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.
sauzee_4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9421
Report 5 years ago
#9421
(Original post by Midlander)
So you think the advice given to RUK politicians was wrong? If they go back on their word it will be political suicide. The Lib Dems will be a non-entity after 2015 however Labour and the Tories have more at stake and would be highly ill advised to lie about this.
What advice have they taken? This Leslie Young chap seems to have strong credentials and appears to be non-partisan.

The rUK electorate have not looked at the proposals in detail as yet, so public opinion could easily change.

Support for independence was around 25% for years but now the question has been asked, we have all had to look at the pros and cons.
0
sauzee_4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9422
Report 5 years ago
#9422
(Original post by Midlander)
The Scottish government has proposed to increase spending on all fronts. Not exactly prudent.
SNP have decided on this, they may not be in charge after 2016.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9423
Report 5 years ago
#9423
(Original post by L i b)
If you applied that concept to "races", it would be very racist - apartheid, effectively. If you apply it to other groups, that's nationalism. However nationalism is, in many ways, tied up with ethnicity too.



A complete fabrication. A ditty sung to the tune, reported third-hand in a magazine a century later as having been sung in a theatre in London in 1745 does not a verse of the national anthem make. In fact, there are no official words to the National Anthem, however two verses have been used in programmes etc at state events.

It's this sort of distortion that really undermines the nationalist case: they clearly lie to create grievances where none exist.



I'm not sure where that figure comes from, but it certainly isn't the usual, established and verified figures. If it was, GERS does not include the extra spending on national research grants that Scotland receives - in fact, it attributes it on a per capita population basis as a national expenditure.

Anyway, let's consider the figures we use: you are suggesting historical ones would support an argument for independence. It seems to be the suggestion that, despite huge change, things would stay the same. They won't. Our public services will cost more to run as a separate state, we will lose economies of scale, we will be faced with enormous start-up costs, we will lose money tackling the volatility of our public finances caused by North Sea oil, we will cease to have UK Trade and Investment promoting Scottish businesses from their bases across the globe.

Scotland in the past will not be Scotland in the future, particularly if we opt to leave the UK.
Really? Then how is it that the small independent countries have among the best economic indicators in the world and ranked among the richest in the OECD and have nothing to do with the UK?
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9424
Report 5 years ago
#9424
(Original post by Jambamac)
Worth a read - Part 2 of the analysis by Professor Leslie Young, respected economist, on currency options post independence.
I'm not sure you, as a Scottish nationalist, want to be quoting that (bizarre) report, considering what it has to say about Scottish independence.

Particularly:

"What would bring significant costs for “all the United Kingdom” is the uncertainty about the long-term fate of Scotland’s currency that independence would bring, even if it formed a currency union with rUK", that “the transition [after Scottish independence] might well be tumultuous and inflict severe costs on Scotland, such as an exit of RBS, Lloyds and other large financial institutions" and, finally, "that a vote for independence would immediately raise currency issues that would inflict substantial long-term costs on Scotland and significant long-term costs on rUK, even under the most favorable conditions, that is, even if the two governments move quickly to set up a currency union."

I wonder how much respect you have for him now he's disagreeing with you...
0
sauzee_4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9425
Report 5 years ago
#9425
(Original post by 1tartanarmy)
Scotland gets "more than its fair share" because the university's outperform other ones. It is performance based...

EDIT: furthermore I'm pretty sure if the savings and gains from full oil tax revenues, no house of lords spending, no nuclear weapons expenditure, no illegal war expenditure and no second homes for Alistair darling etc were combined maybe...if combined all together...maybe we could afford to pay for your post doc....
(Original post by Midlander)
You do know that Scotland loses billions inclusive of geographical share of oil revenue? Also feel free to add on the cost of giving all those RUK students free tuition. Who was it who took the UK into these 'illegal' wars, by the way ? A Scotsman. Who ruined the economy? A Scotsman.

Just because a politician is Scottish does not mean s/he will by default always make brilliant decisions.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Scotland runs a deficit, the rUK runs a much larger deficit.

On your second point, the point the Yes side are trying to make is that a Scottish Government would be enacting policies designed specifically for the Scottish people, rather than having to consider the needs of those in England, Ireland and Wales.

