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.
flugelr
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9061
Report 5 years ago
#9061
(Original post by Boab)
Frankie Boyle? You serious?
Why wouldn't I be?

(Original post by Boab)
There are misinformed idiots on both sides. Picking out random comments from them and being offended by them is fairly pathetic.
There are misinformed idiots on both sides, but these are not random comments. All the time I'm seeing this kind of xenophobic rubbish being spouted by the Yes Campaign.

When you hear that someone has been harrassed or that someone's car or business has been vandalised, you can be 100% sure that the victim is pro-UK. The only people doing these things are nationalists. It is totally unacceptable yet we hear nothing from the Yes Campaign about it. In one of the articles I posted above, the official Yes response was to attempt to smear the poor bloke who was being harrassed!

Yes there are uninformed Unionists out there, but there is a much larger number of downright nasty nationalists.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9062
Report 5 years ago
#9062
I seem to be seeing an increase in these type of events.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/467...-be-a-disaster
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9063
Report 5 years ago
#9063
(Original post by flugelr)
Why wouldn't I be?


There are misinformed idiots on both sides, but these are not random comments. All the time I'm seeing this kind of xenophobic rubbish being spouted by the Yes Campaign.

When you hear that someone has been harrassed or that someone's car or business has been vandalised, you can be 100% sure that the victim is pro-UK. The only people doing these things are nationalists. It is totally unacceptable yet we hear nothing from the Yes Campaign about it. In one of the articles I posted above, the official Yes response was to attempt to smear the poor bloke who was being harrassed!

Yes there are uninformed Unionists out there, but there is a much larger number of downright nasty nationalists.
If I remember rightly there was a FMQs last year where Ruth Davidson asked Alex Salmond to explain the quite hostile anti-English comments of some SNP party members and MSPs. He laughed it off and denied responsibility despite being party leader.

If we see fit to tarnish UKIP for bigoted comments made by party members then the SNP should not escape criticism either. If I can find the clip I will post it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9064
Report 5 years ago
#9064
(Original post by Midlander)
If I remember rightly there was a FMQs last year where Ruth Davidson asked Alex Salmond to explain the quite hostile anti-English comments of some SNP party members and MSPs. He laughed it off and denied responsibility despite being party leader.

If we see fit to tarnish UKIP for bigoted comments made by party members then the SNP should not escape criticism either. If I can find the clip I will post it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Can you also try and find the one with the SNP councillor advocating direct action to support the cause and the SNP activist who hit booted out for mocking the deaths of British soldiers.

There's quite a few about death threats against a comedians who tried to make joke about the referendum .
0
euphful
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9065
Report 5 years ago
#9065
(Original post by JamesGibson)
I support Scottish independence (as somebody from England) for two main reasons.

1) Democracy
There has been only 1 Tory MP in the whole of Scotland since the 1990s, yet Scotland has found itself being ruled by a Tory government in a small place called Westminster. The Scottish did NOT vote for this coalition government, so why on earth should they be subject to their policies? Thatcher privatised the Scottish industries, utility companies, despite the fact that the Scots did NOT vote for Thatcher. Scotland, as a huge landmass with a very distinct culture and population, should surely be able to have some say about who's in the government?

2) Escaping austerity
Austerity is failed ideological agenda that is forced upon Scotland. The only way to escape the unemployment, the welfare cuts and the array of other immoral policies is through independence - Alex Salmond is a respected social democrat and strong supporter of free universities, the welfare state and safeguards for the poorest in society.
The city of Nottingham didn't vote for this government. Neither did Sheffield. Or my home town of Worksop. Should they be independent also?

I'm no fan of austerity and will actively campaign and vote for this government to be removed from office in 2015. But it seems to me that part of living in a democracy means you have to respect it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
2
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9066
Report 5 years ago
#9066
(Original post by euphful)
The city of Nottingham didn't vote for this government. Neither did Sheffield. Or my home town of Worksop. Should they be independent also?

