Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

As a Yes voters, I believe Scotland should have it's own forum for Scottish Politics Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Yet the SNP have never advocated a referendum on EU membership.

    Apparently it's too important to be a referendum issue.
    SNP policy is to be a member of the EU. I believe in an independent Scotland the SNP (if they were in power, that is) would hold one if there was a strong appetite for one, obviously I cannot speak on behalf of them. I'd like to hope they would.

    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    You're not recognising the wider symbolic importance of both those things.

    1. Empire: Yes it doesn't exist any more but the fact that a small collection of relatively insignificant islands on the edge of Europe built the largest empire the world has ever seen is surely worthy of comment. It is indicative of how powerful we can be as a united Britain rather than as a collection of bickering, childish little countries, all claiming their share and jealously watching to see the others don't get more than them.

    If you're at all keen on history, or like a good underdog story, then the rise of Great Britain to an imperial power is a pretty incredible tale with heroes from every corner of the land, be they Welsh, Irish, English or Scottish.

    Naturally every tale needs a few villains but need I remind you that we also abolished slavery first, and then fought to stop it. To call the period "laced with atrocities" is frankly a bit of an anathema. By comparison with other colonial nations we were generally pretty decently behaved.


    2. Olympics: Why do think China busts a gut picking out physically gifted children, hiring expensive coaches, and putting them in high pressure training programmes for the Olympics? National prestige is at stake there and it is usually fairly easy to pick out which countries are world leaders (economically or otherwise) by looking at the medal tables. Again the fact that, as a Union, we are able to punch well above our weight shows us the value of staying together.

    If separated our national prestige and reputation is severely damaged. Since you prefer practical applications rather than symbolism that translates into things like losing our seat on the UN security council (which I'm sure Germany & others must be eyeing up)... not to mention slipping down the medals table!
    I don't doubt how remarkable and powerful the Empire was, or how well Britain performs at the Olympics. But a couple more gold medals than Russia isn't going to help reduce reliance on foodbanks in Glasgow. I prefer to concern myself with issues of the present, not be wistful of events of 200 years ago.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    On reflection I would say the vote was decisive but qualify it: You are right that it was not decisive in terms of the percentages who voted either way but it was in terms of the end result. The question was put to the people and they said no. That is decisive in that it is final and there should be no further referendums for at least a decent interval.

    Now I feel a need to state that because what you seem to be saying is that the close nature of the vote gives the nationalists some kind of right to hold the threat of another over everyone's head in order to make demands and to have things their way anyway. That cannot be the position because it is unsustainable and down that road lies separation since every action of the SNP is calculated towards achieving that goal, and has been since their formation.

    In the same vein I would deny Sturgeon her aim because, once again, it is a cynical ploy to emphasise division amongst the constituent parts of Britain. That is one thing that has really baffled me about the nationalist cause. It is so devoid of passion or emotion, a dull metronomic march to "freedom" rather than the more recognisable fire and zeal of a classic nationalist movement. For God's sake if Scotland truly wanted independence there would be no doubt about it, the outcry would be deafening, Salmond would not have needed two years of campaigning to increase his vote by a measly 10% or so from the original, he wouldn't have needed to pray for a pathetic 51%... Now Sturgeon wants to wait until the British Government does something unpopular and then cynically manipulate and twist that to have another go at nudging an unconvinced but mildly irritated (by this hypothetical EU exit) Scotland over the the line...?
    An Ipsos MORI poll a couple of moths ago put support for another referendum within 10 years to be at 66%. That was before the Smith Commission published their recommendations, which were quite frankly laughable. Though some good did come of of it (16/17 year olds will be able to vote in Holyrood 2016 elections), it was not what Scots were promised (near-federalism). I wasn't so gullible to taken in by 'The Vow', but others were. And some regret it. It was actually disgusting the way Cameron turned extra powers straight into EVEL on September 19th. I believe The Vow was the nail in the coffin that did it for us, the poll showing support of independence in the lead came too early. If Scots don't get what they were promised, this also adds further fuel to the case for another referendum.

    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    I am not being wistful of events 200 years ago, I am suggesting we learn from them and I am referring to them as an example of what is achievable through unity rather than division.

