It's not about brave vs timid, though, is it? It's (or ought to be) about what's best for Scotland's future. Some might think that remaining as part of a democratic union that financially subsidises Scotland...
I haven't read all replies to this thread, but I will concur that things have turned very ugly and aggressive in Scotland recently. It reminds me of the absolute worst of the bad old days of Rangers and Celtic rivalry and sectarianism - And it always seems to be the Yes brigade who are causing the trouble; using intimidation, shouting the loudest, and denouncing anything they disagree with as lies, Westminster propaganda and scaremongering.
If we end up with a No majority, then I wouldn't be surprised to see rioting and random acts of violence occurring through the weekend and onwards.
I didn't say the UK subsidises Scotland, I said Scotland is subsidised (i.e. receives more public money than it raises) as part of the UK. Which is true.
I'll be happy to respond if you have anything to contribute other than a pedantic quibble over my choice of words.
I haven't read all replies to this thread, but I will concur that things have turned very ugly and aggressive in Scotland recently. It reminds me of the absolute worst of the bad old days of Rangers and Celtic rivalry and sectarianism - And it always seems to be the Yes brigade who are causing the trouble; using intimidation, shouting the loudest, and denouncing anything they disagree with as lies, Westminster propaganda and scaremongering.
If we end up with a No majority, then I wouldn't be surprised to see rioting and random acts of violence occurring through the weekend and onwards.
And what is your evidence for this scaremongering?
I haven't read all replies to this thread, but I will concur that things have turned very ugly and aggressive in Scotland recently. It reminds me of the absolute worst of the bad old days of Rangers and Celtic rivalry and sectarianism - And it always seems to be the Yes brigade who are causing the trouble; using intimidation, shouting the loudest, and denouncing anything they disagree with as lies, Westminster propaganda and scaremongering.
If we end up with a No majority, then I wouldn't be surprised to see rioting and random acts of violence occurring through the weekend and onwards.
If one were to learn the English language (I'm amazed the SNP hasn't come out against that too) from listening to the Yes rhetoric and Alex Salmond in particular, one would think the word "scaremongering" was actually defined as "disagreeing with Alex Salmond".
I didn't say the UK subsidises Scotland, I said Scotland is subsidised (i.e. receives more public money than it raises) as part of the UK. Which is true.
I'll be happy to respond if you have anything to contribute other than a pedantic quibble over my choice of words.
Every area of the UK receives more public money than it raises, that's why we've got a massive deficit - government borrowing. Scotland would probably be able to do that too, if it wanted.
But Scotland puts in a higher percentage of tax per head of population than the average of the rest of the UK, so saying it's "subsidised" by being in the UK is using a loose definition of "subsidise", at best.
And what is your evidence for this scaremongering?
I don't understand why you think people posting about their experiences is scaremongering- what exactly is it that you think we hope to achieve ?
I want a No vote, do you think me posting that there will be trouble if No is chosen, is going to change yes voters mind to No, surely it would be the opposite ??
I haven't read all replies to this thread, but I will concur that things have turned very ugly and aggressive in Scotland recently. It reminds me of the absolute worst of the bad old days of Rangers and Celtic rivalry and sectarianism - And it always seems to be the Yes brigade who are causing the trouble; using intimidation, shouting the loudest, and denouncing anything they disagree with as lies, Westminster propaganda and scaremongering.
If we end up with a No majority, then I wouldn't be surprised to see rioting and random acts of violence occurring through the weekend and onwards.
I don't understand why you think people posting about their experiences is scaremongering- what exactly is it that you think we hope to achieve ?
I want a No vote, do you think me posting that there will be trouble if No is chosen, is going to change yes voters mind to No, surely it would be the opposite ??
I thought it was obvious. If you agree with them you're merely reporting da facts. If you disagree it's scaremongery and most probably fictitious
`Saw a no voting old trout getting screamed at the other week. As a no voter, it never happened. If she was a Yessy, it's a blatant example of the desperation and bullying from the No camp. Tadaa!
Myself, my sister and my brother were all at my mother's house and my sister asked me how I would be voting on Thursday, I told her I would be voting no, my sister said she'd also be voting no as she had to think of her daughters futures. Upon hearing this my brother began shouting at us calling us stupid and telling us that people like us would ruin Scotland. I tried telling him the reasons why I would be voting no, including the issues with the currency, no Nato membership etc. He persisted to call me and my sister stupid and told me I would get no job (I was filling out an application form at the time) as I'm stupid.
I know he is passionate about Scotland but I never expected him to react like this! It has just made me realise how some people seem blinded by the SNP lies.
Well said!
If I was living in Scotland, I would vote no but I wouldn't mind if it became independent it's a great country.