I'm no fan of austerity and will actively campaign and vote for this government to be removed from office in 2015. But it seems to me that part of living in a democracy means you have to respect it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
the difference is an individual cities not voting for a tory government is a bit different to a whole country not voting for it... like ever...

not that I would be against Nottingham going for independence, my own thought is the idea that one group of people can decide what's best for the other £60million people is ridiculous and that major decisions should be made at a much more local level. But that's the way the world is run I suppose

I don't understand why people are so against Scotland deciding their own future. This 'Better Together' stuff is rubbish, much smaller countries seem to manage just fine.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9067
Report 5 years ago
#9067
(Original post by Hachik0)
So Mr Salmond wants Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, but join the European Union. That is not independence.

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
No it isn't is it?

After all, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland etc, etc, etc are not independent are they?

(Original post by Aj12)
Given the rise of anti eu parties quite a few people would argue they aren't fully independent whilst in the eu. Control of borders being the best example

ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is arguing that Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland etc, etc, etc are not independent.

Please give examples of some countries which are "fully independent".

The only country that I can think of that is close to being "fully independent" is North Korea.

For your information, the Yes camapaign is trying to achieve similar independent status for Scotland as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc, etc, etc, not that of a "fully independent" North Korea.
0
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9068
Report 5 years ago
#9068
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is arguing that Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland etc, etc, etc are not independent.

Please give examples of some countries which are "fully independent".

The only country that I can think of that is close to being "fully independent" is North Korea.

For your information, the Yes camapaign is trying to achieve similar independent status for Scotland as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc, etc, etc, not that of a "fully independent" North Korea.
If a country cannot control who can and cannot enter its borders then it is not fully independent. Simple really, I'm not sure which part you did not comprehend.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9069
Report 5 years ago
#9069
(Original post by Good bloke)
You need to check your FACTS a bit more carefully. You seem to be unaware that this border change was made to reflect the legal boundary, and to move waters that had previously been traditionally treated by the fishing industry (but nobody else) as being within Scotland's jurisdiction into English jurisdiction. This incorrect traditional view was based on drawing the line due east from Berwick.

The fishing boundary now marries up with the legal one and reflects the fact that Berwick is indisputably some way south of the border between England and Scotland, and that the border, anyway, runs roughly northeast, not due east.

You really are flogging a dead horse on this one. No territory was stolen.
I am not flogging anything - I am stating what was said by the BBC for example:

"The government has been asked to reconsider the decision to transfer 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters off the Berwickshire coast to English jurisdication."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/398670.stm

"In 1999, just before the UK Government devolved a range of domestic powers to Scotland, British Ministers introduced legislation that redrew the previous maritime boundary between Scotland and England.

The new boundary extended 200 miles in a north-west direction and placed 6000 square miles of previously Scottish waters under English legal control.

The move was widely criticised at the time and seen as an attempt by the British Government to secure rights to oil and gas fields in the North Sea should Scotland eventually become independent.

Now the Scottish Government has restated its intention to reclaim the disputed waters in the event of Scottish independence."

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140422/1893...Following.html

Could you explain why the 'transfer' was not made during the previous 300 years of the union but only just before Scotland got devolution?

Also, on devolution, the UK including Scotland was still one country, wasn't it? 'Better Together' weren't we?

So why change an 'internal' border which had not been changed for 300 years the moment Scotland got devolution?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9070
Report 5 years ago
#9070
(Original post by Good bloke)
For a kick-off, France. You won't remember Napoleon, of course, but he was dead set on invasion until 1805, and even beyond.
No, I don't remember 1805. But I will never forget this 'warning' given to Scotland in 2013:

"GLASGOW and Edinburgh airports, in an independent Scotland, could be bombed by an English government if it was threatened by an unfriendly country, a former deputy leader of the UK Conservative Party has warned.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie also warned - - -"

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...ports.17005697

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/.../.../> <br /> ml
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9071
Report 5 years ago
#9071
(Original post by Good bloke)
The Royal Scots famously helped defend British Canada from naked US aggression in the War of 1812. You aren't arguing that Scotland was somehow uninvolved in that conflict, are you?
I am talking about threats to Scotland, not about propotionately more Scots dying in the wars defending the British Empire.

Do you have any idea how many Scots died during the First World War, the start of which 'Better Together' we will soon be 'celebrating'?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9072
Report 5 years ago
#9072
(Original post by JamesGibson)
I support Scottish independence (as somebody from England) for two main reasons.