    You have provided me with a prime example:

    Yes, Glasgow food banks are indeed a terrible problem, and they would have been a far worse problem had Scotland been on its own when the banks crashed in 2008, but it wasn't was it? We were one nation and we dealt with the situation as one nation and here we all are, in a rather better boat than Ireland, Greece, Latvia, Iceland, etc...

    Together our economy was stronger, just as now, when oil revenues are going through the floor, our economy is stronger united, and when we all help each other as citizens of Great Britain always have.



    As for the gold medals - if you think national prestige and reputation have nothing to contribute to our our diplomatic and business dealings around the world, and thereby improve our economy and the lot of the hungry in Glasgow along with it, you are very much mistaken. Look at the bigger picture.
    I feel as though we're at risk of re-running the arguments for/against Scottish independence. Scotland's economy is not dependent on oil. Our GDP is 99% of that of the UK's excluding oil revenues. Scotland would be eligible for the AAA credit rating that even the UK doesn't have anymore, eve if it had no oil. Oil is merely a bonus, we are not reliant on it like Nigeria, whose GDP is 90% oil revenues.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I'm completely put off referendums. If Scotland wants to leave then 50% of people can vote for independence supporting parties in a general election and declare it unilaterally.

    I really don't like how this has become a neverendum though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Personally I'm completely put off referendums. If Scotland wants to leave then 50% of people can vote for independence supporting parties in a general election and declare it unilaterally.

    I really don't like how this has become a neverendum though.
    That is currently predicted to be the case. SNP consistently poll in the mid-40s for the next GE and Greens are about 6-8%. I think the only question that remains for the 2015 GE result in Scotland is just how big a Labour bloodbath there will be.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c.t.14)
    That is currently predicted to be the case. SNP consistently poll in the mid-40s for the next GE and Greens are about 6-8%. I think the only question that remains for the 2015 GE result in Scotland is just how big a Labour bloodbath there will be.
    About as likely as the Libs polling at 5% in my opinion.

    I do think the SNP will win with 40% or more but I doubt the Greens will be as successful.

    Either way, as a Scotsman and Englishman in equal measure I despise the SNP for tearing my country apart.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    About as likely as the Libs polling at 5% in my opinion.

    I do think the SNP will win with 40% or more but I doubt the Greens will be as successful.

    Either way, as a Scotsman and Englishman in equal measure I despise the SNP for tearing my country apart.
    I do believe the figure for the greens is a bit fanciful. But I can't see SNP support dropping like a stone, its rise has been astonishing, far greater than I ever could have imagined. I predict around 30 seats, but hopefully more. :moon:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Cameron should never have given the vow, it should have been stay in how it is or leave through the front door. Nothing below 2/3 majority for such a constitutional change is acceptable also IMHO.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    I don't wish to offend as I prefer a calm & reasonable debate, but I have to admit I can't work out the logic in your responses?

    Frequently you respond and usually fail to address the majority of my points (leaving me to assume you must therefore have no answer to them), completely misread or misunderstand them, or make another point which often manages to undermine your case further by proving one of mine right.

    Still I'll answer yours again...

    Your first paragraph essentially proves my point. So your plan is, as I said, to hold the threat of a referendum over the rest us in order to have all your demands met, or until "the vow" is fulfilled (ignoring the fact that "vow" was a term invented by a newspaper editor and then carried on gleefully by the SNP but not used by any of the party leaders themselves). Frankly that behaviour is just not going to be acceptable to the rest of the UK is it? Britons don't take kindly to blackmail or being strong-armed, and we're well aware of the consequences of appeasement or, in Churchill's words "feeding the crocodile in the hope he eats you last."

    You go on to claim that the result of the vote is simply a load of apparently gullible Scots innocently believing the party leaders and suddenly deciding to vote no accordingly. But wait, I thought they were supposed to hate all those "westminster" politicians, so why would they believe them? Are you saying they're stupid? Or easily scared? Or naïve? I hardly think so and I wouldn't say so either.

    In any case that also proves my other point that the nationalist campaign is cynical and self-serving, not a heartfelt expression of a profound desire to be a "real" nation. If it were the latter, this mass of fervently nationalistic Scots (that apparently exists) would hardly be swayed by last minute and rather obviously desperate offers.

    I was not making any claims for oil's share of Scottish GDP (although your figures are rather at odds with past nationalist & other quotes I've heard). I was merely pointing out that the price of oil going down is not good for the world economy and when that happens, hey presto, Britain sticks together and weathers the storm - united we stand, divided we fall.



    Really the best summary of all this comes from a Scottish soldier a friend of mine met, on the Royal Mile, who was collecting for Help for Heroes. He laconically summed up the SNP/nationalist campaign saying:


    "Aye, they've no got the answers, when ye ask them the questions."


    Disagree? If so by all means give me a counter-argument or two, prove the Jock wrong... I'm willing to listen to reason but I rather think his summary was on the money.
    You write an awful lot in response, a lot of which I genuinely struggle to see how its relevant or related to my point, e.g. you digressed into a history lesson about Woodrow Wilson in a previous response.

    As for 'the Vow', I only use that name as its easy for you to understand what I'm talking about. Whatever you want to call it, it happened whether you like it or not, and it should be honoured. If Scotland was told it was going to get certain new powers and Westminster renege on those offers, why are the SNP/Scots in general not allowed to hold them to account and make them deliver on their promise? If you can't keep a promise, don't make it. Personally, and this is my view, not the party's before you generalise like usual, I don't mind if Westminster don't deliver on the Vow as it can only strengthen the case for independence.

    I wasn't suggesting that 55% of people bought the Vow, a large percentage of that would have voted the same way if it hadn't happened. Only 5.4% of that needed to have been duped by it in order to change the outcome. And personally (again my view), anyone who actually read the Vow and thought it was genuine is stupid/naive.

    Yes Scotland were the only side with an answers, Scotland's Future was 650 pages of an independent Scotland's vision. The Better Together equivalent was a blank piece of paper, as they offered no vision of Scotland being in the UK. If we were better together, then why aren't we already? The amount of times Better Together were caught out lying in what they stated was astounding. Shamelessly, a week after the referendum, after telling us oil reserves were running out and that we were too incapable of running the oil industry on our own, 'significant' new reserves were discovered. And suddenly, according to Scottish Labour, the NHS is under threat, just days after telling us that that wasn't the case, and Yes Scotland were scaremongering, which has so much irony it is unbelievable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    I can understand Scottish nationalism to a degree, but to say that Scotland accounts for a large part of the Uk is a teas bit unfounded. Yes it has about 7% of the population but it's economy would be in mush if it wasn't for the Barnett formula + the oil they have. The scots would be whining if they were independent I can tell, the SNP predicted 20% of their budget to be from oil revenues at $120 per barrel, when oil prices are around $60 per barrel currently. So where would this shortfall be prevented? Higher taxes? (Detracting foreign investment as seen in France), or how about cuts in public expenditure? (And we know how the scots react to that!), or even better, Anglophobia!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well then how does it affect George Osbourne just now? All North Sea Oil revenues flow into the Westminster coffers and is used to cushion the economy and keep the wealthy wealthy.
    How is George Osbourne closing the black hole in his finances?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choo.choo)
    Well then how does it affect George Osbourne just now? All North Sea Oil revenues flow into the Westminster coffers and is used to cushion the economy and keep the wealthy wealthy.
    How is George Osbourne closing the black hole in his finances?
    North Sea Oil revenue is rebated back to the scots at a differing value in the Barnett formula as far as I'm aware. Last time I checked Scotland wasn't doing that badly under Westminster tyranny too.
    Cutting expenditure was one way of closing the black hole and increasing taxes was another. He's gone for cutting expenditure and lowering taxes to increase foreign investment.

    This is quite an interesting read :
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27694833

    Implies Scotland has had a dependency culture for some time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    North Sea Oil revenue is rebated back to the scots at a differing value in the Barnett formula as far as I'm aware. Last time I checked Scotland wasn't doing that badly under Westminster tyranny too.
    Cutting expenditure was one way of closing the black hole and increasing taxes was another. He's gone for cutting expenditure and lowering taxes to increase foreign investment.

