This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- how to study for national 5 English
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Dentistry Backups?
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- University Admissions Advice
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- is common law at Glasgow competitive?
Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ameritus
So Scots aren't allowed to learn about their own history?
I didn't say that, did I? :k:
No need to try be smart. If you were so smart, you'd know that what I meant was that it's obviously a ploy as this is the first time Scottish history has been discussed to such lengths in Modern Studies & History. That's too much coincidence to believe they've had a change of heart in the past year or two. & Modern Studies is about current affairs, counting back maybe 20 years. So to be teaching it in Modern Studies obviously highlights the fact that it's in relation to the Independence Referendum.
Original post by Israaa
I didn't say that, did I? :k:
No need to try be smart. If you were so smart, you'd know that what I meant was that it's obviously a ploy as this is the first time Scottish history has been discussed to such lengths in Modern Studies & History. That's too much coincidence to believe they've had a change of heart in the past year or two. & Modern Studies is about current affairs, counting back maybe 20 years. So to be teaching it in Modern Studies obviously highlights the fact that it's in relation to the Independence Referendum.
No need to try be smart. If you were so smart, you'd know that what I meant was that it's obviously a ploy as this is the first time Scottish history has been discussed to such lengths in Modern Studies & History. That's too much coincidence to believe they've had a change of heart in the past year or two. & Modern Studies is about current affairs, counting back maybe 20 years. So to be teaching it in Modern Studies obviously highlights the fact that it's in relation to the Independence Referendum.
I'm not trying to be smart
(leaving aside the fact that I already am) but even if this is the first time Scottish history has been discussed to such length, so what? If it reflects a rise in Scottish nationalism, so what? If it is to promote a heightened feeling of "Scottishness", so what? As long as it's not an overtly biased representation of Scottish history (e.g. Scotland did this in the past, so Scotland is therefore superior, rar rar Scotland), and as long as other major events in world history are not pushed out to make way for a purely Scottish focus, then it's fine.Compare it to the calls for more British history to feature in history classes. Is this also wrong?
Obviously its a good thing, Scotland in charge of her own affairs, what other answer could there be.
If people who are eligible to vote dont vote for independence then they are not Scottish, its simple, thats the beauty of it.
Jobs,money, living standards,Nato, none of it matters, if you have Scotland in your heart then you know what to do
If people who are eligible to vote dont vote for independence then they are not Scottish, its simple, thats the beauty of it.
Jobs,money, living standards,Nato, none of it matters, if you have Scotland in your heart then you know what to do
Original post by bigrico
Obviously its a good thing, Scotland in charge of her own affairs, what other answer could there be.
If people who are eligible to vote dont vote for independence then they are not Scottish, its simple, thats the beauty of it.
Jobs,money, living standards,Nato, none of it matters, if you have Scotland in your heart then you know what to do
If people who are eligible to vote dont vote for independence then they are not Scottish, its simple, thats the beauty of it.
Jobs,money, living standards,Nato, none of it matters, if you have Scotland in your heart then you know what to do
So how about those from Scotland who see themselves as primarily British? Are they not truly Scots?
(I hope you all see what I did there
)Original post by bigrico
Yup, people from Scotland who consider themselves British obviously dont have Scotlands best intrests at heart , they are British but cannot refer to themselves as Scottish.
They are also traitors to Scotland.
Its amazing how straight forward it all is
They are also traitors to Scotland.
Its amazing how straight forward it all is
I'd assume obvious troll, but 750 posts is some impressive commitment.
Original post by bigrico
Ah, accusing someone of being a troll, the refuge of the lazy
C'mon, an actual literal no true scotsman fallacy? Too obvious.
It's a controversial issue, which is good news for your essay! Lots of pros and cons to discuss and add your opinions.
You'll want to focus on the following:
Economy - (could Scotland cope, and comfortably, with independence in terms of finance?) For this you could discuss the cost of Scotland becoming independent. A few example of this being what's being proposed by Alex Salmond and the SNP just now. An independent Scotland would have a written constitution in which would be the right for every Scottish citizen to have a home, a right to free education. Plans to create a new intelligence force based in and for Scotland. Where is this money going to come from? The taxpayer! In this current economy (bearing in mind we are in a triple dip recession) could the taxpayer afford to fund these things? On the other hand, there are small independent nations which do fine by themselves through international trade with goods (oil is a biggy here). Denmark is one of the leading countries in renewable energy and Scotland is learning/catching up with this. Thus, Scotland could easily trade oil AND renewable energy. Defence would arguably cost less with the Scottish people funding their own army/defence rather than funding the English/British defence too. However, if war were ever to break out Scotland would be on her own to pay for the war, and wars are expensive! Not just the war, the aftermath (infrastructure, debt, damaged property)
International Relations - With regards to the independent intelligence service, criticism is already massive! There is no guarantee that Britain would share intelligence with us. We would be starting from scratch! We would be becoming a brand new nation, almost. We would have to secure trade, good relationships with other countries and our own foreign policy. Would Scotland pull out of the war in Afghanistan? Is it a British war, or an English war, or a Scottish war? In terms of defence, we would not have the guarentee of a British army and this could be devastating if Scotland were to go to war with a big country with lots of resources and a small army. However, if Scotland secured good trade, then who would want to go to war with us? We could arguably easily be helped by our allies for them to secure their trade with us so as not to disturb their resources. Would Scotland remain in the EU? If so, would currency change to the Euro? Would we want to switch to the Euro considering the mess that countries who live under the Euro are facing just now?
There is LOADS to talk about. As long as you back up your arguments, you can't be wrong!
You'll want to focus on the following:
Economy - (could Scotland cope, and comfortably, with independence in terms of finance?) For this you could discuss the cost of Scotland becoming independent. A few example of this being what's being proposed by Alex Salmond and the SNP just now. An independent Scotland would have a written constitution in which would be the right for every Scottish citizen to have a home, a right to free education. Plans to create a new intelligence force based in and for Scotland. Where is this money going to come from? The taxpayer! In this current economy (bearing in mind we are in a triple dip recession) could the taxpayer afford to fund these things? On the other hand, there are small independent nations which do fine by themselves through international trade with goods (oil is a biggy here). Denmark is one of the leading countries in renewable energy and Scotland is learning/catching up with this. Thus, Scotland could easily trade oil AND renewable energy. Defence would arguably cost less with the Scottish people funding their own army/defence rather than funding the English/British defence too. However, if war were ever to break out Scotland would be on her own to pay for the war, and wars are expensive! Not just the war, the aftermath (infrastructure, debt, damaged property)
International Relations - With regards to the independent intelligence service, criticism is already massive! There is no guarantee that Britain would share intelligence with us. We would be starting from scratch! We would be becoming a brand new nation, almost. We would have to secure trade, good relationships with other countries and our own foreign policy. Would Scotland pull out of the war in Afghanistan? Is it a British war, or an English war, or a Scottish war? In terms of defence, we would not have the guarentee of a British army and this could be devastating if Scotland were to go to war with a big country with lots of resources and a small army. However, if Scotland secured good trade, then who would want to go to war with us? We could arguably easily be helped by our allies for them to secure their trade with us so as not to disturb their resources. Would Scotland remain in the EU? If so, would currency change to the Euro? Would we want to switch to the Euro considering the mess that countries who live under the Euro are facing just now?
There is LOADS to talk about. As long as you back up your arguments, you can't be wrong!
Sigh. There is so much bad understanding of economics and subscription to propaganda (on both sides) here that I don't know where to be begin. Not from everyone, mind, but I'm just suggesting some of you examine how you're scrutinizing 'facts.'
Regardless, the truth is that Scotland has consistently and categorically voted in a distinctly different way from the rest of the UK for centuries. We have separate legal, healthcare and education systems. It doesn't really matter which lying politician you believe or which lying politician you don't like, politicians come and go, the fact is Scotland has always wanted different things from England. Democracy is about letting the people decide what they want and to me it seems clear Scotland should be able to chose for itself, especially now it's asked for that right. Okay, if it goes terribly, so be it, but it's up to the people to decide. It's not up to a government in Westminster, that Scotland irrefutably did not want, to decide what's best for them.
Regardless, the truth is that Scotland has consistently and categorically voted in a distinctly different way from the rest of the UK for centuries. We have separate legal, healthcare and education systems. It doesn't really matter which lying politician you believe or which lying politician you don't like, politicians come and go, the fact is Scotland has always wanted different things from England. Democracy is about letting the people decide what they want and to me it seems clear Scotland should be able to chose for itself, especially now it's asked for that right. Okay, if it goes terribly, so be it, but it's up to the people to decide. It's not up to a government in Westminster, that Scotland irrefutably did not want, to decide what's best for them.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by LanaMayC
That's been thoroughly debunked. The income from oil has not only been double-booked to create an oil fund and to plug the major gap in public expenditure in Scotland, but also deployed several times over by the SNP, including investing in green energy.
Scotland has been operating at a surplus for many years despite budget cuts
That's entirely false. Scotland has a multi-billion pound deficit at the moment. As for budget cuts - they are more likely to produce a revenue surplus.
Recently we have even seen denial of Barnett Consequentials.
No we haven't. The Scottish block grant is entirely set by Barnett consequentials.
With powers over defense, Scotland could finally rid herself of Trident and instead spend the money on rebuilding her defence forces and defence industry - something which has seen, and will in the near future see more of, disproportionate defence cuts from Westminster.
Trident is a very small part of our defence mix. In reality, it's pretty cheap in comparison with conventional forces. Conventional forces, mark you, that we don't need.
What you seem to be suggesting is spending more money on providing a considerably inferior service. It is ludicrous to suggest Scotland, especially without nuclear weapons, could be capably defended by a force a tenth of the size of the British armed forces.
With the investments that are coming into the country and the bright future Scotland has as a - if not The - tidal power and renewable energy powerhouse of Europe. Have a wee look into the targets that have already been exceeded, the jobs this is expected to create and the revenue this could generate once the line has been laid under the north sea to connect to the European grid in order to sell the excess.
Expensive energy - which, despite your claims, provides very few job except in the actual creation of schemes (most of which goes to foreign companies anyway) and relies on huge public subsidy which would no longer be spread out over a population of 60 million.
As an investment, renewable technology is an inherently risky one. The Scottish nationalists make out as if it is our "reserves" of renewable energy (ie, wind and a sea) that are important. Well, they pale in significance to the technology - and all investment in this area involves the potential for both profit and considerable loss. It's not just a licence to print money as, to some extent, oil is.
Another thing that is very important to remember is that the SNP gaining a majority government facilitated a referendum on independence, but it is not the SNP's campaign. It is a cross-party campaign. Have a look into Labour supporters for independence for example
A very poor example considering that even people in the SNP are prepared to admit it is a "front". Look at its Facebook page for an example of how it is simply SNP supporters who want to harm Labour. They managed to produce a list of 11 Labour Party members in the organisation: hardly tricky when you can sign up on the party website for a token fee.
In reality, Yes Scotland was created and is funded almost entirely by the SNP.
In my, admittedly humble, opinion, the risk lies not in independence, but in leaving these powers in the hands of Westminster. We have protected our NHS and our education as these are devolved powers, but with the budget being successively cut and Labour's PFI legacy to contend with, how much longer could we support these treasured things?
The devolved budget has increased massively since 1999, well ahead of inflation. Incidentally, the NHS hasn't been "protected" in real terms from budget cuts in Scotland. What else are you protecting? Inefficiency? Absolutely rubbish access to cancer drugs while those in England are three times more likely to receive such treatments? Successful pilots involving greater operational independence being thrown out because of ideology?
Our welfare state is being dismantled by the Tories and they are throwing more and more people into poverty with crippling austerity measures
We have a major budget deficit. The stuff about the welfare state is scaremongering nonsense. Yes, some areas are being cut back marginally. Many of the reforms, however, were vital - deficit or none. Addressing worklessness, for example, is even more vital in Scotland than in England.
This is a government that Scotland did not elect - as it has been said, we have more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs.
Speak for yourself. I also remind you that the Coalition got almost double the vote of the Nationalists in 2010.
For my part, I voted for the Coalition parties back then. So kindly don't presume to lecture me as to who I did or did not elect.
Original post by MelanieDickson
Sigh. There is so much bad understanding of economics and subscription to propaganda (on both sides) here that I don't know where to be begin. Not from everyone, mind, but I'm just suggesting some of you examine how you're scrutinizing 'facts.'
Regardless, the truth is that Scotland has consistently and categorically voted in a distinctly different way from the rest of the UK for centuries.
Regardless, the truth is that Scotland has consistently and categorically voted in a distinctly different way from the rest of the UK for centuries.
Er, no it hasn't. Since the 1960s, Scotland has been more likely to vote Labour. Not even by a huge factor, and especially not when compared with the North of England. Which is hardly any great change. In the 1950s, we were more Tory than England.
It's not up to a government in Westminster, that Scotland irrefutably did not want, to decide what's best for them.
Yes it is. That's why we have a representative parliament, democratically elected. That is, in fact, precisely the role of government in any country.
