Home

TheSinner.net

A question for the unionists

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re:

Postby AlenWatters on Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:00 pm

Quoting ljrmorgan from 21:24, 28th Nov 2006
Arguing against independence with a bunch of SNP supporters is a bit like arguing against the existence of god with a priest - no matter how right you might know you are, they've heard all the arguments before and always have a response. Having said that, I'll try anyway.


And arguing with a Unionist is like...?

The reason that so many people in Scotland are apparently in favour of independence is probably because it is an issue that until this week has been largely ignored by the main parties, with the exception of the SNP, who, as various people have pointed out, appear to use every unpopular policy/controversial area, whether it be Iraq, ID cards, the NHS, ..., as a reason for Scotland to be independent.


And frankly why not? If Scotland was independent we would have a better say as to whether we went into Iraq (although Denmark did), and it would be Scottish people deciding on the NHS and ID cards. Yes, of course the overwhelming majority of Scots voted for this Labour government, but they didn't vote Tory in the 80s.

I assume that the reason so many English apparently want Scottish independence is because of the recent, frankly, populist shit-stirring over the West Lothian question by the Conservatives. I agree that there is an issue there (though not as much of an issue as it may at first seem given that the number of Westminster constituencies in Scotland was reduced when the parliament was devolved) Scottish independence is not the only answer.


They are doing us many great favours, thanks guys!. But Scotland is still slightly over-represented. It does seem to undermine the union entirely though to have different classes of MPs

As for people dismissing the "2.5 million (almost 50% of) Scots have family in England" argument, because Scots also have ties to India, Poland, everywhere else... is ridiculous - last time I looked 50% of Scots don't have close family in India!


Apparently more Maltese people live in Melbourne than in Malta - family ties have fuck all to do with it. Independence will make no difference to how people see their relatives. No difference whatsoever.

Scotland's economy is also heavily dependent on English trade, I cant remember the exact figure, or the source, though I'm fairly sure I read recently that 90% of our service sector exports were to England. Aside from that, the costs of making Scotland independent would be incredibly high and absolutely crippling, anyone who doesn't realise/accept that is clearly living in a fantasy world. We'd be changing currency to the Euro (SNP are pro-Euro, I wont start on the endless anti-Euro arguments, though there are loads); god knows how we'd split up the military, NHS, every part of the public sector; we'd presumably need all the diplomatic stuff that goes with being a foreign country - embassies, links with the EU, god knows what else; One can only imagine the effect on industry, academia (how many English students are at St Andrews for example?), everything else that people in England and the rest of the UK as a whole contribute to.


This is one of the best ones - how will an independent Scotland change our trade balance with England? Would people like yourself stop coming here for business or pleasure beacuse we had the temerity to vote for independence?

And how many non-UK students are here studying in St Andrews? Why would independence change that?

The picture of an independent Scotland the nationalists seem to be painting seems to have all the economic benefits of being part of the UK and none of the downsides of not. Call me cynical, but frankly I think thats a bit far fetched. Its very difficult to argue whether or not Scotland's economy would be stronger if it were independent as no one seems to be able to agree on the effects of independence - the SNP say we'd be substantially better off, everyone else (well, most) completely disagree and both sides back up their arguments with surveys, statistics, theories, examples... The arguments I've stated above are just the most immediate things that jump into my head, I imagine there are thousands of better and more substantiated economic concerns.


Ok, so lets not try then.

One SNP argument over the economy is that by remaining part of the UK we have to suffer interest rates etc. set to benefit England which are not best suited to increasing Scottish economic growth. Instead they suggest we join the EU, where the interest rate is set to benefit the main economies in the Euro zone, and may well be even more detrimental to Scotland. I could see that increased federalism (a Lib Dem policy) would allow a greater level of control over the local economy, not just in Scotland but in other regions of the UK as well, while still giving the advantages of one of the biggest economies in Europe, but I don't think completely breaking up the country and joining the Euro would benefit anyone at all.


Ah, how easy economics would be if it was all about interest rates! Or maybe not, but Scotland joinging the Euro isn't fait accompli.

The SNP seem to basically just criticise the "London controlled" Labour/Lib dem government and blame them and Westminster (read "England") for everything wrong with the country, without saying how they'd address it, other than by becoming independent. Who knows what would happen if (god forbid) Scotland did become independent and Salmond actually had to run something and couldn't blame England when it all went wrong.


