Scottish independence and university fees Videos

Its a maths question: (Figures are sourced from the accounts published on the Scottish Executive website) 59,388 million Scottish public sector spending plus identifiable expenditure. 42,201 million Scottish public sector revenue (income tax, VAT etc). 5,931 Scottish million geographical oil revenue. 42,201 + 5,931 = 48,132 million 59,388 - 48,132 = 11,256 million shortfall Trident costs 200 million per year. Scotland cannot be a wealthy nation and be part of the EU. Wealthy nations attract immigrants the effect would be to keep wages the same or lower and cost public services. Independence means the pro Europe SNP stay in the EU Scotland gets the Euro and gets financially raped like Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. Leaving the EU will also restore Scotland's fishing industry. Scottish Nationalists want the opposite of independence they are not entitled to a political opinion because their opinions are based on ignorance of mathematics, accounting, common sense and logic.

fuck SNP

Very badly behaved yes campaigners, shouting out because they don't like what they are hearing. 

Currency Union , Separate currency ? Euro , Groat , what piffle Most Scots cant feed themselves or their families under this Westminster warmongering Oligarchy ! Scots need passes for the Food Banks , Cheaper phone contracts , better Sky packages and more money in their giro Vote YES for Bread and Circuses 

You probably notice that YESNP plant militants in all these debates to try and shout down Better Together. 

McDougall wins. 

The British Academy has a book available for download which I hope will help me understand the reality of what may happen should Scotland separates from Britain. I wish them both the best. 

All the people of Scotland should need to know is that when we are united, the Scottish vote stands for nothing there are not enough of us to affect any political vote in the UK, so our votes as it stands might aswell not be cast. In an independent Scotland your vote will mean everything we in Scotland will for the first time be able to vote for what we the Scottish people think is best for our country. At the moment all taxes and revenue from scotland are taken by Westminster and then a much smaller proportion is given back to the Scottish society, Westminster decides for us it's a blatant con. At the moment we are being ran by a Tory government, need I say more, I could give u so many reasons for independence, the only thing weve had to go against it is lies and bullshit from a very scared Tory government. use ur heads people vote for independence it's in the interest of the Scottish people not the rest of the UK and remember u are voting for independence not Alex Salmond.

The prof of course is completely right, Scotland will be a former UK nation if it votes Yes in September. Not going to happen of course because the Scottish people are intelligent enough to see that what is on offer is a huge backward step into the past, and the NO vote is all but guaranteed following the gaining of a European seat via UKIP, the Scots want more power, but they are not interested in becoming a backward thinking, grudge and hate nation offered by the SNP. The sooner this nonsense is over the better.

I'm not a lawyer but something strikes me that Prof. Tomkin's is not using his legal knowledge unbiased. At around 1 minute and 6 seconds to 1 minute and 12 seconds the presenter asks if, post-yes, everything will be up to negotiation. He replies "No, I'm afraid that's not right". But the Edinburgh agreement, when taken into its full legal context, proves his conclusion incorrect. Everything will be up for negotiation, but the success of those negotiations are entirely speculative. I can guarantee I'll be proven correct in this if a yes vote happens. Around about 3 minutes or so I think the blonde haired man was made a mockery of for bringing up international law. Whilst Prof. Tomkin's is absolutely correct that it's national law which will take precedent over the conduction of these negotiations, international law will take hold if both governments don't come to a deal. That's why international law exists, fairly simple. Now this is the most important part of the speech, when looked at analytically. At 3.55 to around 5.35 Prof. Tomkin's (and the other guy) understand that the nuclear weapons will be negotiated post-yes. However, Prof Tomkin's confirmed previously that, and I quote: "No, I'm afraid that's not possible" ascertaining to the fact that everything will be up for negotiation. So is he suggesting that nothing is up for negotiation when it comes to the UK, but in Scotland's case everything will be? Essentially, that's the vibe I'm getting. However I can't really take his particular stance with any degree of intellectual seriousness because as soon as bias creeps in then intelligence and objectivity is out of the window. The fact of the matter is many legal experts will be involved in the event of Scottish independence and I'm hoping that bias will not obstruct reason. Scottish taxpayers have shares in UK institutions, so for this legal expert to say "we have no say" is just not correct. He knows this. I'm an acolyte of the law when I know the law is balanced. In the case of Prof. Tomkin's, I'm heartily disappointed given his credentials. 

Well said, when Ireland left to become the Republic of Ireland, it chose to leave the UK and therefore the UK retained all its financial institutions including the BoE. Why should it be any different for Scotland?

Right ! Send your English police to arrest us all pal ! Sue us in your London courts ! Away and raffle yersels ! See how much you get !

Crikey the only thing sour and bitter here is the nationalist :p