The nationality of who is in charge is not important.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9426
Report 5 years ago
#9426
(Original post by sauzee_4)
What advice have they taken? This Leslie Young chap seems to have strong credentials and appears to be non-partisan.

The rUK electorate have not looked at the proposals in detail as yet, so public opinion could easily change.

Support for independence was around 25% for years but now the question has been asked, we have all had to look at the pros and cons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26958460

I also don't know where Yes campaigners get off on speaking for the rest of the UK's electorate. Since we are all xenophobic Tories surely it's a foregone conclusion?
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9427
Report 5 years ago
#9427
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Really? Then how is it that the small independent countries have among the best economic indicators in the world and ranked among the richest in the OECD and have nothing to do with the UK?
That's simply not true. There are small independent countries at both ends of the economic scale: some of the wealthiest countries in the world are small independent countries, as are some of the poorest. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world are large countries, so are some of the poorest.

Even if you were accurate on that point, you'd still be making a nonsense argument. Because you've apparently ignored that very straightforward point that, when endeavouring to make logical arguments, correlation does not imply causation. Some countries are rich for some reasons, others for others. For the reasons I've mentioned, Scotland gains considerably from being part of the UK and we are better off for it.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9428
Report 5 years ago
#9428
(Original post by sauzee_4)
SNP have decided on this, they may not be in charge after 2016.
In an independent Scotland I would expect the SNP to retain their majority. Speculation of course but no way could Labour win it having backed the losing horse.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9429
Report 5 years ago
#9429
(Original post by L i b)
For the reasons I've mentioned, Scotland gains considerably from being part of the UK and we are better off for it.
How?
Executive pay has increased by about 4000% since the 1980's. Pay for the average worker has increased by about between 10 and 20% over the same period. The High Pay Commission website confirms this.
0
sauzee_4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9430
Report 5 years ago
#9430
(Original post by Choo.choo)
I am in favour of an elected head of state. It is just something the SNP support - maintaining the union of crowns, which funnily enough happened before the act of union of 1707. I am astonished (sound like Johann Lamont) how Scotland has stayed in a union with London this long. The Monarchy should not be kept in an independent Scotland. I would like to see the Monarchy gone.
I think it will be eventually
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9431
Report 5 years ago
#9431
(Original post by Choo.choo)
Really? Then how is it that the small independent countries have among the best economic indicators in the world and ranked among the richest in the OECD and have nothing to do with the UK?
Which countries are not independent? Scotland in the eyes of international law is not a country so can't count that.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9432
Report 5 years ago
#9432
(Original post by Midlander)
In an independent Scotland I would expect the SNP to retain their majority. Speculation of course but no way could Labour win it having backed the losing horse.
In Norway, they just recently had a Labour Party as its government. They now have the Conservatives. The former PM of Norway (Labour Party) is now head of NATO.
Should Johann Lamont be head of NATO if she is ever first minister?
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9433
Report 5 years ago
#9433
(Original post by Choo.choo)
How?
Executive pay has increased by about 4000% since the 1980's. Pay for the average worker has increased by about between 10 and 20% over the same period. The High Pay Commission website confirms this.
For the reasons mentioned elsewhere on this thread. Disporportionate levels of public spending allocated to Scotland across the board and guaranteed use of a strong currency union being good places to start.
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9434
Report 5 years ago
#9434
(Original post by Choo.choo)
In Norway, they just recently had a Labour Party as its government. They now have the Conservatives. The former PM of Norway (Labour Party) is now head of NATO.
Should Johann Lamont be head of NATO if she is ever first minister?
I don't understand what on Earth you're getting at.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9435
Report 5 years ago
#9435
Here is an interesting article on the differences between a small independent country like Denmark and a large society like the USA - guess which one has poverty in abundance?
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9436
Report 5 years ago
#9436
(Original post by L i b)
That's simply not true. There are small independent countries at both ends of the economic scale: some of the wealthiest countries in the world are small independent countries, as are some of the poorest. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world are large countries, so are some of the poorest.

