Should Scotland be an independent country?

Celyn

ewenny wrote: »

If they want it, let them have it and see them survive on their own.

---

Only trouble is some daft institution like the EU would susidise them or bale them out and the rest of Uk might have to chip in!!

Scotland is not subsidised. Yes, Scotland will certainly survive, and more than just "survive", on its own.

I'm rather getting the impression that you WANT Scotland to fail. If so, why? What good would that do to you?

Celyn

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I do live very close to Faslane and though jobs loss would be regrettable I want to see nuclear weapons gone from Scotland.

A close friend who's husband works at Faslane is voting yes as is her husband. They believe the future of our country is more important than his possible job loss......

May I say I admire your friend and her husband's recognition that there may be things more important than his job. I very much hope they will be all right and have other jobs and so on, but I admire people with principles. :T

Besides who wants to live next door to a blooming big nuclear target? Definite "Yes" vote from me.

Celyn

sharnad wrote: »

It will Damian a naval base as part of uk sovereign terrorist or there will be several thousands jobs lost

What is this "uk sovereign terrorist"?

John_Pierpoint

Celyn wrote: »

Scotland is not subsidised. Yes, Scotland will certainly survive, and more than just "survive", on its own.

I'm rather getting the impression that you WANT Scotland to fail. If so, why? What good would that do to you?

The whole of the EU is riddled with subsidies.
There is a huge fuss at the moment about the recalculation of the Common Agricultural Policy annual payments.
The EU has cancelled the payments to the very large farmers (Such as the clothing chain Primark) and is trying to reroute an extra £600 million of other peoples money to deprived farmers in the UK - nearly all these extra deprived farmers are in Scotland. However the wicked UK administration is trying to bag it and use it for rural development across the kingdom.

I might have got that slightly wrong, but I challenge anyone to explain the EU accounts, the auditors have given up signing them as correct years ago..

ibiza

Its quite funny, initially every nation bar England in this poll favoured Scottish independence, and there was no shortage of comments implying Scotland was funded by the UK.

However, now there are no shortage of comments & references showing Scotland to be the wealthier nation per capita, with lower unemployment, and contributing far more to the UK than she receives in return.

Suddenly the poll reverses and no one wants Scotland to break away.

That aside, there will always be some little englander tabloid readers (who by no means are indicative of English folk as a whole) that will come in spouting unsubstantiated comments, who then take a slagging, prompting allegations the Scottish independence movement (which is not a synonym for SNP) are anti English.

England, most Scots for independence actually like you, even taking into account that dreadful "ni-ni-ni-ni-nineteen sixty six" speech impediment afflicting so many of your nation, but we just don't think we should fund the UK, or that she should make our decisions any longer.

ibiza

Celyn wrote: »

What is this "uk sovereign terrorist"?

My guess is it is predictive text intending to say "would remain a UK sovereign territory" applying to Faslane.

This would be along similar lines to the former Soviet Navy after the break up of the USSR having the Russia Black Sea Fleet remaining based at Sevastopol on the autonomous Krym/Crimean peninsula. Effectively a Russian exclave, but with a rent payment being made to either Ukraine. or Krym/Crimea. I would have to check which.

Initially a similar situation would exist in an independent Scotland, but only until the facility could be moved.

Weapons of mass destruction are an atrocity, a view reflected in many polls of all Scottish people. There is still a "Peace Camp" on the East of the road passing the base (although far smaller than before). Removing the weapons returns vastly more money than would be needed to assist those losing their jobs into new work.

zagubov

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The whole of the EU is riddled with subsidies.
There is a huge fuss at the moment about the recalculation of the Common Agricultural Policy annual payments.
The EU has cancelled the payments to the very large farmers (Such as the clothing chain Primark) and is trying to reroute an extra £600 million of other peoples money to deprived farmers in the UK - nearly all these extra deprived farmers are in Scotland. However the wicked UK administration is trying to bag it and use it for rural development across the kingdom.

I might have got that slightly wrong, but I challenge anyone to explain the EU accounts, the auditors have given up signing them as correct years ago..

This is a hot topic in the indy sections of t'interweb. The UK diverting agricultural aid due to Scotland is given as an example of why if Scotland becoming a member of the EU may benefit from direct rather than indirect membership via the UK.

Me, I'm not sure membership's worth the price, and it's certainly not worth any price

gm_xone

zagubov wrote: »

This is a hot topic in the indy sections of t'interweb. The UK diverting agricultural aid due to Scotland is given as an example of why if Scotland becoming a member of the EU may benefit from direct rather than indirect membership via the UK.

Me, I'm not sure membership's worth the price, and it's certainly not worth any price

Nothing is worth any price!, but the value can often be more important.

At the moment, I think it's impossible to have a completely informed opinion of whether Scotland would be better off in or out of the EU. The true costs and benefits to Scotland are difficult to extract, often obscured, manipulated or simply withheld by the UK govt.
Under independence we would know what we are dealing with - the pros and cons - and could then make an informed decision on the EU and the alternatives.

The latest subsidy issue whereby Scotland is missing out on the increased payments through the common agricultural policy highlights part of the problem. The only reason the UK qualified for the "convergence uplift" is because of Scotland's low payments under the current system.

It should also not be forgotten, of course, that previously the UK government considered the Scottish fishing industry "as expendable", and the disastrous effects the Common Fisheries Policy has had on the industry and the loss of many thousands of jobs as a result.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/heath-knew-policy-would-kill-fish-fleet-1-634422
http://www.scottishdemocraticalliance.com/attachments/article/82/CFP%20-%20How%20it%20Began.pdf

gm_xone

Just yesterday, some people on here mentioned the affront to democracy, that is; the unelected House of Lords.
Coincidentally, and right on cue, a HoL amendment to the Energy bill removed the Scottish parliament's powers in respect of renewables obligation in Scotland...
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/8428-fury-after-unelected-peers-strip-power-from-scotland

And, that has happened before the referendum. The positive case for maintaining the Union has never materialised, but already the consequences of a No vote are becoming ever clearer.

sharnad

Celyn wrote: »

What is this "uk sovereign terrorist"?

Territory. Bloody ipod