Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Scotland voted remain because the EU give them a lot of money, and they can't support themselves very well out of it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YaliaV)
    You are little more than a region of a country at the minute.
    Scotland is a COUNTRY in a political union. The same as England.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Debz0r)
    Scotland is a COUNTRY in a political union. The same as England.
    Is it self-sufficient? Scotland is little more independent than Wales and Wales is basically just an extension of England.

    Remainers state that England will face problems without Europe - that's obvious. However, Scotland will face huge financial realities after it has stropped and asserted its nationalism. Unless concessions are made, Scotland will struggle as it benefits financially from the union.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    dare i say it, the scots seems to have their brains switched on for the most part (cdertainly more than middle england and the benefits scapegoaters) certainly they recognise the economic importance of being attached to the worlds biggest trading group - thats not rocket science
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tsunaomi)
    Scotland voted remain because the EU give them a lot of money, and they can't support themselves very well out of it
    Then there's Northern Ireland. I don't know what NI thinks it will do. I doubt there is enough support for a united Ireland and what would the logistics be? The education system is totally different and people in Ireland have to pay for their health service - that would not be popular! The thought of NI going solo is a total joke.

    People in Scotland and Northern Ireland have criticised English nationalism when they are stropping and asserting their own. If Scotland does go it alone, it will be Europe's ***** and probably still dependent on England in ways. Hypocrisy at its worst.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YaliaV)
    Then there's Northern Ireland. I don't know what NI thinks it will do. I doubt there is enough support for a united Ireland and what would the logistics be? The education system is totally different and people in Ireland have to pay for their health service - that would not be popular! The thought of NI going solo is a total joke.

    People in Scotland and Northern Ireland have criticised English nationalism when they are stropping and asserting their own. If Scotland does go it alone, it will be Europe's ***** and probably still dependent on England in ways. Hypocrisy at its worst.
    Lol exactly. I'm northern irish.

    People here will never majorly vote to leave the UK- a large number of people are civil servants, we DEPEND on being part of the UK. If it's between leaving the EU and a united Ireland, NI will just deal with leaving the EU.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Up until the recent drop in the price of oil Scotland was a net contributer to the union. Regardless, if we are in such a poor state as you seem to be suggesting, it is yet more evidence that the union isn't working for us.
    Scotland will already face "huge finacial realities', alongside the rest of the U.K, thanks to the out vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YaliaV)
    Is it self-sufficient? Scotland is little more independent than Wales and Wales is basically just an extension of England.

    Remainers state that England will face problems without Europe - that's obvious. However, Scotland will face huge financial realities after it has stropped and asserted its nationalism. Unless concessions are made, Scotland will struggle as it benefits financially from the union.
    Up until the recent drop in the price of oil Scotland was a net contributer to the union. Regardless, if we are in such a poor state as you seem to be suggesting, it is yet more evidence that the union isn't working for us.
    Scotland will already face "huge finacial realities', alongside the rest of the U.K, thanks to the out vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    SNP hsve a massive influence there and they were jn the IN campaign. Scotland hates being governed by London and they like the EU conttolling the uk, even though it hurts them too. Obviouly that last part, they love to ignore.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Debz0r)
    Up until the recent drop in the price of oil Scotland was a net contributer to the union.
    I'm sorry, that's just not true. Scotland has run a deficit- based on the Scottish Government's own figures - in 24 of the last 25 years. In one year of that, we were a net contributer to the UK - yes - but it wasn't even by much.

    Regardless, if we are in such a poor state as you seem to be suggesting, it is yet more evidence that the union isn't working for us.
    That doesn't really follow (plus, you'd then be making the reverse case in the last section I quoted: that the union is in fact good for Scotland's economy).

    The reason is that we're talking about tax and spending, not the underlying economy. There is £15 billion more spent on public services for Scotland than is raised in taxes in Scotland. That tells you nothing at all about its economy. In this case, particularly, it is *******s - it actually represents the transfer of money from other parts of the United Kingdom to provide far higher levels of public spending in Scotland.

    So we're presented with a very clear choice for an independent Scotland: raise taxes or cut public spending by billions of pounds. Both inevitably harm the economy - and at the levels we're talking here, it's the sort of harm that creates a very deep, very unpleasant recession.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattB_)
    If Scotland were to have a second referendum and vote to leave the UK, would they even be able to survive? As. 'The latest comprehensive snapshot concluded that Scotland was running a larger deficit as a percentage of economic output than the UK average.' this takes into account the money Scotland makes from taxes and the money the UK government gives to Scotland so without the UK they would just turn out to be the next ROI with huge public debt as a percentage of their GDP

    Source: BBC News, HM Treasury
    You ask about survival, then cite the ROI. It survives. Indeed, Ethiopia survives. It's not a hard bar to reach. If the question is "would Scotland be worse off?" the answer is undoubtedly yes - and, following this vote - in many more ways.