1) Democracy
There has been only 1 Tory MP in the whole of Scotland since the 1990s, yet Scotland has found itself being ruled by a Tory government in a small place called Westminster. The Scottish did NOT vote for this coalition government, so why on earth should they be subject to their policies? Thatcher privatised the Scottish industries, utility companies, despite the fact that the Scots did NOT vote for Thatcher. Scotland, as a huge landmass with a very distinct culture and population, should surely be able to have some say about who's in the government?

2) Escaping austerity
Austerity is failed ideological agenda that is forced upon Scotland. The only way to escape the unemployment, the welfare cuts and the array of other immoral policies is through independence - Alex Salmond is a respected social democrat and strong supporter of free universities, the welfare state and safeguards for the poorest in society.

Westminster is one of the most, if not the most, undemocratic system in the EU.

In the 1997 'landslide' in which Labour got 63% of the seats in parliament, it had only got 43% of the vote.

That was 7% short of even a simple majority, let alone a 'landslide'.

I am not sure of the turnout, but assuming it was 70%, the Labour share of the total electorate was only 30%.

Labour in 1997 got 20% points more seats in parliament than it deserved and only 30% of the electorate had voted for it.

In 2001 it was even worse - Labour got 22% points more seats than it deserved.

That same Labour which has said that the current SNP government is not a real democracy and Alex Salmond is a dictator.

In the 2011 Scottish election, the SNP got 45% of the vote which gave them 53% of the seats in parliament.

That was 5% short of a simple majority.

The SNP in 2011 got 8% points more seats in the Scottish parliament than it deserved.

I am not sure of the turnout, but assuming it was 65%, the SNP's share of the total electorate was 29%.

The SNP has a better democratic mandate than the Tories or Labour ever had with their 'landslide' victories at Westminster.

Of course, those who claim that "52% is just under two thirds" will not agree with the analysis above and the figures below but anyone believing in democracy will.


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


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".

I believe that Scottish independence will lead to democratic reform in rUK.
0
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9073
Report 5 years ago
#9073
(Original post by JamesGibson)
I support Scottish independence (as somebody from England) for two main reasons.

1) Democracy
There has been only 1 Tory MP in the whole of Scotland since the 1990s, yet Scotland has found itself being ruled by a Tory government in a small place called Westminster. The Scottish did NOT vote for this coalition government, so why on earth should they be subject to their policies? Thatcher privatised the Scottish industries, utility companies, despite the fact that the Scots did NOT vote for Thatcher.
More Scots voted for Thatcher than have ever voted for the SNP, and yet we have a SNP government in this so called anti-Thatcher nation. Hmm.


(Original post by JamesGibson)
Scotland, as a huge landmass with a very distinct culture and population, should surely be able to have some say about who's in the government?
Yeah the culture shock whenever I see my mum, **** me. It's so completely different from England or Wales or Northern Ireland.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9074
Report 5 years ago
#9074
(Original post by euphful)
The city of Nottingham didn't vote for this government. Neither did Sheffield. Or my home town of Worksop. Should they be independent also?

I'm no fan of austerity and will actively campaign and vote for this government to be removed from office in 2015. But it seems to me that part of living in a democracy means you have to respect it.
Does the City of Nottingham have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Shefield have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Wokshop have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

No?

Well, in that case they cannot become independent even if they would like to.

Just as Spain is claiming that Catalonia is an integral part of Spain and cannot have an independence referendum, Westminster would claim that Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop are an integral part of England and cannot have an independence referendum.

The independence of Scotland is therefore a slightly different matter than the independence of Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop, to say the least.

Even unionists have to admit that Scotland has a legal boundary with England and her own juridiction:

(Original post by Good bloke)
You need to check your FACTS a bit more carefully. You seem to be unaware that this border change was made to reflect the legal boundary, and to move waters that had previously been traditionally treated by the fishing industry (but nobody else) as being within Scotland's jurisdiction into English jurisdiction. This incorrect traditional view was based on drawing the line due east from Berwick.

The fishing boundary now marries up with the legal one and reflects the fact that Berwick is indisputably some way south of the border between England and Scotland, and that the border, anyway, runs roughly northeast, not due east.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9075
Report 5 years ago
#9075
(Original post by Hachik0)
So Mr Salmond wants Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, but join the European Union. That is not independence.

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
No it isn't is it?

After all, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland etc, etc, etc are not independent are they?

