwise my point relating to the post is still valid: the Scottish parliament HAS proportional representation, Westminster is VERY FAR from it.

1983: 42% of the vote gave 61% of the seats in parliament (19% points more than deserved)

1987: 42% of the vote gave 58% of the seats in parliament (16% points more than deserved)

1997: 43% of the vote gave 63% of the seats in parliament (20% points more than deserved)

2001: 41% of the vote gave 63% of the seats in parliament (22% points more than deserved)

2005: 35% of the vote gave 55% of the seats in parliament (20% points more than deserved)

There would not have been a majority in Westminster in any of those elections, let alone a 'landslide' majority.

The best result in 1997 was 7% points short of a majority.



Contrast that with the 'landslide' in Scotland:

2011: 45% of the vote gave 53% of the seats in parliament (8% points more than deserved)

That was 5% short of a majority, a better result than Labour's 1997 "historical landslide".

L i b, a staunch supporter of the undemocratic Westminster parliament and Westminster rule over Scotland claims that the Scottish parliament is not proportional enough.

(Original post by L i b)
We have a more proportional system for electing the Scottish Parliament than we do for the UK Parliament elections, however it is clearly still a far way off being proportional. Note how we have a majority government elected without being close to a majority of the popular vote.
5% short of a majority in Scotland in 2011 is far more proportional and democratic than the 22% short of a majority of Labour's 2001 'landslide' majority.

It is NOT a "far way off" and it IS "close to a majority".
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8936
Report 5 years ago
#8936
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Lie number 3:



Truth:

The banking collapse happened under the incompetence of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the London based Financial regulator, NOT under the watch of Alex Salmond.

RBS chief Fred Goodwin was given a knighthood by Westminster, NOT by Alex Salmond.

The gambling department of RBS did its gambling which led to the collapse from London, NOT from Edinburgh.

RBS's major operations, through its subsidiary National Westminster Bank, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

Bank of Scotland's major operations, through its subsidiary Halifax, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

The banks were bailed out by the countries according to the proportion in which they carried out their businesses. The USA put in much more money to bail out UK banks than the UK.

The UK BORROWED and PRINTED money to bail out banks.

Whatever an independent Scotland would have done is THEORETICAL.

Scotland could have contributed ITS share of the bailout. It is a lie to claim that Scotland would have had to bailout the entire UK operations of RBS + Natwest or Bank of Scotland + Halifax.

Alex Salmond wished good luck to Fred Goodwin in the acquisition of AMRO bank in the anticipation that it would bring benefits to Scotland. He was in no way aware of or responsible for the decision making at RBS. So it is complete lie to claim "backed by Salmond".

Northern Rock, a bank in England, "led the way", not RBS.
Remember this one?

http://www.cityam.com/article/alex-s...s-abn-disaster
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8937
Report 5 years ago
#8937
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Lie number 8:



Truth: SCOTLAND will finally sign any agreement on the dotted line when it is INDEPENDENT, NOT rUK.

In which universe does one country sign agreements on behalf of a 'foreign' country?
The force is strong in you. Was there a special tent for you to go to at the SNP conference?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8938
Report 5 years ago
#8938
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Other countries AGREEING to accept a country as a member is the same as ONE COUNTRY SIGNING ANOTHER COUNTRY'S MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT ON ITS BEHALF in your opinion?
That's the EU that Salmond lied about having legal advice then?
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8939
Report 5 years ago
#8939
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Lie number 5:



Truth: The FACT was already pointed out but you are unable to accept the truth:
Look at the actual boundaries and tell me what your problem is.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8940
Report 5 years ago
#8940
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Lie number 3:



Truth:

The banking collapse happened under the incompetence of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the London based Financial regulator, NOT under the watch of Alex Salmond.

RBS chief Fred Goodwin was given a knighthood by Westminster, NOT by Alex Salmond.

The gambling department of RBS did its gambling which led to the collapse from London, NOT from Edinburgh.

RBS's major operations, through its subsidiary National Westminster Bank, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

Bank of Scotland's major operations, through its subsidiary Halifax, were in England, NOT in Scotland.

The banks were bailed out by the countries according to the proportion in which they carried out their businesses. The USA put in much more money to bail out UK banks than the UK.

The UK BORROWED and PRINTED money to bail out banks.

Whatever an independent Scotland would have done is THEORETICAL.

Scotland could have contributed ITS share of the bailout. It is a lie to claim that Scotland would have had to bailout the entire UK operations of RBS + Natwest or Bank of Scotland + Halifax.

Alex Salmond wished good luck to Fred Goodwin in the acquisition of AMRO bank in the anticipation that it would bring benefits to Scotland. He was in no way aware of or responsible for the decision making at RBS. So it is complete lie to claim "backed by Salmond".

Northern Rock, a bank in England, "led the way", not RBS.
Salmond advocated even more de regulation of the banking system and clearly stated that he'd follow that policy in the event of a yes vote.

You haven't actually grasped that Salmond seems to have no consistent policy. He yells people what they want to hear in order to gain support. In the last five years he's wanted to adopt the €, then the £. Then it was outside NATO now he wants to be in it.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (142)
17.95%
It's just nice to be back! (213)
26.93%
Not great so far... (283)
35.78%
I want to drop out! (153)
19.34%

Watched Threads

View All