Yes, we do blame England too much. I think they haven't been too bad to us actually - letting us be the brains behind the Empire and all that. Let us not forget any time a real injustice happened (the Clearances for example) there were Scots there, shoulder to shoulder with the English.

Scotland needs to be independent in order to stop all the blame game as much as anything else. We are the masters of our own fate after all.

If people wont to protest over Iraq then vote for the Lib Dems, who opposed the war, don't vote to break up the country over it - most people in, say, Newcastle (or anywhere else in the UK) opposed the war in Iraq, doesn't mean they're going to break away from the UK just to try and protest about it. If you see that there may be economic advantages if Scotland (or any other small region in the UK) had greater power over its economy, but don't support splitting the country up, then vote for the lib Dems who support increased federalism. If you want to vote for democratic reform of Westminster so the party with 30% of the votes doesn't get 60% of the seats and so your protest votes actually make a difference, then vote lib dem.If you want to vote for a party which has had experience of being in power in Scotland


We already have, and they're cunts! (Joke, they haven't been bad, in a Lib-Dem sort of way, which means they haven't done much)

which proposed the hunting ban, free personal care for the elderly, free buses for the elderly and the smoking ban, then vote lib dem.

Or SNP, which supports all of these positions, and actually brought the legislation about!

you truly want a cleaner environment and a renewable Scotland then vote for the party that green peace called greener than the greens (who also support independence, btw), the lib dems. If you want to scrap tuition fees in the UK, vote lib dem.


Why, oh why, do lib dems still come out with that immortal line about tuition fees? And who is the only party the SNP has negotiated a potential post-election co-alition with. I'll give you a clue, their not the Tories)

(Finally stops writing and waits for the endless torrent of abuse and counter arguments...)


Is that enough?

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/
AlenWatters
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:33 pm

Re:

Postby ljrmorgan on Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:54 pm

Quoting AlenWatters from 22:00, 28th Nov 2006
And arguing with a Unionist is like...?
It's different, in that most unioninsts have more than one policy and as such don't know every single argument for one specific policy inside out and backwards.

If Scotland was independent we would have a better say as to whether we went into Iraq (although Denmark did), and it would be Scottish people deciding on the NHS and ID cards. Yes, of course the overwhelming majority of Scots voted for this Labour government, but they didn't vote Tory in the 80s.
Well, the Scots were just as opposed as the rest of the UK to invading Iraq and it still happened, just as sceptical about ID cards, and just as concerned about the NHS, and countless other issues. If you're unhappy with a government then vote for someone else, don't vote to leave the country, thats an absolutely ridiculous over reaction.

About the Conservatives raising the West Lothian question:
They are doing us many great favours, thanks guys!. But Scotland is still slightly over-represented. It does seem to undermine the union entirely though to have different classes of MPs
And as I said, I agree that there is still an issue there, however, Independence isn't the only solution. It seems odd that you seem to be encouraging an active attempt to stir up resentment of Scots in England.

Apparently more Maltese people live in Melbourne than in Malta - family ties have fuck all to do with it. Independence will make no difference to how people see their relatives. No difference whatsoever.


This is one of the best ones - how will an independent Scotland change our trade balance with England? Would people like yourself stop coming here for business or pleasure beacuse we had the temerity to vote for independence?

And how many non-UK students are here studying in St Andrews? Why would independence change that?
Umm, different currencies would make quite a big difference, export/import taxes, etc. I'm not an economist, so I don't know fully, but to act as if it wouldn't make any difference at all is a bit odd. Then you have things like the UK admiralty keeping the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde afloat, so to speak, by giving them contracts and no doubt countless other investments in impoverished areas affected by the decline in big industry - would that still happen if we were a seperate country? No.

The foreign students I know find it a pain in the arse doing lots of things, whether it be setting up a bank account, working or phoning home without getting charged masses.

People like myself? I'm Scottish as well, actually, and I would say stupidity, not temerity, though I appreciated the way in which you made me seem both condescending and English in one sentence.

As for not trying to argue about the economic benefits, what I meant was, there's not a huge point when neither side has an indesputable set of figures as a basis for debate. In fact, as such, it seems a bit rash for the SNP to campaign for independence without really having ever had an independent and widely accepted sound understanding of the economic implications.