Every area of the UK receives more public money than it raises, that's why we've got a massive deficit - government borrowing. Scotland would probably be able to do that too, if it wanted.
Congratulations, you've just made an excellent case for supporting "vicious Tory" austerity measures (which as it happens, I do support). On Scotland, no it won't be able to do that....well, unless it takes on and pays its share of the UK national debt in the event of secession.
But Scotland puts in a higher percentage of tax per head of population than the average of the rest of the UK, so saying it's "subsidised" by being in the UK is using a loose definition of "subsidise", at best.
Not really. Yorkshire & Humberside do not receive £12bn more in spending than they raise (roughly same population as Scotland) and if they did, they don't have the devolution to make their own decisions as to how its spent. Further, your claim about Scottish tax per head, while arguably true, is also based only on debatable methods of calculations in reference to share of oil revenue. Not a point I'm interested in debating though, because I'm happy for the sake of argument to give you that geographical split and concede that Scotland is paying marginally more tax percentage per head. It doesn't change the fact that the Barnett Formula makes an adjustment that more than balances that discrepancy, tipping annual public funding per head in favour of Scotland over England.
EDIT: The real point for me here, though, is less the monetary difference and more that the level of devolution already enjoyed by Scotland affords a far greater freedom in respect of public spending than England, hence why the Scots enjoy perks such as free prescriptions and free tuition that are not available to those of us south of the border. Perks that Scotland is highly unlikely to be able to afford to keep if they go independent.
Myself, my sister and my brother were all at my mother's house and my sister asked me how I would be voting on Thursday, I told her I would be voting no, my sister said she'd also be voting no as she had to think of her daughters futures. Upon hearing this my brother began shouting at us calling us stupid and telling us that people like us would ruin Scotland. I tried telling him the reasons why I would be voting no, including the issues with the currency, no Nato membership etc. He persisted to call me and my sister stupid and told me I would get no job (I was filling out an application form at the time) as I'm stupid.
I know he is passionate about Scotland but I never expected him to react like this! It has just made me realise how some people seem blinded by the SNP lies.
Same with members of my family. Majority are no voters so my uncle is livid with us as he's a yes. People should be respecting other peoples decisions.
Myself, my sister and my brother were all at my mother's house and my sister asked me how I would be voting on Thursday, I told her I would be voting no, my sister said she'd also be voting no as she had to think of her daughters futures. Upon hearing this my brother began shouting at us calling us stupid and telling us that people like us would ruin Scotland. I tried telling him the reasons why I would be voting no, including the issues with the currency, no Nato membership etc. He persisted to call me and my sister stupid and told me I would get no job (I was filling out an application form at the time) as I'm stupid.
I know he is passionate about Scotland but I never expected him to react like this! It has just made me realise how some people seem blinded by the SNP lies.
Congratulations, you've just made an excellent case for supporting "vicious Tory" austerity measures (which as it happens, I do support). On Scotland, no it won't be able to do that....well, unless it takes on and pays its share of the UK national debt in the event of secession.
Plenty of countries manage to have a decent welfare system without having a massive deficit. It's to do with priorities, and with making sure people actually pay the taxes they're due to pay - yes, maybe even raising taxes a bit, overall, for the people who can afford it. Because that's how civilised countries work.
I imagine Scotland will pay its share of UK debt, but I'm not nearly so sure as you that international finance would react so harshly to us not paying back debt that isn't legally ours, anyway.
Not really. Yorkshire & Humberside do not receive £12bn more in spending than they raise (roughly same population as Scotland) and if they did, they don't have the devolution to make their own decisions as to how its spent. Further, your claim about Scottish tax per head, while arguably true, is also based only on debatable methods of calculations in reference to share of oil revenue. Not a point I'm interested in debating though, because I'm happy for the sake of argument to give you that geographical split and concede that Scotland is paying marginally more tax percentage per head. It doesn't change the fact that the Barnett Formula makes an adjustment that more than balances that discrepancy, tipping annual public funding per head in favour of Scotland over England.
Seems like you're arguing for federalism here. I don't see how "English counties don't have as much devolution as Scotland" is an argument to keep the union as it is, really. And for me federalism would be a decent result of this independence discussion.
Do you really think the Barnett Formula wouldn't be revised if we stayed in the UK?
EDIT: The real point for me here, though, is less the monetary difference and more that the level of devolution already enjoyed by Scotland affords a far greater freedom in respect of public spending than England, hence why the Scots enjoy perks such as free prescriptions and free tuition that are not available to those of us south of the border. Perks that Scotland is highly unlikely to be able to afford to keep if they go independent.
