[DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!

Our best bits.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

YES (I am eligible to vote in the referendum)
30
16%
NO (I am eligible to vote in the referendum)
19
10%
YES (I will not be eligible)
30
16%
NO (I will not be eligible)
111
58%
 
Total votes: 190
User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Denster » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:17 pm

[iup=3572489]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3572487]Lagamorph[/iup] wrote:Also, the simple fact of the matter is that Scotland takes more from the UK than it puts in, that has been demonstrated several times in this thread. Part of the revenues from Oil would have been needed just to balance that back out.


Q: “But isn’t UK government spending higher per person in Scotland?”

A: Yes, it is. But Scotland pays for every penny of that spending and more besides. As the Financial Times article from February points out:

“Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters.”

On average, UK spending is around £1,200 higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. But on average Scotland sends £1,700 more per person to the UK in taxes. We only get back around 70% of the extra money we send to London. The other 30% is kept by Westminster and spent in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Q: “But doesn’t Scotland get more money spent on it than it generates in tax?”

A: Sort of. In 2011-12, for example, Scotland generated roughly £57bn in tax and had £64.5bn spent on it. But that extra spending isn’t a generous gift from the UK - it’s borrowing, taken out by the UK government in Scotland’s name. It’s not money from the rest of the UK, it’s money from international banks - it becomes part of the massive debt referred to above, and Scotland has to pay it back.

(And we have to pay it even if we didn’t need or want the things it was spent on - like nuclear weapons, the London Olympics and the HS2 railway from London to Birmingham, all of which Scotland pays billions of pounds towards because Westminster claims they’re for the benefit of the whole country.)



http://theweebluebook.com/economy.php

Thanks for playing.



And yet Scotland voted No.

Thanks for playing, Scotland.


Seems to me we can shut this thread and make a scottish politics thread. As the independence issue has been settled democratically.

The unwillingness to accept the result from some in here and that odious little gooseberry fool who wanted to be the scottish president is not going to go away.

Let's have a scottish politics thread as someone suggested. Then we can start debating the proposed devolving of powers.
The independence debate is over. Scotland said NO.

Moggy wrote:For £350m I'd join the Tory Party. :lol:
User avatar
Banjo
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Nobody cares

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Banjo » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:33 pm

[iup=3572916]Denster[/iup] wrote:Seems to me we can shut this thread and make a scottish politics thread. As the independence issue has been settled democratically.

The unwillingness to accept the result from some in here and that odious little gooseberry fool who wanted to be the scottish president is not going to go away.

Let's have a scottish politics thread as someone suggested. Then we can start debating the proposed devolving of powers.
The independence debate is over. Scotland said NO.

:lol:

strawberry float off, bellend.

User avatar
Prototype
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Prototype » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:36 pm

[iup=3572916]Denster[/iup] wrote:The independence debate is over.


It really isn't.

User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Denster » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:51 pm

:lol:

Moggy wrote:For £350m I'd join the Tory Party. :lol:
User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Denster » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:51 pm

[iup=3572955]Banjo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3572916]Denster[/iup] wrote:Seems to me we can shut this thread and make a scottish politics thread. As the independence issue has been settled democratically.

The unwillingness to accept the result from some in here and that odious little gooseberry fool who wanted to be the scottish president is not going to go away.

Let's have a scottish politics thread as someone suggested. Then we can start debating the proposed devolving of powers.
The independence debate is over. Scotland said NO.

:lol:

strawberry float off, bellend.



Tea everywhere. :lol: :lol:

Moggy wrote:For £350m I'd join the Tory Party. :lol:
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Rocsteady » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:44 pm

Keep this thread open, it's one of the more interesting ones on the forum. And I don't think the independence debate will be over for quite some time yet. I'll be amazed if there's not another vote in the next decade.

Image
User avatar
Prototype
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Prototype » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:59 pm

We'll do our best to continue discussing independence and the on-going quest for it or against it.

Hopefully Denster will keep his single emote replies for non-[DISCUSSION] threads.

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Rocsteady » Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:06 pm

[iup=3572312]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3572146]Karl[/iup] wrote:I thought that Nick Robinson interview gaffe was a poor showing, but on the whole I felt they were the same centrist fence-sitters they always are. Am I wrong? I didn't watch the coverage as religiously as some here, no doubt!




I can't even find an abstract for his first paper, which is mildly annoying.

