SNP Win - The Economics of D-I-V-O-R-C-E

Shakethedisease

ll in all, I can't see how it's a sensible to have this as a primary basis for declaring independence.

No more than a declaration that he would 'fight independence with 'every fiber of his being' which is what Mr Cameron would have us all believe..when Scotland is such a huge drain on the UK, a sizable proportion of England would be glad to see the back of the Scots, and with no votes to be had north of Carlisle ?

It doesn't make sense.

And it's more than likely, as I've indicated, that Devolution Max will be the outcome of any referendum. The Union will be left intact, Scotland will get full fiscal autonomy.

Kohoutek

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No more than a declaration that he would 'fight independence with 'every fiber of his being' which is what Mr Cameron would have us all believe..when Scotland is such a huge drain on the UK, a sizable proportion of England would be glad to see the back of the Scots, and with no votes to be had north of Carlisle ?

It doesn't make sense.

Don't you expect someone like David Cameron to oppose the most fundamental type of constitutional change imaginable?

If Scotland wanted to become independent, the amount of Parliamentary and government time and money that would have to spent negotiating and implementing the settlement would be gigantic. Since there's a finite amount of government time, particularly Parliamentary time, it would severely delay if not derail the Conservative's economic and policy agenda.

That's a more likely reason why an English dominated administration would oppose Scottish independence than the conspiracy theory that the dastardly English want to steal Scotland's offshore wind potential.

Shakethedisease

That's a more likely reason why an English dominated administration would oppose Scottish independence than the conspiracy theory that the dastardly English want to steal Scotland's offshore wind potential.

What that Cameron will oppose independence because it might cost of bit in adminstration and negotiation time ? That would be a more likely reason than current/potential oil/gas/wind/tidal/coal/water/electricity revenue ?

If you beleive that, then you're living on the the same planet you claim Salmond's on. No offence.

He seems to have given in pretty quickly already to a few of Mr Salmonds requests. It's been plastered all over the Daily Mail, with some of the comments likeing Salmond to Bin Laden lol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385000/Alex-Salmond-nets-extra-2bn-English-taxpayers.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Alex Salmond has grabbed more money for Scotland from the UK taxpayer following the SNP’s success in last week’s elections and his demand for a referendum on independence by 2015.
David Cameron is believed to have agreed a deal allowing Scottish ministers to borrow £2billion from the Treasury for ‘capital projects’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385000/Alex-Salmond-nets-extra-2bn-English-taxpayers.html#ixzz1LtN9Cvre

So he's apparently handing over 2 billion ( though I can't of course verify the accuracy of the story ). But do you think that of might have covered the expense of independence negotiations and admin ?
No, there's something else other than 'defending the union' going on imho. Cameron's treading extremely carefully at the moment and apparently according to the mail, allowing the SNP to borrow money from the treasury like it's going out of fashion... at a time when most are under the impression the Scots get more than their fair share as it is.

Can you think of another reason for that ?

robmatic

So he's apparently handing over 2 billion ( though I can't of course verify the accuracy of the story ). But do you think that of might have covered the expense of independence negotiations and admin ?
No, there's something else other than 'defending the union' going on imho. Cameron's treading extremely carefully at the moment and apparently according to the mail, allowing the SNP to borrow money from the treasury like it's going out of fashion... at a time when most are under the impression the Scots get more than their fair share as it is.

Can you think of another reason for that ?

I can't imagine Cameron earning many plaudits within the Conservative Party for picking a fight with the SNP and giving them even more credibility (plucky underdogs standing up to the English) in the years leading up to the referendum.

pinkfluffybabe

Kohoutek wrote: »

Good point. Alex Salmond is a classic example of a big fish in a little pond.

Once there is a serious prospect of independence, the Labour party will send people like Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling to campaign against him and debate him, which would probably show him up as the self-serving idiot he is. The Labour party has a huge amount to lose from Scottish independence – they won 41 seats in Scotland in the last general election.

Gordon Brown has little credibility anywhere in the UK after his time in Government, and his outrageous claims 'I've abolished boom and bust'. Alex Salmond has more personality and debating skill in his index finger than Brown has in his whole body.

Brown and his wife campaigned for Scottish Labour for the last few weeks in their Kirkcaldy backyard. The seat swung to the SNP by a considerable percentage, giving them their all important 65th seat which gave them a parliamentary majority.

Yes, the Labour party has a lot to lose from independence, that is why they oppose it. Like everything the labour party does, it is about them and their survival, not about what is best for the people. They would never get in at Westminster again without the Scottish vote propping them up. Not a good reason to deny the people of Scotland a choice though, is it?

Kohoutek

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What that Cameron will oppose independence because it might cost of bit in adminstration and negotiation time ? That would be a more likely reason than current/potential oil/gas/wind/tidal/coal/water/electricity revenue ?

If you beleive that, then you're living on the the same planet you claim Salmond's on. No offence.)