    I suspect Scottish nationalists who voted remain (a fairly substantial chunk - over a third - voted to leave) feel like they've been screwed by someone else. The emotional reaction is to try to shaft that someone else, rather than actually looking at what we can make out of this situation and acting in the way that will best benefit Scotland.

    If we address the second issue there, I think it's pretty clear that the benefits that the UK provides to Scotland are even more important now than before.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm sorry, that's just not true. Scotland has run a deficit- based on the Scottish Government's own figures - in 24 of the last 25 years. In one year of that, we were a net contributer to the UK - yes - but it wasn't even by much.



    That doesn't really follow (plus, you'd then be making the reverse case in the last section I quoted: that the union is in fact good for Scotland's economy).

    The reason is that we're talking about tax and spending, not the underlying economy. There is £15 billion more spent on public services for Scotland than is raised in taxes in Scotland. That tells you nothing at all about its economy. In this case, particularly, it is *******s - it actually represents the transfer of money from other parts of the United Kingdom to provide far higher levels of public spending in Scotland.


    So we're presented with a very clear choice for an independent Scotland: raise taxes or cut public spending by billions of pounds. Both inevitably harm the economy - and at the levels we're talking here, it's the sort of harm that creates a very deep, very unpleasant recession.
    What I meant by that is that Scotland has (in past years) contributed more in taxes than it received, although these figures do take into account a geographical share in north sea oil revenue. Of course Scotland now runs a deficit- rUK has a deficit too. Scotland's has actually been comparatively smaller in past years (before the fall in oil prices).

    I understand that there are questions to be answered about many issues, not least the economic arguments. However, I still think Scotland would survive and given full control to implement policies that benefit Scotland, we would thrive.

    Being ruled by Tory governments we don't vote for, and being dragged out of the European Union against our wishes (and possibly plunged into a recession anyway)- is not democratic. There was absolutely no appetite for an EU referendum in Scotland in the first place. How can a political union between countries with such opposing political and social ideologies survive?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Debz0r)
    What I meant by that is that Scotland has (in past years) contributed more in taxes than it received, although these figures do take into account a geographical share in north sea oil revenue.
    Yes, it did for one year in the last quarter of a century. In every other year, we had a deficit - we contributed less in taxes than was spent on Scotland. If you're curious, that year was 2000-01 - when we were still running a smaller surplus, proportionately, than the UK as a whole.

    All of this includes Scotland's full geographic oil and gas revenues. I wouldn't use figures that don't.

    Of course Scotland now runs a deficit- rUK has a deficit too.
    Indeed, but Scotland has a proportionately much greater deficit and the gap is not reducing. While the UK was looking at getting out of deficit by 2019, even the most optimistic long-term projections did not show this happening for Scotland any time in the foreseeable future.

    Scotland's has actually been comparatively smaller in past years (before the fall in oil prices).
    Again, that's not the case. Figures for 2013-14 - ending at April 2014, long before the oil price fall - Scotland had a net fiscal balance of 8.8% of GDP, whereas for the UK it was 5.8% of GDP. That's a difference in cash terms of £4.6 billion.

    There has been years where Scotland's relative fiscal balance has been in a better position than the UK as a whole (ie, we've had a lower proportionate deficit). Over the last 15 years, there has been two or three years where that was the case - depending on whether you measure per capita or by GDP (the second being the more credible). In any case, that's not being a "net contributer" - Scotland continued to see more public spending than it raised in taxes, no money went elsewhere.

    Being ruled by Tory governments we don't vote for, and being dragged out of the European Union against our wishes (and possibly plunged into a recession anyway)- is not democratic
    I fail to see that. There are always parts of a country that vote different ways from others. The concept of democracy is one person, one vote: notably though, hundreds of thousands of Scots did vote for a Tory government, just like millions of others across the UK. Our votes are all equal.

    Within Scotland there are political differences too. Support for remaining in the EU varied more in percentage terms within Scotland's 32 council areas than it did between Scotland and England. There are numerous parts of Scotland who have an SNP government "they didn't vote for", including the very place where the Scottish Parliament sits.

    Political variation is normal across countries.

    There was absolutely no appetite for an EU referendum in Scotland in the first place.
    Here's a poll showing 58% of Scots wanted a referendum on membership of the EU. I don't think there's a single one out there that would suggest anything otherwise. A referendum was pretty popular across the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Within Scotland there are political differences too. Support for remaining in the EU varied more in percentage terms within Scotland's 32 council areas than it did between Scotland and England. There are numerous parts of Scotland who have an SNP government "they didn't vote for", including the very place where the Scottish Parliament sits.

    Political variation is normal across countries.

