Northern Independence Watch

AyrshireStudent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
I think Scotland is more like the North of England obviously for geographic and cultural ties. London is like the complete opposite in my eyes.
(Original post by L i b)
In terms of most surveys on social attitudes, London is closer to Scotland than the rest of England. Personally I've links to Scotland and London/SE - everything in between is really just an occasional place to visit.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by AyrshireStudent)
I think Scotland is more like the North of England obviously for geographic and cultural ties. London is like the complete opposite in my eyes.
Lib was referring to them both being liberal diversity loving preachy places i suspect.

Granted its easier to find the hidden underbelly of social conservatism in Scotland once you leave the Central Belt.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
Forget Northern independence, the south should just leave the UK.

We pay more into the UK budget more than what we get back out. We have a much larger economy and could easily survive on our own. A free trade deal between the UK and The South would be easy.

I don't want northern migrants coming into the south either. Southern jobs for southern people, please.
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Forget Northern independence, the south should just leave the UK.

We pay more into the UK budget more than what we get back out. We have a much larger economy and could easily survive on our own. A free trade deal between the UK and The South would be easy.

I don't want northern migrants coming into the south either. Southern jobs for southern people, please.
You are confusing the South with London. Without london, the South isn't much better off than the north. In fact without the London the south is just a bunch of pretty insignificant towns.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by ByEeek)
You are confusing the South with London. Without london, the South isn't much better off than the north. In fact without the London the south is just a bunch of pretty insignificant towns.
Except for Brighton, Oxford, Southampton, Reading, Portsmouth, Dover, etc....
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
We don’t want southerners up north either, coming up here driving up our affordable house prices
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Forget Northern independence, the south should just leave the UK.

We pay more into the UK budget more than what we get back out. We have a much larger economy and could easily survive on our own. A free trade deal between the UK and The South would be easy.

I don't want northern migrants coming into the south either. Southern jobs for southern people, please.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
We don’t want southerners up north either, coming up here driving up our affordable house prices
You mean bringing money in?
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
I'm not on any benefits; I don't need southern money. I certainly don't need you lot coming up here buying up our housing stock making it more difficult for us to find somewhere
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You mean bringing money in?
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Except for Brighton, Oxford, Southampton, Reading, Portsmouth, Dover, etc....
Reading? That really is an insignificant shithole
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Except for Brighton, Oxford, Southampton, Reading, Portsmouth, Dover, etc....
Yep. Small towns compared to Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Newcastle.
0
reply
TomSmith12345
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by SHallowvale)
You mean bringing money in?
I don't think you understand how an economy works mate. To be honest a north without the south would be dream either way, but to not realise how the north has fuelled the souths wealth is downright naive. The south would not survive without the north and thats the point of us leaving.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by TomSmith12345)
I don't think you understand how an economy works mate. To be honest a north without the south would be dream either way, but to not realise how the north has fuelled the souths wealth is downright naive. The south would not survive without the north and thats the point of us leaving.
Prove it
0
reply
TomSmith12345
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#73
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by ByEeek)
Yep. Small towns compared to Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Newcastle.
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Except for Brighton, Oxford, Southampton, Reading, Portsmouth, Dover, etc....
Were those really the biggest towns the southern guy could think of... Imagine saying dover but not realising how many vital cities the north has
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by TomSmith12345)
Were those really the biggest towns the southern guy could think of... Imagine saying dover but not realising how many vital cities the north has
It wasn't a pop. The south is surprisongly rural and many people who live in the south commute to London from miles around. The south is basically London.
2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by ColinDent)
Reading? That really is an insignificant shithole
Yet a very important transport hub and has a lot of wealth regardless.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I'm not on any benefits; I don't need southern money. I certainly don't need you lot coming up here buying up our housing stock making it more difficult for us to find somewhere
Including buying up houses that are on the market and wouldn't otherwise be bought, renovating them with the aid of local professionals and local services and overall helping the economy where the locals can't?