Just "a bit" of administration and negotiation time...? Put it this way, something as complicated as disentangling Scotland from the UK would be a victory for lawyers. I think I will have to repeat your reference to living on a different planet..

Scotland wouldn't keep all of its oil and gas revenue if it was independent. The revenue from the other sources you've mentioned is completely insignificant.

Another reason why the idea of Scotland being some kind of electricity export superpower is probably doomed to fail is that no sensible country would be content with importing more than a modest amount of its electricity supply, for the obvious reason that if the lights go out, they would be completely dependent on someone else fixing it....

Probably another reason why the English establishment would oppose independence is the likelihood of what happened to the old Scotland or what's recently happened to all the countries Alex Salmond used to hail as examples of what an independent Scotland could be, i.e. financial ruin. Directly or indirectly (i.e. via the EU), the UK would have bail Scotland out.

Kohoutek

pinkfluffybabe wrote: »

Yes, the Labour party has a lot to lose from independence, that is why they oppose it. Like everything the labour party does, it is about them and their survival, not about what is best for the people.

What's the difference between Labour and the SNP (or any other political party) then? A rational person can see that economically speaking, making Scotland independent would be an extremely risky prospect at best. It would produce problems with no solution that doesn't have significant drawbacks, e.g. choice of currency. Do you really think the SNP has no self-interest and is purely advancing the interest of the Scottish people for entirely altruistic reasons?

Regardless of facts or evidence, the SNP would never consider the contention that independence might not be the best policy for Scotland's people, just like Scottish Labour would never consider the contention that it could be.

Shakethedisease

The revenue from the other sources you've mentioned is completely insignificant.

I am sorry, but I've backed up point after point with references and figures. I'd be happy to read any recent studies to the contrary that any revenue produced would be insignificant. I think Cornwall and the waters off it are also being targeted and asking for greater investment for the same purposes..( but with much lesser revenue projections ).

Cornwall News May 4 2011
"Given the rich natural resources on the region's doorstep, a separate report has suggested the South West could generate over 5,750 new jobs, and inject an estimated £4.8 billion into the economy, in the next 20 years through marine renewables...
The study, the most in-depth of its kind, found the majority of the jobs would be a result of the growing export markets in countries such as Chile, Korea and the US as well as Atlantic-facing European states which benefit from powerful waves or tidal currents".
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Marine-energy-jobs-boost-West/article-3517106-detail/article.html

So your message to those in the South of England is, don't bother with this as revenue will be economically insignificant ? But even then in the article, there are complaints about 'inequitable subsidies'.

...? Put it this way, something as complicated as disentangling Scotland from the UK would be a victory for lawyers. I think I will have to repeat your reference to living on a different planet..

And I again refer you to the fact that the likely outcome of any referendum would be Devolution Max and the Union would remain, re currency, defence, the crown etc. Education, Law, Health, Police services etc etc etc are already there and historically seperate. It really is only the ecomomy that remains deeply entagled. Currently wholly dependent, and it seems grudgingly so on both sides, on a block grant from Westminster.

no sensible country would be content with importing more than a modest amount of its electricity supply, for the obvious reason that if the lights go out, they would be completely dependent on someone else fixing it....

Isn't the oil and gas running out though ? And 'climate change' upon us with a move globally towards lots of investments in the research and technological advances in 'green energy' ? Don't major countries meet every few years in an attempt to impose limits and set targets on reducing fossil fuels and carbon emissions ? Isn't nuclear power falling from grace somewhat in the wake of Japan's recent events ? And I do stress the word global.

While I see what your saying about risk and had a chuckle at the thought of Scotland being an energy 'superpower'.. There's a lot of interest and money going towards green, renewable and carbon free energy. And geographically, Scotland does seem to be very fortunate in her resources regarding this. Salmond would be a fool not to make the most of that, at the very least in tempting investors like Mitsubishi and others you mentioned.

( Apr 14 2011 )..
Global green energy players that have chosen to locate here include Gamesa, Mitsubishi, Siemens and, most recently, the Korean engineering company, Doosan Power Systems

http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/business-view-and-comment/2011/04/14/capital-case-for-green-investment-bank-106408-23060887/

And Cameron et al would be even bigger fools not to be sitting up and taking notice.

Tory MP for Camborne and Redruth George Eustice, who called for more financial help for the sector in a Commons debate this year, said: "When it comes to the potential for marine energy, Cornwall has a resource which is second to none".

.. But he got the last sentence wrong. And I do think you need to do further research on this yourself. You're very dismissive of the whole thing and the possibilities, for investment if nothing else.

Generali

There is another possible reason for Cameron to oppose Scottish independence. Perhaps he, like many Tories, believes in the Union as A Good Thing even if Scottish votes for Labour regularly cost the Conservatives dear at election time.

Certainly the only arguments I've ever heard Tories use about Scottish independence is that it weakens the Union and the Union is something to be defended.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I expect we probably import electricity from France as well.

I wonder if candles will be a good thing to buy into then.
I can just imagine the impact when the power get's turned off as the French decide to strike