(Original post by Aj12)
Given the rise of anti eu parties quite a few people would argue they aren't fully independent whilst in the eu. Control of borders being the best example

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is arguing that Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland etc, etc, etc are not independent.

Please give examples of some countries which are "fully independent".

The only country that I can think of that is close to being "fully independent" is North Korea.

For your information, the Yes camapaign is trying to achieve similar independent status for Scotland as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc, etc, etc, not that of a "fully independent" North Korea.
(Original post by Aj12)
If a country cannot control who can and cannot enter its borders then it is not fully independent. Simple really, I'm not sure which part you did not comprehend.
You know there is a little bit of difference between being "independent" like Finland, and being "fully independent" like North Korea.

As far as I understand, Scottish independence is about being "independent" like Finland, not about being "fully independent" like North Korea.

Perhaps you could point me to some other "fully independent" countries so I can comprehend better.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9076
Report 5 years ago
#9076
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
You know there is a little bit of difference between being "independent" like Finland, and being "fully independent" like North Korea.

As far as I understand, Scottish independence is about being "independent" like Finland, not about being "fully independent" like North Korea.

Perhaps you could point me to some other "fully independent" countries so I can comprehend better.
independant of what? A democratically elected parliamentary democracy?
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9077
Report 5 years ago
#9077
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Does the City of Nottingham have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Shefield have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Wokshop have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

No?

Well, in that case they cannot become independent even if they would like to.

Just as Spain is claiming that Catalonia is an integral part of Spain and cannot have an independence referendum, Westminster would claim that Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop are an integral part of England and cannot have an independence referendum.

The independence of Scotland is therefore a slightly different matter than the independence of Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop, to say the least.

Even unionists have to admit that Scotland has a legal boundary with England and her own juridiction:
Well in response to what you're saying about internationally recognised legal boundaries, neither does Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The UK has international recognised legal boundaries.

Scotland has the same internal boundaries as Nottingham, Worksop and Leeds.

You rally must try harder.

Debating with you is like debating a creationist. Even when your errors are highlighted you'll ignore them.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9078
Report 5 years ago
#9078
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
I am not flogging anything - I am stating what was said by the BBC for example:

"The government has been asked to reconsider the decision to transfer 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters off the Berwickshire coast to English jurisdication."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/398670.stm

"In 1999, just before the UK Government devolved a range of domestic powers to Scotland, British Ministers introduced legislation that redrew the previous maritime boundary between Scotland and England.

The new boundary extended 200 miles in a north-west direction and placed 6000 square miles of previously Scottish waters under English legal control.

The move was widely criticised at the time and seen as an attempt by the British Government to secure rights to oil and gas fields in the North Sea should Scotland eventually become independent.

Now the Scottish Government has restated its intention to reclaim the disputed waters in the event of Scottish independence."

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140422/1893...Following.html

Could you explain why the 'transfer' was not made during the previous 300 years of the union but only just before Scotland got devolution?

Also, on devolution, the UK including Scotland was still one country, wasn't it? 'Better Together' weren't we?

So why change an 'internal' border which had not been changed for 300 years the moment Scotland got devolution?
Because that border clearly wasn't accurate. Just look at the present border and tell me what problems you have with it-you've been asked enough times.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9079
Report 5 years ago
#9079
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Does the City of Nottingham have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Shefield have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Wokshop have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

No?

Well, in that case they cannot become independent even if they would like to.

Just as Spain is claiming that Catalonia is an integral part of Spain and cannot have an independence referendum, Westminster would claim that Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop are an integral part of England and cannot have an independence referendum.

The independence of Scotland is therefore a slightly different matter than the independence of Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop, to say the least.

Even unionists have to admit that Scotland has a legal boundary with England and her own juridiction:
Of course, Scotland is more important than other parts of the UK. I'm intrigued to visit this 'Wokshop' though, I'm definitely short on Chinese cooking equipment.
0
Boab
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9080
Report 5 years ago
#9080
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
You rally must try harder.

Debating with you is like debating a creationist. Even when your errors are highlighted you'll ignore them.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

The words pot and kettle come to mind! :rolleyes:
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 (144)
60.25%
No I haven't decided yet (54)
22.59%
Yes but I might change my mind (41)
17.15%

Watched Threads

View All