    This is quite an interesting read :
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27694833

    Implies Scotland has had a dependency culture for some time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The UK does have a dependency culture. The Yes campaign would have won if it didn't. Scotland is not independent so why are they saying Scotland would not survive. Westminster's job is to prove independence would not work. They see the SNP as a threat to corporate interests.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    Recessions are natural in capitalism, they are meant to happen, so long as the general trend towards economic growth is upwards. I think you'll find she scrapped unsuccessful industries that were being heavily subsidised by the government (eg the mines, where coal became cheaper to import from abroad than to pay here in the UK). The whole essence in her economic policies was competition, which would inevitably bring down prices for the consumer so long as companies all fought for the money of the consumer - which I agree works when regulated to avoid companies working with each-other to fix up prices. At the end of the day she gave a reality check to much of Britain, we were spending too much in subsidising these particular industries along with paying workers way too much (some workers regularly worked ridiculously low hours) for the productivity they had. This extra price went off to the consumer as the business itself had to take the shortfall. Not to mention the undemocratic trade unions who held a disproportionate amount of power and authority than they should have - if you don't know about it look up the Winter of Discontent. If you don't agree that this is wrong then I think a serious look at economics would be of great benefit to you! Not that I'm not open to new ideas.

    Unemployment benefits is something I personally believe should reflect how long and how much a person has been giving their taxes to the government, but I would like to benefits reduced in return for more education expenditure etc. As a social libertarian myself I feel morally the government should have very little to do with our lives - except some key services (NHS, schools etc) should remain along with a progressive tax structure. I looked at your info page and saw you put yourself down as "social libertarian" when I can't seem to find anything remotely libertarian in your post (with regards to economics) whatsoever? You said that the economy can't function if it's workers don't have enough money, well it can and certainly is if you are suggesting it isn't now (unless I am secretly living in an economically apocalyptic state where there is no money?). Yes there is an optimal point where wages are important but we should be very careful in raising taxes in a globalised world (which are needed to offset higher wages to a degree). If a company doesn't want to invest here they could always go to another country in Europe with a lower tax rate, losing investment and so jobs. It is therefore so that to fight in economically in the world lower taxes are needed, I would agree that this is "unfair" but at the end of the day it is the Russian tycoons etc wanting to flock their cash in London house markets etc that are keeping this economy afloat. In an ideal world yes I'd love everyone to be on higher wages but it is serious when it comes to our competitive edge abroad. As for tax avoidance, well I think it's harder to recoup that money than they think, but nevertheless I'd like to see MPs get off their backsides and start working for a solution.

    The government currently has us in more debt because they have followed Keynesian policies, they won't admit it but they have borrowed even still to invest in industries or to offset the cost in failing ones (+rising social benefits). During every recession this is done (if you look at all past recessions), and so I think that is a tad but unfair to say that the Tories are maleficently scrapping welfare, I know that if Scotland was independent and it was in a similar situation and cuts had to be made every Scot would play the blame game on Holyrood - but now I see many scots blame Westminster instead as it's the easier option, yet Swinney regularly says that his actions are the reason why Scotland isn't in a mess. A country is like a business, you should never spend more than you earn in the long term! Your statement also on the deficit being larger is also factually incorrect.


    I'd like to see a more democratic process with the inclusion of minority parties so parties like the Greens had influence on government decision (ie a Labour-Green coalition would be possible).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is nonsense.
    Manufacturing jobs are [or were] labour intensive...think of thousands of workers in a shipyard or a textiles mill or a car plant. Service sector jobs are not like that...there aren't masses of workers in any one place....and service sector jobs do not directly create wealth.

    Manufacturing jobs can be well paid on the basis that they are jobs that create wealth....raw materials cannot be sold to consumers in their natural state....not of any use.....but once transformed into goods then they have much more value = wealth creation.

    So manufacturing is necessary to make ordinary people wealthy. Margaret Thatcher changed the economy to protect the interests of the UK Government and their wealthy pals.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choo.choo)
    The UK does have a dependency culture. The Yes campaign would have won if it didn't. Scotland is not independent so why are they saying Scotland would not survive. Westminster's job is to prove independence would not work. They see the SNP as a threat to corporate interests.
    Realistically Scotland would survive (I didn't claim it wouldn't?) if it was independent but it would have to make really tough decisions over the next couple of years. A lack of oil revenue in their budget and the high risk lenders would have to take in lending to Scotland would mean that large amounts of austerity would be needed or large amounts of taxes, so far as I've seen Scotland haven't reacted so well to austerity and high taxes detract a lot of foreign investment (as seen in France).