Ah, how easy economics would be if it was all about interest rates! Or maybe not, but Scotland joinging the Euro isn't fait accompli.
Interest rates are of course not everything, I was simply using them as an example, though they do have a profound effect on infaltion, unemployment, balance of trade, economic growth. You have to ask yourself whether you'd rather be tied to rates designed to suit the UK, or rates designed as a trade off to try not to scupper the booming Irish economy or the declining German or say Italian economies. Alex Salmond is pro euro, as he re-asserted recently (week before last?) on Question Time.

Yes, we do blame England too much. I think they haven't been too bad to us actually - letting us be the brains behind the Empire and all that. Let us not forget any time a real injustice happened (the Clearances for example) there were Scots there, shoulder to shoulder with the English.

Scotland needs to be independent in order to stop all the blame game as much as anything else. We are the masters of our own fate after all.
Yeh, I mean, what have England ever done for us...

About voting lib dem:
We already have, and they're cunts! (Joke, they haven't been bad, in a Lib-Dem sort of way, which means they haven't done much)

which proposed the hunting ban, free personal care for the elderly, free buses for the elderly and the smoking ban, then vote lib dem.

Or SNP, which supports all of these positions, and actually brought the legislation about!
My points about what the lib dems have done in the coalition government wasn't a criticism of the SNP, merely me trying to point out what benefits the lib dems have had, and indeed the advantages the devolved parlaiment (which Alex Salmond originally was opposed to) has had. I don't exactly know how that, and everything else I listed, isn't much, but I guess thats because I'm apparently a "cunt".

And who is the only party the SNP has negotiated a potential post-election co-alition with. I'll give you a clue, their not the Tories)
Hopefully then, if you do get elected, we'll have enough influence to stop you guys destroying the country.

Is that enough?
Hardly.
ljrmorgan
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:19 pm

Re:

Postby sartorius on Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:20 pm

Quoting DrAlex from 17:45, 28th Nov 2006
Quoting DrAlex from 08:22, 28th Nov 2006
Quoting Lid from 00:51, 28th Nov 2006
And remember that Britain would give independence to Scotland, not concede it.


Which raises the interesting point, if the SNP really did win big at the Scottish Elections, how would they go about securing independence?


I notice no one has answered my question.

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343



It would not be a question of Britain giving Scotland independence, Scotland and england are equal partners in a union: either is allowed to choose to leave. The Scottish parliament could pass a motion calling for a referendum on independence or westminster could pass a similar motion calling for the breaking of the union (england is slightly odd in this set up in not having a specifically english parliament). After that the hallmark of a nation is really to be acknowledged by other nation states and organisations such as the U.N. and E.U.

The arguaments for and against independence can both be convincing but without actually doing it we cannot resolve what would happen. It is very difficult to decide logically either way between the agruaments. What will win the day in an election or referendum of the whole electorate of scotland is not reason but passion. People will be convinced by an arguament one way or another becuase intrinsicaly they believe in Scotland or they believe in Britain, although there are some who manage both. In recient years opinion polls have shown support for independence rising, especially amoung young scots and especially since the establishment of the scottish parliament, the scottish scots seem to have the momentum at the moment. Furthermore, in order for scotland to stay in the union into the future the status quo has to be defended every time, once independence is gained it will not easily be reversed, surely therefore it has to happen eventually?
sartorius
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:46 pm

Re:

Postby exnihilo on Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:29 pm

Rising support for independence among young Scots, curiously at the same time as standards of teaching and academic attainment plummet. A general ignorance of the past, an unwillingness to hear new information, and an unshakeable interest in the self at the expense of the other. A frightening mix for an 'optimistic new nation'.
exnihilo
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Midget on Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:20 am

england is slightly odd in this set up in not having a specifically english parliament


????

No member of the Union had its own specific parliament until the very recent acts of devolution.

An English parliament would be distinctly odd, sartorius your comments are odd to say the least.

[hr]

IMAGE:img9.imgspot.com/u/04/241/18/160019.jpg "Little!"
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100090
Midget
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:44 am

Re:

Postby ljrmorgan on Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:35 am

Quoting Midget from 00:20, 29th Nov 2006
england is slightly odd in this set up in not having a specifically english parliament


????

No member of the Union had its own specific parliament until the very recent acts of devolution.

An English parliament would be distinctly odd, sartorius your comments are odd to say the least.