To his first points; it's unsurprising that the bbc would take issue with something that claims they aren't impartial.

After that he seems on a minor power trip where he believes his report to be worthy of mass coverage in the mainstream media, presumably over the tens - if not hundreds - of other academic articles written on every possible facet of the independence debate.

It makes sense for the ratio of news stories that have 'anti-Yes' statements to be greater than 'anti-no' ones, simply because the newsworthiness of the stories tended to come from the fact X big business or highly respected economist was saying Y about independence (and Y was generally negative towards yes, for various reasons that don't need to be touched upon here). As he says, a 3:2 ratio is actually surprisingly high; especially considering the number of negative stories that came out about the yes campaign were of a much greater magnitude than the no campaign.

As regards to sequencing, anyone will know you lead with the biggest, most important nugget of information in your opening line. Someone from the yes camp saying everything will be fine with, say, tax revenue, then moving onto Paul Krugman saying that actually his new report found it wouldn't be, makes absolutely no sense. That would be a biased way of reporting the news.

The fact bad news has an effect on viewers is nothing to do with the BBC. Their duty is to report the news, which by its very nature is often negative. The repetition as well is a moot point, because all positive Yes aspects will also be repeated. So as long as balanced in one piece is achieved it doesn't matter how many times in a day it's shown.

That covers it up to about 5:30. It is an intriguing video, though, would be interested to hear your thoughts on my rebuttals.

Image
User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Denster » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:29 pm

[iup=3573064]Prototype[/iup] wrote:We'll do our best to continue discussing independence and the on-going quest for it or against it.

Hopefully Denster will keep his single emote replies for non-[DISCUSSION] threads.


Sorry - you dont actually think i was serious there, do you?

It was just a little light hearted swipe at some of the ass tears being shed by the Yes voters who didn't get their way.

I agree this thread has generated some high quality debate. Interesting that it has also led to some rather unsavoury bigotry - the term 'English banana split' has been bandied about by some.

That's racist and Abusive and in a discussion thread as well. We'll let is slide though in the interest of keeping harmony amongst us British folk.

Which you all still are for another generation yet.

Mild trolling aside. I think the financial debate was never as cut and dried as either side tried to paint it.

I just think the majority of Yes voters in here wanted the chance to try independence - whether it meant a few years of austerity or not. Indeed, they would see that as a price they would be willing to pay as long as it meant they were self governing.


Like i said prior to the result - it would have been interesting. I'm just glad that Salmond hasn't got in.

Moggy wrote:For £350m I'd join the Tory Party. :lol:
User avatar
elite knight danbo
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by elite knight danbo » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:57 pm

[iup=3573244]Denster[/iup] wrote:I agree this thread has generated some high quality debate. Interesting that it has also led to some rather unsavoury bigotry - the term 'English banana split' has been bandied about by some.


Can you show me where that term has been bandied about because I did a search for it in both filtered and non-filtered version and only saw your post.

And then instead of posting "I was only kidding :lol: :lol: :lol:", can you just strawberry float off instead?

User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Denster » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:03 pm

[iup=3573288]elite knight danbo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3573244]Denster[/iup] wrote:I agree this thread has generated some high quality debate. Interesting that it has also led to some rather unsavoury bigotry - the term 'English banana split' has been bandied about by some.


Can you show me where that term has been bandied about because I did a search for it in both filtered and non-filtered version and only saw your post.

And then instead of posting "I was only kidding :lol: :lol: :lol:", can you just strawberry float off instead?



Timeghost used it.

And no i can't. Try getting a sense of humour. Or fuckoff yourself. Mard arse.

Moggy wrote:For £350m I'd join the Tory Party. :lol:
User avatar
Albear
Moderator
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Albear » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:26 pm

Calm down please dudes

User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Denster » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:28 pm

I'm fine.

FWIW - i apologise for making light of a very serious issue.

Moggy wrote:For £350m I'd join the Tory Party. :lol:
User avatar
Corazon de Leon
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Deadpool / sntaa

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Corazon de Leon » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:35 pm

Denny's ending the independence debate on here single handedly by provoking people into telling him to strawberry float off in a [DISCUSSION] thread so they get banned. Good tactics. :lol:

In all fairness though Densteroonie, you are talking a power of rubbish on that one. Timeghost's abrasive like-it-or-don't posting style notwithstanding there hasn't been a snifter of anti-English sentiment(something I'm very sensitive to) in here for the whole of the independence debate, which is sadly more than I can say for my Facebook wall. The term hasn't been "banded about" by anyone, it's been used by one member, probably only once.