    It would be quite interesting to see though what might have happened if austerity had to be enforced a lot more in Scotland? Would it shift the political landscape further left or more to the right?




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choo.choo)
    That is nonsense.
    Manufacturing jobs are [or were] labour intensive...think of thousands of workers in a shipyard or a textiles mill or a car plant. Service sector jobs are not like that...there aren't masses of workers in any one place....and service sector jobs do not directly create wealth.

    Manufacturing jobs can be well paid on the basis that they are jobs that create wealth....raw materials cannot be sold to consumers in their natural state....not of any use.....but once transformed into goods then they have much more value = wealth creation.

    So manufacturing is necessary to make ordinary people wealthy. Margaret Thatcher changed the economy to protect the interests of the UK Government and their wealthy pals.
    Manufacturing is no longer labour intensive. 50 years ago it took 10 times as many people to work a distillery, I don't know about car plants but I guess about the same.

    Service sector jobs can be as labour intensive - a call centre can easily have over 1000 people, as can a shopping centre or bank.

    Service sector jobs directly create wealth, just as much as a shipyard.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choo.choo)
    That is nonsense.
    Manufacturing jobs are [or were] labour intensive...think of thousands of workers in a shipyard or a textiles mill or a car plant. Service sector jobs are not like that...there aren't masses of workers in any one place....and service sector jobs do not directly create wealth.

    Manufacturing jobs can be well paid on the basis that they are jobs that create wealth....raw materials cannot be sold to consumers in their natural state....not of any use.....but once transformed into goods then they have much more value = wealth creation.

    So manufacturing is necessary to make ordinary people wealthy. Margaret Thatcher changed the economy to protect the interests of the UK Government and their wealthy pals.
    Manufacturing jobs were labour intensive. But nevertheless it was cheaper to buy any sort of goods abroad (partly due to the large costs associated to manufacturing businesses in the UK). This meant the goods weren't competitive and in a globalised world meant that they were running at a loss. We don't have many natural resources in the UK now anyway for domestic goods.

    Thatcher changed the economy so that the public weren't paying for jobs that shouldn't have been - no normal business would have survived if it was making a loss yet previous political powers had shown an absence in delivering what was needed. She believed in free enterprise and competition (lowering prices which they did) something nationalised industries at the time couldn't give. Profiting from industries that worked meant that the economy grew and people gained "real jobs" which were sustainable. Admittedly a lot of this helped the south more than the north but the north were too reliant on manufacturing, which was unlucky




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    North Sea Oil revenue is rebated back to the scots at a differing value in the Barnett formula as far as I'm aware.
    What relevance is the Barnett formula? It just determines the change in the block grant and has no connection to oil revenues.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernHistorian)
    As a Yes Scotland/SNP/Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon supporter I do believe Scotland is entitled to it's own forum on TSR for Scottish Politics.

    Then again, this perhaps illustrates that the UK Government still regard Scotland as a pet.
    Even as a NO voter and proud Tory, I agree with you in that Scotland is entitled to its own forum for politics.

    The way it works in my mind-space is that if you have your own Parliament, you should have your own TSR politics section. UK has Westminster -> British politics. Scotland has Holyrood -> there should be a section for Scotch politics as well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernHistorian)
    As a Yes Scotland/SNP/Alex Salmond/Nicola Sturgeon supporter I do believe Scotland is entitled to it's own forum on TSR for Scottish Politics.

    Then again, this perhaps illustrates that the UK Government still regard Scotland as a pet.
    Salmond... Sturgeon... something smells fishy in here... what next, Greyling or Dory?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    What relevance is the Barnett formula? It just determines the change in the block grant and has no connection to oil revenues.
    I read somewhere that the Scots get their share and more due to North Sea oil, trying to find the website now


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Even as a NO voter and proud Tory, I agree with you in that Scotland is entitled to its own forum for politics.

    The way it works in my mind-space is that if you have your own Parliament, you should have your own TSR politics section. UK has Westminster -> British politics. Scotland has Holyrood -> there should be a section for Scotch politics as well.
    That'd be loads :O
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.