(Original post by TomSmith12345)
Were those really the biggest towns the southern guy could think of... Imagine saying dover but not realising how many vital cities the north has
(Original post by ByEeek)
Yep. Small towns compared to Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Newcastle.
They're all cities, bar Dover and Brighton. Given that London is actually part of Southern England, I'd lump that in there too.
Last edited by SHallowvale; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
ColinDent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Yet a very important transport hub and has a lot of wealth regardless.


Including buying up houses that are on the market and wouldn't otherwise be bought, renovating them with the aid of local professionals and local services and overall helping the economy where the locals can't?



They're all cities, bar Dover and Brighton. Given that London is actually part of Southern England, I'd lump that in there too.
I hate to be pedantic but Brighton and Hove is a city, whereas Reading is a shithole of a town, full of plastic scummers.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
Meh the north is more than welcome to become independent, i'd be curious to see how they'd intend to survive economically though given that half of the poorest regions in Europe happen to be in northern England.
1
reply
TomSmith12345
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#78
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Napp)
Meh the north is more than welcome to become independent, i'd be curious to see how they'd intend to survive economically though given that half of the poorest regions in Europe happen to be in northern England.
Most of that poverty is caused by a lack of development via investment from the south. They have failed our healthcare, education, infrastructure and everything in-between...
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by TomSmith12345)
Most of that poverty is caused by a lack of development via investment from the south. They have failed our healthcare, education, infrastructure and everything in-between...
In essence what you said was the north needs to be subsidised by the south because it can’t compete...
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by TomSmith12345)
Most of that poverty is caused by a lack of development via investment from the south. They have failed our healthcare, education, infrastructure and everything in-between...

(Original post by Napp)
In essence what you said was the north needs to be subsidised by the south because it can’t compete...
---

In essence what you(tom) want is communism. Forced redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, because you believe that the rich is rich because the poor is poor.. basic communism.

Take this as an easy example for you to get your head around (based on real goverment ecomonic statistcs, but put in a way you can understand)

You have two men. Man A earns $30 a week. Man B earns $70 a week.

(the north, the south)

Currently both men put their money into a joint bank account, and each week Man A spends $40, and man B spends $60

You look at this difference in spending(investment), whilst ignoring the difference in income and say that's not fair!! Why does Man A only get to spend $40 of their $100? and not half? He is not getting his fair share.. Man B is getting more!

That's true of the North and the south, currently the south gets more investment and spends more on itself then the north does...

From this you come to the conclusion that Man A would be better leaving Man B, and going on his own...

If that were to happen though, Man A would suddenly only have $30 a week to spend, as they would quickly loose the $10 they were spending of B's money each week. This is exactly what will happen to the North. They currently spend all of their own money each year, plus billions of money generated in the south. In the event of independence, they would only be able to spend their own revenue, which is less then they currently spend.

If though, you look at spending relative to income, you get a different picture. In fact, Man A spends 125% of their total income on themselves.. yet man B only spends 86% (or so) of their income. Now is that fair?


A capitalist and free market thinker says that B should be able to have complete freedom over his own money, bar the amount that he chooses to give up to help others through taxes or charity. In a capitalist society, B+A are both being treated fairly.. B earns more, so B keeps more.. but B gives some to A each month to help him out.

In a communist society, A+B must have equal money, regardless of how much they earn. No matter what they are earning, A must recieve $50, and B must recieve $50.

That is what you would be advocating for if you want the north to recieve the same money as the south, a communist type system where all areas recieve the same money regardless of how much each area earns.. Forced redistrubution of wealth.

You can make the arguement that by redistrubting wealth, eventually the north will rise to equal the south and income will match spending, but that is a hard case to make and one without long-term proof backing it up.
Last edited by fallen_acorns; 2 weeks ago
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Are cats selfish

Yes (144)
61.28%
No (91)
38.72%

Watched Threads

View All