And for what it's worth, yes I would have accepted a few years of austerity for a longer period of prosperity. And you're right, the financial debate was certainly not cut and dried either way.

Image Image
User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Denster » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:38 pm

I think i'll be avoiding the christmas Glasgow meet anyway!

Moggy wrote:For £350m I'd join the Tory Party. :lol:
User avatar
Corazon de Leon
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Deadpool / sntaa

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Corazon de Leon » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:44 pm

You'll be set upon by hordes of angry Scotsmen the second you step foot on Glaswegian turf. And one Welsh honorary. :slol:

EDIT: In complete fairness actually, I think warnings all round would have sufficed here. Denny actually admitted to trolling a bit further up the page, people fell for it! :lol:

Image Image
User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: The north of Ireland.

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Meep » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:17 am

One of the amazing things about the debate was that most Scots did not seem to realise that they are the wealthiest single region in the entire UK. Hilariously the lie that they are 'subsidised' has been repeated so many times a lot of them seemed to believe it; which is kind of strange because the raw statics make the point kind of inarguable that it is a net contributor to the treasury. True, they receive back more money than they are taxed, but so does everywhere else. You should hardly be grateful to the UK government for borrowing money in your name, especially since it was made clear that it was going to dump your share of the debt on you if you left anyway.

Fact is that Scotland has a far higher tax take per a person than the rest of the UK so if they had gone independent they would have been able to pay back their part of the deficit much more easily.

IMO, to be fair, part of this is to do with the way certain industries and independently wealthy individuals are so severely under-taxed in the UK whilst some industries have completely ridiculous tax burdens. If they restructured the tax system to makes things fairer the other regions might start pulling a fairer weight. It's not necessarily the case that Scotland is much more productive, but actually mostly just the victim of tax laws that have shifted to favour service industries rather than industrial ones.

Also, not, I am not Scottish, but I don't like the nasty and completely unjustified vilification of Scots as "scroungers" when in fact they are going far more than their fair share.

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Rocsteady » Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:39 pm

[iup=3573828]Meep[/iup] wrote:One of the amazing things about the debate was that most Scots did not seem to realise that they are the wealthiest single region in the entire UK. Hilariously the lie that they are 'subsidised' has been repeated so many times a lot of them seemed to believe it; which is kind of strange because the raw statics make the point kind of inarguable that it is a net contributor to the treasury. True, they receive back more money than they are taxed, but so does everywhere else. You should hardly be grateful to the UK government for borrowing money in your name, especially since it was made clear that it was going to dump your share of the debt on you if you left anyway.

Fact is that Scotland has a far higher tax take per a person than the rest of the UK so if they had gone independent they would have been able to pay back their part of the deficit much more easily.


IMO, to be fair, part of this is to do with the way certain industries and independently wealthy individuals are so severely under-taxed in the UK whilst some industries have completely ridiculous tax burdens. If they restructured the tax system to makes things fairer the other regions might start pulling a fairer weight. It's not necessarily the case that Scotland is much more productive, but actually mostly just the victim of tax laws that have shifted to favour service industries rather than industrial ones.

Also, not, I am not Scottish, but I don't like the nasty and completely unjustified vilification of Scots as "scroungers" when in fact they are going far more than their fair share.

We're assuming that all other variables would have remained the same there, though, which of course they wouldn't have in the event of independence.

There's substantial MoD investment, for instance, which would have been lost, and would thus have strongly affected the amount of money the Scottish administration would take in. Same with the headquarters of banks that pledged to leave, not to mention the capital flight that would have inevitably taken place.

Image
User avatar
degoose
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by degoose » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:02 pm

[iup=3573064]Prototype[/iup] wrote:We'll do our best to continue discussing independence and the on-going quest for it or against it.

Hopefully Denster will keep his single emote replies for non-[DISCUSSION] threads.

Seeing as Scotland voted No to independence i don't think you will get what you might want for quite a while as there won't be another referendum for ages if at all. Maybe you could create your own country and then you can have independence , look i found a guide for you http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country

Image
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for Sega"
Steam:degoose, Xbox:degoose v2 , PSN:degoose, Switch: 0760-2133-6729
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!
by Rocsteady » Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:07 pm

Great idea.

There'll be another referendum sooner than you think.

Image

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests