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.
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1781
Report 6 years ago
#1781
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The North East is A PART OF ENGLAND.

Scotland is a NATION in an EQUAL UNION with England.

Stop acting ignorant.
Let's be accurate about this. Scotland and England (including Wales) were sovereign nations. They both ceased to be so when they formed the union and the new sovereign nation (the UK). Scotland now has no more claim to be a sovereign nation than Ross and Cromarty, Rutland, the Shetlands, the north-east of England or, indeed, England.

Scotland has no more right to a Westminster parliament that fully reflects its wishes than any other region of the UK (like Yorkshire, London, Wales or East Anglia).

What was that about ignorance?
1
DaniilKaya
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1782
Report 6 years ago
#1782
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Not for the sake of it and it jeopordise your future it isn't.

By that Logic I can become independenat. Can I?
Can't really understand your answer:confused::confused:

Citizen of any democratic country in the world is independent

But fact is only one - England doesn't wants friends , they wants vassals

It is very important to pay attention to the global political problem
0
LeBuche
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1783
Report 6 years ago
#1783
(Original post by Good bloke)
Let's be accurate about this. Scotland and England (including Wales) were sovereign nations. They both ceased to be so when they formed the union and the new sovereign nation (the UK). Scotland now has no more claim to be a sovereign nation than Ross and Cromarty, Rutland, the Shetlands, the north-east of England or, indeed, England.

Scotland has no more right to a Westminster parliament that fully reflects its wishes than any other region of the UK (like Yorkshire, London, Wales or East Anglia).

What was that about ignorance?
Was going to be my rant. Well said sir. :hat:
0
rmpr97
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1784
Report 6 years ago
#1784
(Original post by dixie2013)
My argument will go away when Scotland say actually counted for something. Scotland needs to be Independant but remain friends as the Uk will need Scotland as much as Scotland will need the UK.
Scotland's say does count for something. They have a devolved parliament, seats in Westminster and the country was run by Scots from 1997-2010. What's your problem? Somebody else won this time, that's how democracy works. You can't cry independence just because who you wanted to win lost.

And so you want Scotland to be independent but keep the good bits? That's not how it works. The UK does not need Scotland in the slightest, in fact, the UK will probably be more economically efficient without having to pay for the subsidy Scotland receives. There will not be some sort of amicable relationship where there will be open borders, Scotland having a say on BoE monetary policy and the UK still funding existing energy projects. You're going to have to go it alone.
1
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1785
Report 6 years ago
#1785
(Original post by DaniilKaya)
Can't really understand your answer:confused::confused:

Citizen of any democratic country in the world is independent

But fact is only one - England doesn't wants friends , they wants vassals

It is very important to pay attention to the global political problem
Interesting fact? Although I'd say it's not really fact is it.

Any chance of expanding on the global political problem?
0
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1786
Report 6 years ago
#1786
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Interesting fact? Although I'd say it's not really fact is it.
The funny thing is, that's essentially what Scotland might become if it was independent. Or at least the modern day equivalent of it.

If they kept the pound, they would obviously be dependent on the Bank of England. They'd still be relying on the UK for many things.
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1787
Report 6 years ago
#1787
(Original post by Psyk)
The funny thing is, that's essentially what Scotland might become if it was independent. Or at least the modern day equivalent of it.

If they kept the pound, they would obviously be dependent on the Bank of England. They'd still be relying on the UK for many things.
I'm just amazed I'm a vassal.

Shall I see somebody about it? Can a Dr cure it? :0
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1788
Report 6 years ago
#1788
(Original post by dixie2013)
But is Scotland is not subsidized why should Scotland not be in charge of its own affairs. Scotland has no say on most things, like i said Scotland's votes have no impact on anything that happens in the UK Government, resulting in having a government that we didn't vote for.
This country is a democracy. That means everyone's vote is equal and everyone has an equal choice on how we are governed. You can choose to define yourself in whichever minority group you like - whether nationalistic, racial, gender-based, sexuality, or whatever but it doesn't change the simple fact that your vote is equal to everyone else's. That is a spectacular thing of which we should rightly be proud, and not something to talk down lightly.

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
That is the DELIBERATE TACTIC of the likes of L i b, MatureStudent36 and Midlander.

They resort to BLATANT LIES and DISTORTION to REPEAT their DEBUNKED comments NUMEROUS TIMES.
Desperate nonsense. If this is going to be the level of debate in here, you might as well not bother.