    Here's a poll showing 58% of Scots wanted a referendum on membership of the EU. I don't think there's a single one out there that would suggest anything otherwise. A referendum was pretty popular across the UK.
    It's a simple fact that every single one of Scotland's council areas had more people turn out to vote for Remain that turn out for Leave. Only one of these areas wanted a Conservative MP.

    As a region Scotland had the strongest views on EU membership in the whole of the UK - voting 62% to remain.

    In contrast you have a survey of just over a thousand people taking the answers only of people who answer a landline telephone and are prepared to complete a survey. Hardly the most ideal sampling method.

    Whatever you or I think, it is highly likely that Scotland will hold a second referendum and it is pretty likely they will become independent. As a Scottish colleage told me, and he is far from unique in his viewpoint:

    "It doesn't matter to be if we end up poorer. Scotland will be in control of its own destiny."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yes, it did for one year in the last quarter of a century. In every other year, we had a deficit - we contributed less in taxes than was spent on Scotland. If you're curious, that year was 2000-01 - when we were still running a smaller surplus, proportionately, than the UK as a whole.

    All of this includes Scotland's full geographic oil and gas revenues. I wouldn't use figures that don't.



    Indeed, but Scotland has a proportionately much greater deficit and the gap is not reducing. While the UK was looking at getting out of deficit by 2019, even the most optimistic long-term projections did not show this happening for Scotland any time in the foreseeable future.



    Again, that's not the case. Figures for 2013-14 - ending at April 2014, long before the oil price fall - Scotland had a net fiscal balance of 8.8% of GDP, whereas for the UK it was 5.8% of GDP. That's a difference in cash terms of £4.6 billion.

    There has been years where Scotland's relative fiscal balance has been in a better position than the UK as a whole (ie, we've had a lower proportionate deficit). Over the last 15 years, there has been two or three years where that was the case - depending on whether you measure per capita or by GDP (the second being the more credible). In any case, that's not being a "net contributer" - Scotland continued to see more public spending than it raised in taxes, no money went elsewhere.



    I fail to see that. There are always parts of a country that vote different ways from others. The concept of democracy is one person, one vote: notably though, hundreds of thousands of Scots did vote for a Tory government, just like millions of others across the UK. Our votes are all equal.

    Within Scotland there are political differences too. Support for remaining in the EU varied more in percentage terms within Scotland's 32 council areas than it did between Scotland and England. There are numerous parts of Scotland who have an SNP government "they didn't vote for", including the very place where the Scottish Parliament sits.

    Political variation is normal across countries.



    Here's a poll showing 58% of Scots wanted a referendum on membership of the EU. I don't think there's a single one out there that would suggest anything otherwise. A referendum was pretty popular across the UK.
    Well this report by the university of Glasgow shows Scotland has historically been in a a better fiscal position than rUK, having a surplus throughout the 80's and a smaller deficit than rUK in the years thereafter.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...25596728,d.ZGg

    These figures also show Scotland to have higher revenues than expenditure (i'm sure there are other years too!):

    http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/03/1859
    http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/03/9525

    Not anymore, however,so I guess it doesn't really matter. And anyway deficit reduction will be the least of all of our worries after this Brexit result.

    I understand what you're saying about there being political differences across a country- of course there are. However, when the majority of a country votes for a political party and ends up being governed by another,or votes overwhelmingly in a referendum to no avail, I can't agree that that is democratic. Although this obviously depends on whether an individual relates to being Scottish or British.
    Yes 58% said in a poll that they "wanted" an EU referendum, yet not enough to vote for a party that was offering one. It was not high on the list of priorities for Scottish voters.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    In contrast you have a survey of just over a thousand people taking the answers only of people who answer a landline telephone and are prepared to complete a survey. Hardly the most ideal sampling method.
    I think we can safely say that it was the fairly substantial popular view in Scotland that there should be an EU referendum. I accept polls have limitations, but (1) it was a sizeable majority and (2) it chimes with what we know about public opinion. People like referendums, they don't necessarily have to support the change option to support one being called.

    Whatever you or I think, it is highly likely that Scotland will hold a second referendum and it is pretty likely they will become independent. As a Scottish colleage told me, and he is far from unique in his viewpoint:

    "It doesn't matter to be if we end up poorer. Scotland will be in control of its own destiny."
    I'm sure he isn't unique, there are a lot of fairly terrible people out there. However the people I focus on tend to give a toss whether we can support the least fortunate in our society, whether we can provide people with stable employment, whether we can afford a health service.

    Perhaps your colleague isn't actually malicious. I'm prepared to accept that. Perhaps he is either a straight-up idiot who has not made the connection between the national economy and the wellbeing of the public, or perhaps he's so blinded by nationalism that he's genuinely thinks that people plunged into poverty can be sustained by the skirl of the bagpipes and the belief in the greatness of the fatherland.