Even if you were accurate on that point, you'd still be making a nonsense argument. Because you've apparently ignored that very straightforward point that, when endeavouring to make logical arguments, correlation does not imply causation. Some countries are rich for some reasons, others for others. For the reasons I've mentioned, Scotland gains considerably from being part of the UK and we are better off for it.
I'm sure the good people of Somalia are revelling in the world leaving them to do their own thing. North Korea as well, another thriving economic hub of activity.
0
Choo.choo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#9437
Report 5 years ago
#9437
(Original post by Midlander)
I don't understand what on Earth you're getting at.
You said only the SNP will be the government in an independent Scotland. I have just proved you wrong, and that anything is possible. It doesn't have to be the SNP.
0
sauzee_4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9438
Report 5 years ago
#9438
(Original post by Reformed2010)
My question goes at the heart of sovereignty and I was using the comparison of conservatives in UK and EU to better highlight my point. Clearing didn't work.

You are certainly swapping London for Brussels. An independent Scotland would be legally obliged to join the Eurozone, banking union, Schengen area and the European Fiscal Compact. Major decisions that will have a direct impact on the everyday lives of the Scottish people and their economy will be taken by European Politicians in Brussels. Not London and not Edinburgh.

So again I ask, why is it perfectly okay to have Brussels make the decision on say the Scottish interest rates and interfere with its budget but having London do so it's robbing Scotland of its sovereignty?
If Scotland took on a share of the UK debt we would not meet the Eurozone Convergence Criteria, so we would not qualify to join the Euro:


  1. HICP inflation (12-months average of yearly rates): Shall be no more than 1.5% higher, than the unweighted arithmetic average of the similar HICP inflation rates in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation. EU member states with a HICP rate significantly below the comparable rates in other Member States, do not qualify as a benchmark country for the reference value and will be ignored, if it can be established its price developments have been strongly affected by exceptional factors (i.e. severe wage cuts and/or a strong recession).[8]
  2. Government budget deficit: The ratio of the annual general government deficit relative to gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices, must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. Deficits being "slightly above the limit" (previously outlined by the evaluation practise to mean deficits in the range from 3.0–3.5%),[9] will as a standard rule not be accepted, unless it can be established that either: "1) The deficit ratio has declined substantially and continuously before reaching the level close to the 3%-limit" or "2) The small deficit ratio excess above the 3%-limit has been caused by exceptional circumstances and has a temporary nature (i.e. expenditure one-offs triggered by a significant economic downturn, or expenditure one-offs triggered by the implementation of economic reforms with a positive mid/long-term effect)".[5][6]
  3. Government debt-to-GDP ratio: The ratio of gross government debt (measured at its nominal value outstanding at the end of the year and consolidated between and within the sectors of general government) relative to GDP at market prices, must not exceed 60% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. Or if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds the 60% limit, the ratio shall at least be found to have "sufficiently diminished and must be approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace".[6]
  4. Exchange rate: Applicant countries should have joined the exchange-rate mechanism (ERM / ERM II) under theEuropean Monetary System (EMS) for two consecutive years, and should not have devalued its currency during the last two years, meaning that the country shall have succeeded to keep its monetary exchange-rate within a ±15% range from an unchanged central rate.
  5. Long-term interest rates (average yields for 10yr government bonds in the past year): Shall be no more than 2.0% higher, than the unweighted arithmetic average of the similar 10-year government bond yields in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation (having qualified as benchmark countries for the calculation of the HICP reference value). If any of the 3 EU member states in concern are suffering from interest rates significantly higher than the "GDP-weighted Eurozone average interest rate", and at the same time have no complete funding access to financial markets (which will be the case for as long as a country receives disbursements from a sovereign state bailout program), then such a country will not qualify as a benchmark country for the reference value; which then only will be calculated upon data from fewer than 3 EU member states.[10]
0
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9439
Report 5 years ago
#9439
(Original post by Choo.choo)
You said only the SNP will be the government in an independent Scotland. I have just proved you wrong, and that anything is possible. It doesn't have to be the SNP.
No, I meant that the first elections held will be won by the SNP. Also, what happens in Norway is not a given to happen in Scotland-do you really see the Scottish Tories winning a majority any time soon?
0
sauzee_4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9440
Report 5 years ago
#9440
(Original post by Midlander)
England's deficit is smaller, Wales and Northern Ireland's are much bigger. It is quite clear that England and to a lesser extent Scotland are carrying the other two.

The UK at this moment in time is in a pretty strong position financially and that is despite falling oil revenues.
We are £1.3 trillion in debt, in what way are we in a strong financial position?
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