Should Scotland be an independent country?

ibiza

cash-strapped wrote: »

Not sure if it's been mentioned but if Scotland does decide to go independent those south of the border can look forward to years and years of Tory rule in Westminster........oh what a shame

To be fair it only would only have changed the outcome 4 times since the 1950s (until 1955 Scotland voted Tory!).

The most recent change was the last general election would have been a Tory government rather than the current coalition.

1964 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————-
Labour majority: 4
Without Scottish MPs: -9
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY OF 1
(Con 280, Lab 274, Lib 5)
1966 Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————-
Labour majority: 98
Without Scottish MPs: 77
NO CHANGE

1970 Conservative govt (Heath)
——————————————–
Conservative majority: 30
Without Scottish MPs: 55
NO CHANGE

1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson)
————————————————-
Labour majority: -33
Without Scottish MPs: -50
POSSIBLE CHANGE – LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY
(Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16)

1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan)
—————————————————–
Labour majority: 3
Without Scottish MPs: -8
CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY
(Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15)

1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher)
————————————————-
Conservative majority: 43
Without Scottish MPs: 70
NO CHANGE

1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher)
————————————————-
Conservative majority: 144
Without Scottish MPs: 174
NO CHANGE

1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major)
——————————————————-
Conservative majority: 102
Without Scottish MPs: 154
NO CHANGE

1992 Conservative govt (Major)
———————————————
Conservative majority: 21
Without Scottish MPs: 71
NO CHANGE

1997 Labour govt (Blair)
———————————–
Labour majority: 179
Without Scottish MPs: 139
NO CHANGE

2001 Labour govt (Blair)
———————————–
Labour majority: 167
Without Scottish MPs: 129
NO CHANGE

2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown)
——————————————–
Labour majority: 66
Without Scottish MPs: 43
NO CHANGE

2010 Coalition govt (Cameron)
——————————————
Conservative majority: -38
Without Scottish MPs: 19
CHANGE: CON-LIB COALITION TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

ibiza

spacey2012 wrote: »

Oh make absolutely no mistake, when the EU have finished wining an dining you the eyes will be formerly on this oil.
The revenue will not even pay the interest when they bankrupt Scotland and bail it out.
Exactly what they have done with other assets, why not yours.

You think you can trust these people more than you can your English Celtic cousins then I am getting popcorn in, they are going to roast you on the EU wealth distribution socialist experiment bonfire.

Like Turkeys, the Scottish will vote for Christmas.
Fools, absolute Fools.

That makes a change to the normal too small, too poor, no EU for you, your oil is worthless rhetoric! First time ever, even out of all the "your airports will be bombed" sensationalism that someone has come out with your claim.

There is a good saying, the more extraordinary something is, the more it needs to be substantiated. You mentioned popcorn & turkeys.

The other EU nations who hit hard times had massive problems in their economies, yet Scotland's balance runs a surplus & has the UK best unemployment. Greece was an exception as it used false figures to borrow cheap money for years, resulting in the national equivalent of a Ponzi scheme. Then the new loans stopped leaving nothing to pay the old one's interest.

As I said, you offer nothing to substantiate your claim. No one before you has foreseen this as a potential issue, and I will be equally amazed if anyone mentions it again (bar you).

But to be fair, can you offer substantiation as to why this might happen, or offer figures to show a similar event previously, or even mention anyone credible who has offered a similar tale of woe previously?

Go for it, I am happy to be convinced.

neal_page

I'm a Scot who will be voting YES, no doubt. This is pure and simple to allow those who are best placed to make the decisions that affect Scotland to actually take those decisions. Those might well be the wrong decisions, but if I'm going to make mistakes I want them to be my own, not imposed on me by a government that does not represent my country's interests.

There is so much misinformation floating around. I won't repeat it as it's all over the last 8 pages. But much of it comes from the Daily Mail reading crowd who believe Scotland is subsidised (we're not - read Westminster's GERS report), that we won't get into the EU (sure, they're going to throw out it's biggest oil producer yet allow Bulgaria in) and they we won't be allowed to use sterling (it's a fully tradeable currency, as much Scotland's as England's, and the BoE's balance of payments is reliant on our money).

A few here have mentioned what they have encountered on the streets from voters. I campaign frequently in a mid-sized former mining town and I would say it is pretty evenly split, a third are YES, a third are NO and the last third are DON'T KNOWS. There is a noticeable split on age grounds - under 55s are almost all YES, above 65 almost all NOs. The problem for the NO side is that once someone has moved to YES there is little chance they'll change that decision - they've worked through the arguments and come to a decision. I'd say this group stands at 35%-40% of the electorate. The DON'T KNOWS are, obviously, not averse to independence - they just need to be persuaded. I think they're more likely to vote YES. Now for the important bit, the NOs. There is a staunch NO vote, but a percentage of NOs are soft, or as I call them 'default NOs'. When asked they simply say NO, but in actuality are open to persuasion. Imo this group makes up 10%-15% of the population.

My final point is about polls. Many weight their figures from the Westminster elections. This presents a false picture as many people vote negatively in Westminster elections ie against the Tories. Panelbase uses the Scottish elections where people vote the way they feel is right, and as such presents a more accurate picture. They were also one of the only organisations that came close to predicting the 2011 election.

Celyn

happyinflorida wrote: »

I'm very happy for the Scottish to be independent, if they want that.

What I don't want is for anymore of England's money to go in their coffers.

I can assure you that England does not subsidiise Scotland.

happyinflorida wrote: »

I am furious that the Scottish think it ok to allow their own people to have free university education but not the English, especially when any Tom, !!!!!! or Harry from Europe can go to one of their uni's for absolutely nothing to pay at all. Is that right or fair? No it is not.

Payment of fees for students is a matter for your own M.P.s to decide. Why not campaign and pressure them for change so that English-domiciled students have their fees paid by the government?

Just for a laugh, might I ask whether you are one of those who somehow imagine that Scottish-domiciled students choosing to study in England do not pay fees? I suspect that you might be.

happyinflorida wrote: »

Hopefully this will also stop Scottish MP's in our English government making decisions that are good for them and bad for England. We have had enough of their terrible politicians, like Gordon Brown, who have been a nightmare.

Bear in mind that SNP MPs do NOT, as a matter of principle, vote on matters purely involving England. Remember to direct your ire at Scottish Labour, LibDem, and Tory MPs. (There's only one Tory, of course).

I had the impression that Gordon Brown has not been in charge since 2010. I trust you are utterly delighted with Cameron and Osborne and their friends.

happyinflorida wrote: »

Bog off the lot of you IMO.

How very uncivil. Tantrums do not exactly contribute to sensible political discussion.

Celyn

stevemcol wrote: »

I live in England and want independence from Scotland ASAP. But please Scotland, whichever way the vote goes, will you promise to stop banging on about it.

If the subject upsets you, I'm pretty sure it is not compulsory for you to click on such threads.

ibiza

picardshair wrote: »

And the question in the YouGov poll includes the words "if you were able to vote in the referendum on Scotland's future" So basically they were polling anyone in the UK and not those who would definitely have a vote on referendum day.

If you look at the report itself, 511 out of 1919 identify with the Conservative party, and 47 with the SNP, the Conservatives have 1 seat, the SNP over 60 in Scotland. And only 201 out of 1919 who were asked the question were from Scotland. It is completely biased.

There is also always a strong element of "who pays the piper calls the tune", even to the extent that if a site is owned/run by a certain politician or party, then if you don't support the party, then the site is not visited.

Yougov is a tory site, and has even let its influence flavour its wikipedia page so far that its flagged as reading more like an advert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yougov

hazelwoods

wiogs wrote: »

Just to correct you the majority of Scots, or more accurately those in Scotland entitled to vote, did not vote for the SNP.

Also, even more Scots, especially those living in Scotland and entitled to vote, did not vote Conservative.

Your point is?

wiogs

hazelwoods wrote: »

Also, even more Scots, especially those living in Scotland and entitled to vote, did not vote Conservative.

Your point is?

My point is obvious, I was correcting an error in a previous post.

No one suggested that the majority of voters voted conservative, so no idea why you need to mention it.

hazelwoods

londonlydia wrote: »

Can I just answer a fallacy I've seen a few times on here... there are other places in the UK you could store the nuclear subs, it's just where they are at the minute is good and there is no point moving them. For instance, look at where the submarines are actually made (clue: it's in England). And whilst may Scots may object to them being stored there, dont discount the amount of people working in defence industry in Scotland who will lose their jobs if they go.

I had to read this several times to ensure I had read correctly.

When the submarines were made they were NOT carrying nuclear warheads.

There is nowhere within England or Wales that has the facilities to store the warheads. Devonport for example has too many people within the "acceptable safe radius" (The tolerability criterion level is the official phrase)

Faslane not only has the depth of water/facilities for submarine movement it also does not have a large population within the "acceptable safe radius" The fact that Glasgow is still very close doesn't bother those who don't want it in their own backyard.

More info here. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/04/mod-nuclear-submarines-scotland-plymouth

I loved this quote

The MoD stressed that the UK government was making no plans for independence, as it was confident that Scotland would not vote to leave the UK.

Also of interest are :
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-lives-considered-cheap-by-uk-1523923

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/mod-trident-scotland-independence

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-trident-is-ticket-to-nato-1-2967486

Celyn

chocaholicmanc wrote: »

I'm engaged to a Scot (living in England) whose parents live in Scotland and I have really only heard the negatives (they do not want independence).

My main bug bear is that Scots living anywhere but England, N. Ireland and Wales get to vote.

Why ought they to have a vote? People are to vote in the constituency in which they are registered on the Electoral Roll. That's just what happens.

chocaholicmanc wrote: »

Just because the powers that be assume that those living elsewhere in the UK would automatically vote 'no' should not mean that they don't get a say at all!

It has nothing whatsoever to do what what "the powers that be assume". However, if you are sure it does AND sure of your telepathic abilities in knowing what other people "assume", then you should probably make official complaints. Let us know how that goes.

chocaholicmanc wrote: »

After all, it does ultimately affect them too. You can't just pick and choose who gets to vote based on the outcome you want!

If you have any evidence for this so far unfounded allegation, again, make a serious official complaint. Basically, that is NOT what is happening, but it's possible that you aren't really serious and might simply not have researched enough to learn the facts.

Oh, and I'm not sure just why you seem certain that Scots domiciled elsewhere would vote "No". If I were still living in Surrey or in London and had a vote, I would have been voting "Yes". Of course, I would actually know that I had no vote and would understand why that was the case.