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
During the minority SNP government of 2007-2011, the anti-Independence Axis of the Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems GANGED UP to prevent the SNP from holding a referendum.
The SNP didn't even bring forward a referendum proposal. But yes, ultimately a majority group in a parliament can "gang up" on an issue. That's democracy for you.

As soon as the SNP won an unprecedented majority under proportional representation in 2011, that same anti-Independence Axis of the Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems screamed out for the referendum to be held there and then.
Which is fair enough. When it is on the cards, it is clearly better to get it over with in a reasonable timeframe rather than drag it out.

MatureStudent36 is in favour of Cameron holding a referendum despite being against the UK 'separating' from the EU, because "that's democracy".

The same MatureStudent36 is against the SNP holding a referendum on Scottish independence, despite Scottish Independence being their main reason for being a political party in the first place AND having the democratic mandate to hold a referendum.
There's considerably more of a chance of a referendum on exiting the EU showing there is a public appetite for change than a referendum on Scottish independence. As I see if, if you're into referendums, that would be the rather more pressing case.

Then again, if you're going to try and suggest there's hypocrisy afoot, perhaps look at Alex Salmond, condemning UKIP and the like, trying to deny Scots any choice on membership of the EU whilst having dedicated his political career to the same cause for Scotland vis-a-vis Britain.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1789
Report 6 years ago
#1789
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
The North East is A PART OF ENGLAND.

Scotland is a NATION in an EQUAL UNION with England.
Firstly, I deny your concept of nations exists outside of your own mind, and that it is a damaging and unpleasant ideological stance to say they do.

Secondly, Scotland is not in an equal union with England. Scottish people are equal citizens of the United Kingdom, a unitary state. Scotland and England are not equal to each other and, politically, were subsumed into a new country.

(Original post by dixie2013)
Now like i said, The UK government does care about anyone apart from itself and London. This bedroom tax is only "needed" because of the housing problems in London. Housing benefit was designed to pay for normal rent rates like maybe max £400pm but in London they have immigrants are getting mansions and rent has been reduced by council for them to stay in them but the lowered rent is still £1000pm.
That's more of an issue for the privately rented sector. Anyway, underoccupancy seems to be more of a problem in Scotland than the UK average, so your point is somewhat irreflective of the real situation.

Trident - Scotland never wanted this or ANY type of weapons of mass destruction but it still got put on the river Clyde.
Do you have polling from the 1950s on that point, out of curiosity?

I'm from a county that sits on the banks of the Clyde. What you think it has to do with "Scotland" any more than it has to do with a Cumbrian, I have no idea.

(Original post by dixie2013)
I never said it was to help London, I was giving an example. Referring to things like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-streets.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-trashed.html

Call it what you want but yes i agree with it in a sense but it has not been thought out.
Without knowing the ages and genders of all the children concerned, you can't really interpret how the underoccupancy charge will affect these people. After all, even with this, we'll still have to house massive families.

For example, Me, my disabled partner and my 2 sons stay in a 3 bedroom house. Now i am returning to work next month as i am no longer needed to care for my partner after her brain aneurism but we just received a letter saying we have to pay extra because technically we have a "spare" room. Well now looking at the vague quid lines defining living space/floorspace. My smallest room is 1ft bigger that what is classed as a boxroom but the way the room is set out, over 1.5sqm cant be used for anything. So the room should be classed for half a person (Child under 12). My other sons room size is enough for 1 person or 2 children under 12. So i could put my 2 sons in the room even though you cannon put 2 beds in the room or a set of bunk beds in the room as the only place they would fit is at a window with is a safety issue. But if i was forced to do that, how the hell am i meant to sublet a room to a child. Its ridiculous.
The Government doesn't define bedrooms, the social landlord does.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1790
Report 6 years ago
#1790
(Original post by Good bloke)
Let's be accurate about this. Scotland and England (including Wales) were sovereign nations. They both ceased to be so when they formed the union and the new sovereign nation (the UK). Scotland now has no more claim to be a sovereign nation than Ross and Cromarty, Rutland, the Shetlands, the north-east of England or, indeed, England.

Scotland has no more right to a Westminster parliament that fully reflects its wishes than any other region of the UK (like Yorkshire, London, Wales or East Anglia).

If you want to be 'accurate', answer the following:

The North East = Scotland, that is, are both 'REGIONS' of the UK?

IS England then also a 'REGION' of the UK?

How can the North East and England both be 'REGIONS' of the UK?

Or does England have a higher status then the North East and Scotland, which according to the likes of you, are equal in status?

When was the last time the North East was a sovereign nation?

If Scotland votes no in the Independence referendum, should the Scottish parliament be dissolved, so that there is no difference between the political powers of the North East and Scotland? After all if Scotland 'ceased to be a sovereign nation', why should it have more powers than the North East?

(Original post by Good bloke)
What was that about ignorance?
My comment was:

The North East is A PART OF ENGLAND.

Scotland is a NATION in an EQUAL UNION with England.


Are you denying those two FACTS? Then say so CLEARLY.

As I have mentioned before, the likes of you DISTORT others' comments, and change the subject when caught LYING

For example, MatureStudent36 repeatedly denied that 'Bitter Together' tried to ban the video about 'Unionist Myths Exposed', but has now changed the subject to the reason for attempting to ban it although that was not the point of the original argument.

As for yourself, why did you shy away from your position on Cameron? I note that you didn't bother to answer the second question in my post:

"Firstly, where in your first post had you specified that? My questions were PRECISE. You DIDN"T provide PRECISE answers.

Secondly, NOW you have actually answered my first question, I agree with your position.

But I am 100% sure that HE WILL COME HERE TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE NO SIDE. Have you forgotten that 'every fibre in my body', or something like that, comment?

So my second question was, if he comes here to support the No side, will he have any credibility if he refuses to debate with anyone from the Yes side? Answer Yes or No, like in the referendum question."

If you think that Scotland has the same status as the North East of England. YOU are ignorant. But do tell that to as many Scots as you can. The scaremongering and lies of the 'Bitter Together' anti-Independence Axis are increasing support for Independence.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1791
Report 6 years ago
#1791
(Original post by Psyk)
If they kept the pound, they would obviously be dependent on the Bank of England. They'd still be relying on the UK for many things.
Doesn't the UK rely on anyone else for anything?

What would happen if China stopped all exports to the UK from tomorrow?
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1792
Report 6 years ago
#1792
(Original post by rmpr97)
The UK does not need Scotland in the slightest
Why then are ALMOST ALL UK POLITICIANS from Cameron downwards fighting with 'every fibre in their body' to keep Scotland in the Union?
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1793
Report 6 years ago
#1793
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
If you want to be 'accurate', answer the following:

The North East = Scotland, that is, are both 'REGIONS' of the UK? Yes.

IS England then also a 'REGION' of the UK? Yes; a big one, highly-populated one, obviously.

How can the North East and England both be 'REGIONS' of the UK? Because the term region is a vague one and isn't particularly useful in this context.

Or does England have a higher status then the North East and Scotland, which according to the likes of you, are equal in status? England is another of your irrelevant regions. It will have a different status in each different context you use it in.

When was the last time the North East was a sovereign nation? In the modern context, it never has been. How is that relevant? Is Northumbria's status of 1200 years ago somehow relevant to Scotland's 300 years ago? Neither are relevant now.

If Scotland votes no in the Independence referendum, should the Scottish parliament be dissolved, so that there is no difference between the political powers of the North East and Scotland? Personally, I am against all forms of devolution above local authorities but, given we have it, I am sure we will keep it. Inhabitants of the north-east have rejected calls for a local parliament, I believe, presumably because they don't want the costs and don't feel persecuted by their fellow Britons.

After all if Scotland 'ceased to be a sovereign nation', why should it have more powers than the North East? Why indeed? The word if is not appropriate, of course. It can't cease to be a sovereign nation in the future as it already did so in 1707.



My comment was:

The North East is A PART OF ENGLAND. True. Obviously.

Scotland is a NATION in an EQUAL UNION with England. And so, in entering that union, ceased to be a sovereign nation. As did England. Equally obviously.

Are you denying those two FACTS? Then say so CLEARLY. I just made my views clear.

As for yourself, why did you shy away from your position on Cameron? I note that you didn't bother to answer the second question in my post:

"Firstly, where in your first post had you specified that? My questions were PRECISE. You DIDN"T provide PRECISE answers.

Secondly, NOW you have actually answered my first question, I agree with your position.

But I am 100% sure that HE WILL COME HERE TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE NO SIDE. Have you forgotten that 'every fibre in my body', or something like that, comment?

So my second question was, if he comes here to support the No side, will he have any credibility if he refuses to debate with anyone from the Yes side? Answer Yes or No, like in the referendum question." Sigh. I am equally sure he will not campaign. Your question is, therefore, hypothetical. However, if he does campaign he will neither lose nor gain credibility by debating, or not debating. Any such status change will come only from the quality of his debating or whatever other contribution he makes. The yes campaign should seek to debate with those leading the no campaign, not those peripheral to it or uninvolved in it. He has other tasks to fulfil.

If you think that Scotland has the same status as the North East of England. YOU are ignorant. Ignorant of what? You think that Scots have higher status than Englishmen or Welshmen, then? Why? Is there a context to this higher status?
See above. And please stop tediously repeating the bitter together non-joke. It is tedious and not funny, and will rebound on you when the vote turns out to be no and you are the one that ends up crying into your beer. The only bitter one is you.
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1794
Report 6 years ago
#1794
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Doesn't the UK rely on anyone else for anything?
Certainly not for anything as fundamental to its economy as unilateral control of its currency.

What would happen if China stopped all exports to the UK from tomorrow?
There would be a lot of unhappy Chinese people and a lot of unhappy British people.
0
FinalMH
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1795
Report 6 years ago
#1795
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
'Bitter Together'
Are you incapable of of debating the issue without resorting to name calling?
0
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1796
Report 6 years ago
#1796
(Original post by FinalMH)
Are you incapable of of debating the issue without resorting to name calling?
Come now, you already know the answer to that question. :rolleyes:
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1797
Report 6 years ago
#1797
(Original post by Good bloke)
Come now, you already know the answer to that question. :rolleyes:

It seems to be a cybernat trait. Personal attacks.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1798
Report 6 years ago
#1798
(Original post by FinalMH)
Are you incapable of of debating the issue without resorting to name calling?
Alex Salmond used that at First Minister's Questions in the Scottish Parliament. On several occasions. It doesn't even really make any sort of sense.

It'd be a bit like David Cameron refusing to refer to the opposition as anything other than the Lie-bore Party. Unfortunately this is about the level of maturity we have in Scottish political debate.

Being an avid politico, it makes me want to tear my hair out sometimes. It's not even the stupidity or pointlessness of it all that gets to me, it's that these people swagger around genuinely believing that they're all terribly clever and somehow above Westminster politics. Then again, that Calvinistic arrogance has been a hallmark of Scottish political discourse for a very, very long time.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1799
Report 6 years ago
#1799
(Original post by Maths Tutor)
But I am 100% sure that HE WILL COME HERE TO CAMPAIGN FOR THE NO SIDE. Have you forgotten that 'every fibre in my body', or something like that, comment?

So my second question was, if he comes here to support the No side, will he have any credibility if he refuses to debate with anyone from the Yes side? Answer Yes or No, like in the referendum question."
Well, he already has campaigned in Scotland for the union. Indeed, he does it every time he visits these days. His January 2012 speech set the whole context of the debate in Scotland for months afterwards.

If you think that Scotland has the same status as the North East of England. YOU are ignorant. But do tell that to as many Scots as you can. The scaremongering and lies of the 'Bitter Together' anti-Independence Axis are increasing support for Independence.
We're not stupid enough to fall for silly word-play and cack-handed attempts at populist pandering here. Indeed, using stupid slogans and soundbytes just makes you look like you're incapable of independent thought.

As for your actual point, support for independence has remained broadly stagnant for a decade. It simply hasn't increased, nor are there any indications it will. For my part, I know that a great many people at Yes Scotland and the SNP realise this.

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
Why then are ALMOST ALL UK POLITICIANS from Cameron downwards fighting with 'every fibre in their body' to keep Scotland in the Union?
Because they want to keep their country together? Because they appreciate we are (and the clue's in the name of the campaign) better off together? Pretty basic stuff.
0
Maths Tutor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1800
Report 6 years ago
#1800
(Original post by L i b)
As for your actual point, support for independence has remained broadly stagnant for a decade. It simply hasn't increased, nor are there any indications it will.
"Yes campaign gains ground in latest independence referendum poll"

"Support has grown by two points since January to 36% and opposition has fallen by one point to 46%, while 18% were undecided, according to the Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times and Real Radio."

http://news.stv.tv/politics/218797-y...rendum-battle/


So I have to repeat:

(Original post by Maths Tutor)
That is the DELIBERATE TACTIC of the likes of L i b, MatureStudent36 and Midlander.

They resort to BLATANT LIES and DISTORTION to REPEAT their DEBUNKED comments NUMEROUS TIMES.
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 (141)
17.89%
It's just nice to be back! (213)
27.03%
Not great so far... (282)
35.79%
I want to drop out! (152)
19.29%

Watched Threads

View All