I think what he means is that it wouldn't be England as such voting for it as the Westminster parliament represents the UK, not simply England, hence it isn't as straight forward in a sense as the Scottish situation. Thats what I took it to mean anyway.
ljrmorgan
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:19 pm

Re:

Postby DrAlex on Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:08 am

It would not be a question of Britain giving Scotland independence, Scotland and england are equal partners in a union: either is allowed to choose to leave.


As head of state, though, surely the Queen would be consulted? Would she have power to veto?

I only ask because I'm interested in the details.

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343
The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."
DrAlex
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby October on Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:35 am

Quoting DrAlex from 11:08, 29th Nov 2006
It would not be a question of Britain giving Scotland independence, Scotland and england are equal partners in a union: either is allowed to choose to leave.


As head of state, though, surely the Queen would be consulted? Would she have power to veto?

I only ask because I'm interested in the details.

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343


the Queen has no power to do anything as it is, let alone "veto" something that would be (if this case was to come to pass) voted on by the people.


[hr]

I'm Telling you.
It was the Ninja Robot Monkeys that did it.
Does no-one feel that giving geeks a justification such as Article 31 a bad move? - Frank
October
User avatar
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:45 pm

Re:

Postby DrAlex on Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:41 am

And so what of the land she owns in Scotland?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343
The Sinner: Where no one ever learned "if you haven't got any thing nice to say, don't say anything at all."
DrAlex
 
Posts: 2201
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:40 pm

Re:

Postby October on Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:53 am

Quoting DrAlex from 11:41, 29th Nov 2006
And so what of the land she owns in Scotland?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343


She owns land in Scotland?

[hr]

I'm Telling you.
It was the Ninja Robot Monkeys that did it.
Does no-one feel that giving geeks a justification such as Article 31 a bad move? - Frank
October
User avatar
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:45 pm

Re:

Postby McK on Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:27 pm

Quoting October from 11:53, 29th Nov 2006
Quoting DrAlex from 11:41, 29th Nov 2006
And so what of the land she owns in Scotland?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343


She owns land in Scotland?

[hr]

I'm Telling you.
It was the Ninja Robot Monkeys that did it.



The Crown Estate is one of the largest landowners in Scotland.
McK
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:01 pm

Re:

Postby Iain on Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:40 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely the Queen can keep all her land in Scotland. I suppose she's a UK citizen, and as I've said, all UK citizens are welcome in the Independent Scotland just as the Irish are now...

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc
Unwind: touch the brine; Take some bread: break some wine
I can see the water line; Red below the Lewis sun
Iain
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Re:

Postby AlenWatters on Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:26 pm

Quoting exnihilo from 23:29, 28th Nov 2006
Rising support for independence among young Scots, curiously at the same time as standards of teaching and academic attainment plummet. A general ignorance of the past, an unwillingness to hear new information, and an unshakeable interest in the self at the expense of the other. A frightening mix for an 'optimistic new nation'.


I couldn't agree more - the unshakable interest in the self above others is a disgrace. I believe it is called Thatcherism.

The Queen would get to keep her land in Scotland, which, like Balmoral, she owns as a private citizen as far as I know.

I must also point out, maybe someone has alreay said this, but SNP policy is to have a referendum on keeping the monarchy at a later date post-independence. There's a suprising amount of Royalists in the party - both those who wish to continue with the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (sorry, Windsor), and those who would like to Prince Charlie's 14th great grandson restored. Wierdos.



[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/
AlenWatters
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:33 pm

Re:

Postby McK on Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:36 pm

Quoting AlenWatters from 13:26, 29th Nov 2006
Quoting exnihilo from 23:29, 28th Nov 2006
Rising support for independence among young Scots, curiously at the same time as standards of teaching and academic attainment plummet. A general ignorance of the past, an unwillingness to hear new information, and an unshakeable interest in the self at the expense of the other. A frightening mix for an 'optimistic new nation'.


I couldn't agree more - the unshakable interest in the self above others is a disgrace. I believe it is called Thatcherism.

The Queen would get to keep her land in Scotland, which, like Balmoral, she owns as a private citizen as far as I know.

I must also point out, maybe someone has alreay said this, but SNP policy is to have a referendum on keeping the monarchy at a later date post-independence. There's a suprising amount of Royalists in the party - both those who wish to continue with the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (sorry, Windsor), and those who would like to Prince Charlie's 14th great grandson restored. Wierdos.



[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/


A referendum on the monarchy post-independence? So, who would be head of state in the interim?