Original post by L i b
Er, no it hasn't. Since the 1960s, Scotland has been more likely to vote Labour. Not even by a huge factor, and especially not when compared with the North of England. Which is hardly any great change. In the 1950s, we were more Tory than England.
I'm confused. "No Scotland hasn't voted differently from England, it's voted differently for 50 years. It voted differently before then too."
Original post by L i b
Yes it is. That's why we have a representative parliament, democratically elected. That is, in fact, precisely the role of government in any country.
It's not representative though, is it? The vast majority of those in parliament have no personal (often not even second hand) experience with the Scottish legal, education or healthcare systems. I'd say those are pretty important things to understand fully in running a country. Scotland has never voted to share its decisions with England. The majority at the time didn't want to, and even after taking a few hundred years, a huge portion of the people still don't.
Democracy is fundamentally based on agreement. The North of England, to my best knowledge, has never expressed any real desire or campaign for independence. So whether they vote differently doesn't really matter as long as the people are content to take what the general election gives them.
Scotland has been speaking of independence ever since it joined the union and as a country that still wants the right to make its own decisions, it should have it.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by MelanieDickson
The majority at the time didn't want to, and even after taking a few hundred years, a huge portion of the people still don't.
I've never seen a single poll which suggests that the majority support independence. Surely we can infer from this that the majority are happy as is?
Original post by bigrico
Obviously its a good thing, Scotland in charge of her own affairs, what other answer could there be.
If people who are eligible to vote dont vote for independence then they are not Scottish, its simple, thats the beauty of it.
Jobs,money, living standards,Nato, none of it matters, if you have Scotland in your heart then you know what to do
If people who are eligible to vote dont vote for independence then they are not Scottish, its simple, thats the beauty of it.
Jobs,money, living standards,Nato, none of it matters, if you have Scotland in your heart then you know what to do
Except that voting for independence might give individual Scots less control over their personal lives and leave us worse off. The idea that things like freedom and living standards don't matter is nonsense - why should anyone have loyalty to some oppressive poor country?
Yup, people from Scotland who consider themselves British obviously dont have Scotlands best intrests at heart , they are British but cannot refer to themselves as Scottish.
They are also traitors to Scotland.
Its amazing how straight forward it all is
They are also traitors to Scotland.
Its amazing how straight forward it all is
I guess that somehow makes me a traitor by supporting freedom over nationalism.
Original post by Slumpy
I've never seen a single poll which suggests that the majority support independence. Surely we can infer from this that the majority are happy as is?
I wouldn't go that far?
In any case, the only poll that matters is the one in the Autumn of 2014.
Original post by L i b
Yes it is. That's why we have a representative parliament, democratically elected. That is, in fact, precisely the role of government in any country.
People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.
Original post by SillyEddy
I'm honestly not sure what the Scots would do by themselves. What industries do they really have? I heard that the North sea oil would not be entirely owned by them, and whisky production can't fuel an entire economy, can it?
From what I understand, it was England who bought and paid for Scotland (because they were in debt from trying to make trade agreements in the new Americas)... So what are they going to fall back on?
I don't think it's wise for them.
From what I understand, it was England who bought and paid for Scotland (because they were in debt from trying to make trade agreements in the new Americas)... So what are they going to fall back on?
I don't think it's wise for them.
you don't know anything about the Scottish economy. go do some reading.
Original post by Superunknown17
I can't see any good will come of it, it's too pie in the sky for me, an ideal. They believe (mainly because of Salmond's questionable figures) that they'll be better off without England dragging them down. As dapperatchik said, I imagine taxes would have to be raised to facilitate their spending and with a lack of industries, I can't see them doing better than they are now, probably worse.
I think it is more a case of Scotland being represented by a Tory government which very very few Scottish people voted for. Right wing politics aren't very popular in Scotland...
I would personally would vote for maximum devolution, because I think that being united is a positive thing.
Related discussions
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- Introducing an Eelam flag emoticon on TSR
- Cambridge CS chances
- Modern Studies Higher
- Edinburgh vs Durham
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Calling All Scottish Students!!
- how to study for national 5 English
- Realistically, do I have a shot of getting into vet med?
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Dentistry Backups?
- Should I do a nursing college course in S5?
- dentistry
- missing school
- PhD Funding Scottish History/Museums
- University Admissions Advice
- I feel like dropping out sometimes
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- Is it bad that I DON'T want to be an 'independent woman'?
- is common law at Glasgow competitive?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