Again it seems like you're arguing for federalism, or else for everyone to be equally restricted.
And again, it's about priorities. How many prescriptions a year do you think we could get for the money we put into Trident?
Same with members of my family. Majority are no voters so my uncle is livid with us as he's a yes. People should be respecting other peoples decisions.
The OP talking about people being" blinded by SNP lies". Is that showing respect for other peoples decisions?
I didn't say the UK subsidises Scotland, I said Scotland is subsidised (i.e. receives more public money than it raises) as part of the UK. Which is true
Can you give a link to any evidence of this.
I'm told by the YES mob that It's a myth.
Scotland raises much more than it spends, and England spends Scotland's surplus lining the pockets of fat cat Bankers. *
* Copyright Salmond Enterprise / Disney Corp. 2014
Comments
To the majority of the outside world it comes as a bit of a surprise that Scotland isn't Independant anyway.
Absolutely not!
If we end up with a No majority, then I wouldn't be surprised to see rioting and random acts of violence occurring through the weekend and onwards.
Probably because it's part of the UK
I didn't say the UK subsidises Scotland, I said Scotland is subsidised (i.e. receives more public money than it raises) as part of the UK. Which is true.
I'll be happy to respond if you have anything to contribute other than a pedantic quibble over my choice of words.
And what is your evidence for this scaremongering?
If one were to learn the English language (I'm amazed the SNP hasn't come out against that too) from listening to the Yes rhetoric and Alex Salmond in particular, one would think the word "scaremongering" was actually defined as "disagreeing with Alex Salmond".
But Scotland puts in a higher percentage of tax per head of population than the average of the rest of the UK, so saying it's "subsidised" by being in the UK is using a loose definition of "subsidise", at best.
I don't understand why you think people posting about their experiences is scaremongering- what exactly is it that you think we hope to achieve ?
I want a No vote, do you think me posting that there will be trouble if No is chosen, is going to change yes voters mind to No, surely it would be the opposite ??
Trolling surely !!!!
I thought it was obvious. If you agree with them you're merely reporting da facts. If you disagree it's scaremongery and most probably fictitious
`Saw a no voting old trout getting screamed at the other week. As a no voter, it never happened. If she was a Yessy, it's a blatant example of the desperation and bullying from the No camp. Tadaa!
Well said!
If I was living in Scotland, I would vote no but I wouldn't mind if it became independent it's a great country.
Congratulations, you've just made an excellent case for supporting "vicious Tory" austerity measures (which as it happens, I do support). On Scotland, no it won't be able to do that....well, unless it takes on and pays its share of the UK national debt in the event of secession.
Not really. Yorkshire & Humberside do not receive £12bn more in spending than they raise (roughly same population as Scotland) and if they did, they don't have the devolution to make their own decisions as to how its spent. Further, your claim about Scottish tax per head, while arguably true, is also based only on debatable methods of calculations in reference to share of oil revenue. Not a point I'm interested in debating though, because I'm happy for the sake of argument to give you that geographical split and concede that Scotland is paying marginally more tax percentage per head. It doesn't change the fact that the Barnett Formula makes an adjustment that more than balances that discrepancy, tipping annual public funding per head in favour of Scotland over England.
EDIT: The real point for me here, though, is less the monetary difference and more that the level of devolution already enjoyed by Scotland affords a far greater freedom in respect of public spending than England, hence why the Scots enjoy perks such as free prescriptions and free tuition that are not available to those of us south of the border. Perks that Scotland is highly unlikely to be able to afford to keep if they go independent.
http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/
If they vote yes, you should move to England
I'm a student and a poor one at that! If I had the money I would, I quite like the look of Norwich.
Christ almighty. Scotland's not that bad.
I imagine Scotland will pay its share of UK debt, but I'm not nearly so sure as you that international finance would react so harshly to us not paying back debt that isn't legally ours, anyway.
Seems like you're arguing for federalism here. I don't see how "English counties don't have as much devolution as Scotland" is an argument to keep the union as it is, really. And for me federalism would be a decent result of this independence discussion.
Do you really think the Barnett Formula wouldn't be revised if we stayed in the UK?
Again it seems like you're arguing for federalism, or else for everyone to be equally restricted.
And again, it's about priorities. How many prescriptions a year do you think we could get for the money we put into Trident?
The OP talking about people being" blinded by SNP lies". Is that showing respect for other peoples decisions?
Why, what's wrong with Norwich?
Can you give a link to any evidence of this.
I'm told by the YES mob that It's a myth.
Scotland raises much more than it spends, and England spends Scotland's surplus lining the pockets of fat cat Bankers. *
* Copyright Salmond Enterprise / Disney Corp. 2014