I would support keeping the monarchy over some elected head of state, personally, if I did have to endure the agony of an independent Scotland.

And you are right, there are plenty of royalists in prominent positions in the SNP. I believe Salmond is, or was, one (so is his mother). Neil MacCormick is, having accepted his knighthood in 2001 and espousing ideas on remaining a commonwealth nation.
McK
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:01 pm

Re:

Postby AlenWatters on Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:15 pm

A referendum on the monarchy post-independence? So, who would be head of state in the interim?

I would support keeping the monarchy over some elected head of state, personally, if I did have to endure the agony of an independent Scotland.

And you are right, there are plenty of royalists in prominent positions in the SNP. I believe Salmond is, or was, one (so is his mother). Neil MacCormick is, having accepted his knighthood in 2001 and espousing ideas on remaining a commonwealth nation.


Oh please - the agony? There was me just about to say you were the only unionist on this thread who hadn't resorted to hysterical arguments! Did you have tongue firmly in cheek there?

The Queen would remain head of state in the interim yes - she has done her job competently enough, which makes republicans like myself wary of meddling with her powers - at least until Charlie comes along!

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/
AlenWatters
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:33 pm

Re:

Postby Lid on Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:01 pm

Is The Queen a UK citizen? Surely citizens of the UK are subjects of The Queen.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires
Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin
Lid
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re:

Postby McK on Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:01 pm

Quoting AlenWatters from 15:15, 29th Nov 2006
A referendum on the monarchy post-independence? So, who would be head of state in the interim?

I would support keeping the monarchy over some elected head of state, personally, if I did have to endure the agony of an independent Scotland.

And you are right, there are plenty of royalists in prominent positions in the SNP. I believe Salmond is, or was, one (so is his mother). Neil MacCormick is, having accepted his knighthood in 2001 and espousing ideas on remaining a commonwealth nation.


Oh please - the agony? There was me just about to say you were the only unionist on this thread who hadn't resorted to hysterical arguments! Did you have tongue firmly in cheek there?

The Queen would remain head of state in the interim yes - she has done her job competently enough, which makes republicans like myself wary of meddling with her powers - at least until Charlie comes along!

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/


I was exaggerating my feelings, yes. Tongue firmly in cheek; I am as level headed as I can be about the political realities of the situation. (Or so I like to think.)

I think the Queen has done her duty more than competently. I have misgivings about Charles on an English or Scottish throne, frankly.
McK
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:01 pm

Re:

Postby McK on Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:02 pm

Quoting Lid from 16:01, 29th Nov 2006
Is The Queen a UK citizen? Surely citizens of the UK are subjects of The Queen.

[hr]

We are not drunks, we are multi-millionaires


My passport says 'British Citizen'. Doesn't mention me being a subject (anymore). As Head of State she is not a citizen in the political sense, no.
McK
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:01 pm

Re:

Postby Tired on Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:07 pm

Quoting ascii from 13:44, 28th Nov 2006
As for passports, do you need a passport to go from Ireland to the UK, or from Portugal to Spain to France to Germany to Switzerland? No. So why would there need to be passport checks on the Scottish border? To stop the smuggling of haggis and whisky?


Er... Yes. To go to Switzerland (a country not in the EU) everyone needs a passport. For some one from the UK to go between countrys such as France and Germany you don't need to have a passport, to go from france into the UK you technically do they are still borders you just don't need a visa to either live or work.

People on here really need to understand what free movement of people means. Additionally it is possible to refuse entry to the UK to particular people so long as it has a reason e.g. criminality.
Tired
 

Re:

Postby switchskier on Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:08 pm

This will probably be meaningless by the time it gets up but here goes anyways.
Aberdeen is actually a very nice town with low unemployment and a generally high standard of living. Its got 3 of the best state schools in scotland in terms of results for instance. There is nowhere in Aberdeen I would be afraid of going in te daytime and I've taken my younger brother to play football in what's meant to be the worst area going. Oil has done wonders for Aberdeen.
However.
There is almost no other industry. As the North Sea oil runs out Aberdeen will cease to have a reason to exist. Moreover the council are either oblivious to this fact or hiding from it. There is almost no attempt to diversify industry into other areas. This I feel would be the pattern for Scotland.

A note - I believe teh laws of the sea state that on the surface sovereignty lasts for 50 miles but its 200 on the seabed.
switchskier
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron