This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- International student needs help (Durham, Edinburgh or Bristol?)
- Questions about Widening Access
- Does Newcastle University Have Much Casual Racism?
- Strathclyde LLB Offers
- A level resit
- Am I good or have I made a horrific mistake
- night life in Manchester at the age of 17
- Diversity at St Andrews University
- OFFICIAL St Andrews University offers 2024
- applying for Scottish medical schools
- Glasgow vs Strathclyde (LAW)
- Support at Lincoln uni?
- Official University of Glasgow Applicant Thread for 2024
- Is the IELTS even necessary?
- Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024
- Visas and Immigration - Customer Services Group - Executive Officers
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Applying for law but my parents want me to have a second career option
Racist Scottish university policies
Scroll to see replies
Original post by DorianGrayism
Even if the Spanish agree ( which they never will), it will take 10 years for the Scottish to be allowed into the EU.
That is how long it takes for any new member.
That is how long it takes for any new member.
Even if they were previous members?
Original post by em.d_4
Time to vote labour 
it's not the same as scots can choose cheap fees or expensive ones based on location, we can pick expensive or expensive based on where we live
Posted from TSR Mobile
it's not the same as scots can choose cheap fees or expensive ones based on location, we can pick expensive or expensive based on where we livePosted from TSR Mobile
English people also have the whole of EU to choose from, where many courses are offered in English as well.
Original post by Atsushi
English people also have the whole of EU to choose from, where many courses are offered in English as well.
Yes but they havr one less option than Scottish people or it's a very different option anyway. It's not the fault of the general population it just seems wrong than people of one country are discriminated against based on a border
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Atsushi
Even if they were previous members?
Well, Scotland is not a member. The UK is.
Let's take the example of Serbia.
They were applying for membership and signed several agreements.
In 2008, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. All of those EU agreements for Kosovo became void.
So Kosovo has to sign up to all of those agreements all over again. That is why Serbia is due to join the EU before Kosovo. Scotland would have to get in the queue behind all of them.
The only way to change this process is for all of the member states to agree. Not only will the Spanish disagree but so will other member states with independence movements like the Italians. It would destroy their countries.
Original post by Atsushi
Even if they were previous members?
Technically in their own right Scotland wouldn't be a previous member the UK is the member.
Also membership is largely based on proven economy which Scotland independently doesn't have as it's a part of the wider UK economy and there is mutual government support there
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by em.d_4
Yes but they havr one less option than Scottish people or it's a very different option anyway. It's not the fault of the general population it just seems wrong than people of one country are discriminated against based on a border
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm on the same page as you. It's politicians the majority population votes for that decides these rules, even though the majority of the people voting won't be in education. Such is life.
Original post by Atsushi
I'm on the same page as you. It's politicians the majority population votes for that decides these rules, even though the majority of the people voting won't be in education. Such is life.
Well I can vote now so I feel that helps at least now I'll get to feel like I had my say!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by DorianGrayism
Well, Scotland is not a member. The UK is.
Let's take the example of Serbia.
They were applying for membership and signed several agreements.
In 2008, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. All of those EU agreements for Kosovo became void.
So Kosovo has to sign up to all of those agreements all over again. That is why Serbia is due to join the EU before Kosovo. Scotland would have to get in the queue behind all of them.
The only way to change this process is for all of the member states to agree. Not only will the Spanish disagree but so will other member states with independence movements like the Italians. It would destroy their countries.
Let's take the example of Serbia.
They were applying for membership and signed several agreements.
In 2008, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. All of those EU agreements for Kosovo became void.
So Kosovo has to sign up to all of those agreements all over again. That is why Serbia is due to join the EU before Kosovo. Scotland would have to get in the queue behind all of them.
The only way to change this process is for all of the member states to agree. Not only will the Spanish disagree but so will other member states with independence movements like the Italians. It would destroy their countries.
You said ten years. I just want to know where SNP's 16 months came form.
Original post by Atsushi
You said ten years. I just want to know where SNP's 16 months came form.
Probably a similar place as "we'll keep the pound" Bank of England: "eeer mate awkward but no." and "aaah we'll just join Europe" EU: "hmmm wowa, we'll think about it, probably not yet, hmm maybe, not sure you can have the euro"
Sounds to me like a party which desperately wants a particular end goal and has been pushing for it for years. But every previous gov. Has pushed it aside so they never thought they'd get a vote put through on the issue then suddenly Cameron says go on then let's see what you're made of and suddenly the snp realise they don't know what they're made of and dont have a coherent universally agreed plan of action so end up looking a little disjointed and shambolic as they say one thing and everyone else says another
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Atsushi
You said ten years. I just want to know where SNP's 16 months came form.
Well, every other new member it takes about 10 years.
Even Kosovo has taken several years to sign the same documents that Serbia had already signed even though they were part of the same country.
They are probably saying it is 16 months on the basis that every EU Country accepts some sort of amendment to the EU rules. That won't happen.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Atsushi
Brussels decide for about 6% to about 50% of British laws. I'd hardly call it most legislation.