    Nationalism of that type is the most corrosive and backward force ever to gain any popular currency.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Debz0r)
    Well this report by the university of Glasgow shows Scotland has historically been in a a better fiscal position than rUK, having a surplus throughout the 80's and a smaller deficit than rUK in the years thereafter.
    Like I said, in the last 15 years, Scotland's deficit has been proportionately smaller than the UK's in two or three years based on how you measure it.

    Scotland did well throughout much of the 1980s. So, incidentally, did the rest of the UK. But I don't think positions from three decades ago are particularly helpful in informing a view of Scotland's fiscal balance now and in the future.

    You do seem to accept my position - hell, I'm doing little more than quoting the GERS figures that you have quoted back at me. That's at least some common ground.

    These figures also show Scotland to have higher revenues than expenditure (i'm sure there are other years too!):

    http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2013/03/1859
    http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/03/9525
    Erm, you've just linked me to two reports. GERS 2010-11 and GERS 2011-12. They say

    2010-11: Total revenue (geographic North Sea): £53,128 million.Total expenditure: £63,807 million.

    GERS 2011-12: Total revenue (geographic North Sea): £56,871 million.Total expenditure: £64,457 million.

    That's literally the opposite of what you said they say.

    I understand what you're saying about there being political differences across a country- of course there are. However, when the majority of a country votes for a political party and ends up being governed by another,or votes overwhelmingly in a referendum to no avail, I can't agree that that is democratic. Although this obviously depends on whether an individual relates to being Scottish or British.
    Yes 58% said in a poll that they "wanted" an EU referendum, yet not enough to vote for a party that was offering one. It was not high on the list of priorities for Scottish voters.
    I suppose this is the distinction: nationalism. You don't seem to have any problem with political variation, except when it is attached to being a "country". You might as well have just said "I think Scotland should be independent because it is a country" from the outset.

    You attach all-important significance to your belief that Scotland is a "country" and therefore not only can be but must be politically recognised. I do not believe that what are essentially cultural entities have significance in politics, just as I believe politics should be distanced from questions of religion, ethnicity or any other of the plethora of what comes under the banner of "identity politics".

    I won't agree with you that democracy is tied to that. You may as well argue that political decisions are illegitimate unless agreed by every racial group in a political entity, or every faith, or people of both genders. Democracy is fairly straightforward though: the people rule, one person one vote. Collections of people do not have views, individuals do, and that is how they should be represented.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Because they aren't idiots.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think we can safely say that it was the fairly substantial popular view in Scotland that there should be an EU referendum. I accept polls have limitations, but (1) it was a sizeable majority and (2) it chimes with what we know about public opinion. People like referendums, they don't necessarily have to support the change option to support one being called.
    Politely, I would say that neither of us has produced anything substantial enough to support that argument or support the converse. But I'm well trained enough in statistics to take a look at the representation of that survey and say that, if we crunch the numbers, it will clearly not meet the standard definition of being statistically significant.

    My experience living in Scotland through the process of the independence referendum suggests to me that the majority of people wanted the question of leaving the EU to not be on the table.
    I'm sure he isn't unique, there are a lot of fairly terrible people out there. However the people I focus on tend to give a toss whether we can support the least fortunate in our society, whether we can provide people with stable employment, whether we can afford a health service.

    Perhaps your colleague isn't actually malicious. I'm prepared to accept that. Perhaps he is either a straight-up idiot who has not made the connection between the national economy and the wellbeing of the public, or perhaps he's so blinded by nationalism that he's genuinely thinks that people plunged into poverty can be sustained by the skirl of the bagpipes and the belief in the greatness of the fatherland.

    Nationalism of that type is the most corrosive and backward force ever to gain any popular currency.
    I would suggest the opposite. That he would like to live in a Scotland that is able to decide exactly how it makes money and exactly how it spends money. He is not, of course, referring to making everyone poorer, just those in his position. Bear in mind this man in particular works already with some of the most vulnerable and deprived children in Glasgow, which makes them some of the most vulnerable and deprived in the UK.

    You don't know enough of his politics to make such damning judgements, and you should really be intelligent enough to have seen that in the first place.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I would suggest the opposite. That he would like to live in a Scotland that is able to decide exactly how it makes money and exactly how it spends money. He is not, of course, referring to making everyone poorer, just those in his position.
    Your arse. That statement tells us quite the opposite, and indeed it's a rational expectation: groups don't tend to get poorer in isolation, societies do. It's a luxury of the comfortable and the mobile that they can sit and talk about how lovely something would be, without worrying too much about the consequences.

    "Scotland" will never be able to make decisions, only individuals within it in a democracy. Just like we have now.

    You don't know enough of his politics to make such damning judgements, and you should really be intelligent enough to have seen that in the first place.
    I know enough about the sort of people who come out with that sort of thoughtless nonsense.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.