The House of Commons library says its 53%.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Brown, Blair, Darling and etc were all Scottish and they occupied the most powerful positions of power for 15 years.
And …yet….you are still crying about the Scottish not having enough influence.
And …yet….you are still crying about the Scottish not having enough influence.
Barack Obama is president of the USA, does that mean discrimination against African Americans no longer exists there? I'm talking about ordinary Scottish people, not politicians from elite Edinburgh schools.
I am not sure what is poorly or well researched about it.
How about, the fact its f****** not true? That is one of the major hallmarks of poorly researched claims, I find.
Not a single bill has been passed since devolution in which Scottish MPs decided the outcome of a vote which only affected England. The West Lothian question is purely theoretical, it is not a real world problem with any effects in the real world as of today (and plans are already afoot to pass legislation which would neutralise the issue entirely, in the event of continued Union after the referendum).
I don't care about your crying about democracy, I didn't vote for them either. Maybe, you would prefer fascism instead.
The difference being, you are one person who didn't vote for them, and Scotland is nearly five million people who didn't vote for the Tories.
Original post by Copperknickers
The House of Commons library says its 53%.
Thats the upper bound anyway listen to the More or Less broadcast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041yf8s
Original post by Atsushi
Thats the upper bound anyway listen to the More or Less broadcast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041yf8s
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041yf8s
Well anyway, the fact remains, I've already proven to you that the West Lothian question is a non-issue, we might as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Original post by Copperknickers
Well anyway, the fact remains, I've already proven to you that the West Lothian question is a non-issue, we might as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I know. It's 1 o'clock and I have nothing better to do except revision.
Original post by Copperknickers
Barack Obama is president of the USA, does that mean discrimination against African Americans no longer exists there? I'm talking about ordinary Scottish people, not politicians from elite Edinburgh schools.
Barack Obama is president of the USA, does that mean discrimination against African Americans no longer exists there? I'm talking about ordinary Scottish people, not politicians from elite Edinburgh schools.
hahaha.
Scottish people are like African Americans.
O.K.
Original post by Copperknickers
How about, the fact its f****** not true? That is one of the major hallmarks of poorly researched claims, I find.
Not a single bill has been passed since devolution in which Scottish MPs decided the outcome of a vote which only affected England. The West Lothian question is purely theoretical, it is not a real world problem with any effects in the real world as of today (and plans are already afoot to pass legislation which would neutralise the issue entirely, in the event of continued Union after the referendum).
How about, the fact its f****** not true? That is one of the major hallmarks of poorly researched claims, I find.
Not a single bill has been passed since devolution in which Scottish MPs decided the outcome of a vote which only affected England. The West Lothian question is purely theoretical, it is not a real world problem with any effects in the real world as of today (and plans are already afoot to pass legislation which would neutralise the issue entirely, in the event of continued Union after the referendum).
Stop making things up. I said that Scottish MPs can influence English Bills. That is completely true.
I didn't say that Scottish MPs had a deciding vote on any bill.
Again, the only liar, like usual is a Nationalist.
Original post by Copperknickers
The difference being, you are one person who didn't vote for them, and Scotland is nearly five million people who didn't vote for the Tories.
The difference being, you are one person who didn't vote for them, and Scotland is nearly five million people who didn't vote for the Tories.
Millions of people didn't vote for them in England either.
As I said before, the issue you have is with democracy.
Original post by Atsushi
I know. It's 1 o'clock and I have nothing better to do except revision.
Sleep?
Original post by DorianGrayism
Stop making things up. I said that Scottish MPs can influence English Bills. That is completely true.
I didn't say that Scottish MPs had a deciding vote on any bill.
Stop making things up. I said that Scottish MPs can influence English Bills. That is completely true.
I didn't say that Scottish MPs had a deciding vote on any bill.
So you consciously made a totally irrelevant point? Why? As I said, they won't be able to influence English bills in the future, and they haven't in the past, so what exactly is your point in bringing up the issue?
Again, the only liar, like usual is a Nationalist.
Lying? When did I lie? I agreed with you that they can. I just noted that, if you had actually researched that point, you'd have realised that the implication behind it (that Scottish politicians have an influence over English issues) is false, because they have never decided the result an English bill in the past, and will have even the theoretical power taken away from them in the near future.
Millions of people didn't vote for them in England either.
As I said before, the issue you have is with democracy.
As I said before, the issue you have is with democracy.
No. The issue I have, is that Scotland is a semi-autonomous, cohesive nation, whose government is subordinate to another government based in a different distinct cohesive nation, which has the ability to elect people into power who have been unanimously rejected by every man and woman in Scotland. Democracy is not some kind of universal constant, it only applies within set borders, therefore English and Scottish democracy are separate issues.
It always amazes me that Unionists seem to think that because Scotland is part of the UK, it is therefore part of England and can be considered as if it were an English region. Well, its not. Its a separate country which happens to share a couple of departments of the government with England. Whether or not you think that Scotland deserves to be considered a distinct nation to England is irrelevant: the fact is, we have a different legal system, a separate healthcare system, a parliament in which most day to day matters are devolved to our own control, and most importantly, a large red line on the map which separates us from you guys. When Liverpool or Manchester have any one of those things, then you might be justified in comparing Scotland to Labour-supporting areas in the North of England.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Copperknickers
So you consciously made a totally irrelevant point? Why? As I said, they won't be able to influence English bills in the future, and they haven't in the past, so what exactly is your point in bringing up the issue?
Lying? When did I lie? I agreed with you that they can. I just noted that, if you had actually researched that point, you'd have realised that the implication behind it (that Scottish politicians have an influence over English issues) is false, because they have never decided the result an English bill in the past, and will have even the theoretical power taken away from them in the near future.
Lying? When did I lie? I agreed with you that they can. I just noted that, if you had actually researched that point, you'd have realised that the implication behind it (that Scottish politicians have an influence over English issues) is false, because they have never decided the result an English bill in the past, and will have even the theoretical power taken away from them in the near future.
So, you are the one that actually brought up an irrelevant point. My only point was that Scots have influence in Westminister.
Scottish people occupied the most powerful positions in Westminister and Scottish MPs can vote on English matters
Scottish MPs can vote on Westminster/English issues, since they have a vote on such a matter.
The fact, they have not decided a vote does not suddenly mean that their influence declines to zero by the way.
Original post by Copperknickers
No. The issue I have, is that Scotland is a semi-autonomous, cohesive nation, whose government is subordinate to another government based in a different distinct cohesive nation, which has the ability to elect people into power who have been unanimously rejected by every man and woman in Scotland. Democracy is not some kind of universal constant, it only applies within set borders, therefore English and Scottish democracy are separate issues.
It always amazes me that Unionists seem to think that because Scotland is part of the UK, it is therefore part of England and can be considered as if it were an English region. Well, its not. Its a separate country which happens to share a couple of departments of the government with England. Whether or not you think that Scotland deserves to be considered a distinct nation to England is irrelevant: the fact is, we have a different legal system, a separate healthcare system, a parliament in which most day to day matters are devolved to our own control, and most importantly, a large red line on the map which separates us from you guys. When Liverpool or Manchester have any one of those things, then you might be justified in comparing Scotland to Labour-supporting areas in the North of England.
It always amazes me that Unionists seem to think that because Scotland is part of the UK, it is therefore part of England and can be considered as if it were an English region. Well, its not. Its a separate country which happens to share a couple of departments of the government with England. Whether or not you think that Scotland deserves to be considered a distinct nation to England is irrelevant: the fact is, we have a different legal system, a separate healthcare system, a parliament in which most day to day matters are devolved to our own control, and most importantly, a large red line on the map which separates us from you guys. When Liverpool or Manchester have any one of those things, then you might be justified in comparing Scotland to Labour-supporting areas in the North of England.
I really do not have time for ranting. Just keep to the subject.
First, it's something about millions of people not voting mainly because they are lazy.
Then it's some Scottish Nationalist fantasy about Scotland being treated like Yorkshire.
After that its something about Scotland having it's own healthcare system and etc. That doesn't make it a different country. Using that logic, that every state with the USA would be a different country.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by DorianGrayism
The fact, they have not decided a vote does not suddenly mean that their influence declines to zero by the way.
The fact, they have not decided a vote does not suddenly mean that their influence declines to zero by the way.
They have the capacity to influence English legislation, but in practice they have had precisely zero influence to this day on English policy, since every piece of legislation passed since devolution would have been passed regardless of whether Scottish politicians had a vote on it. And, for the third time, this loophole will be closed in the near future, so even if the Scottish illuminati had decided the result of every single policy vote in Westminster in the past 15 years, it would still be irrelevant to this discussion.
Then it's some Scottish Nationalist fantasy about Scotland being treated like Yorkshire.
After that its something about Scotland having it's own healthcare system and etc. That doesn't make it a different country. Using that logic, that every state with the USA would be a different country.
After that its something about Scotland having it's own healthcare system and etc. That doesn't make it a different country. Using that logic, that every state with the USA would be a different country.
I am not wasting another second of my life discussing British politics with someone who doesn't know that Scotland is a country. Good night.
Related discussions
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- International student needs help (Durham, Edinburgh or Bristol?)
- Questions about Widening Access
- Does Newcastle University Have Much Casual Racism?
- Strathclyde LLB Offers
- A level resit
- Am I good or have I made a horrific mistake
- night life in Manchester at the age of 17
- Diversity at St Andrews University
- OFFICIAL St Andrews University offers 2024
- applying for Scottish medical schools
- Glasgow vs Strathclyde (LAW)
- Support at Lincoln uni?
- Official University of Glasgow Applicant Thread for 2024
- Is the IELTS even necessary?
- Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024
- Visas and Immigration - Customer Services Group - Executive Officers
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Applying for law but my parents want me to have a second career option
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
