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

chewmylegoff

this is the first line of the wikipedia (i know, i just edited it to make my point) entry regarding the conservative party:

"The Conservative Party,[6] also the Conservative and Unionist Party, is a centre-right political party in the United Kingdom that adheres to the philosophies of conservatism and British unionism"

i don't understand the surprise that cameron opposes independence for scotland. unionism is a key pillar of the conservative party, it would be rather odd if cameron started arguing for scottish independence.

just because the tories don't do well in scotland doesn't mean it would be a great idea to break the union up. the tories wouldn't get eternal rule in an england without scotland, wales and ni, because the government of the day is always unpopular and always gets voted out eventually. the balance of power would soon shift back to a rough equilibrium.

in any case, i don't really see what scotland has to gain from being independent. it will cost a lot, lead to no particular material gains that i can imagine. whatever you imagine the glorious riches are going to be, an independent scotland would be almost exactly the same as it is now. if the SNP actually got their way and achieved independence, there would just be a lot of blinking and people scratching their heads, wondering who to blame for everything now. once everyone noticed that nothing was really getting any better or any worse, the SNP would then have to blame everything on "200 years of english rule".

in fact, the position scotland would find itself in would be a horrible one - you'd have permanent left wing governments, and reasonable folk would have to start voting conservative to provide some sort of counterweight. imagine the horror.

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

it would be alright, we'd just turn wales and cornwall off.

IveSeenTheLight

chewmylegoff wrote: »

in any case, i don't really see what scotland has to gain from being independent.

IT's about your vote being counted.

We have a Conservative / Lib Dem government, yet only have 15.6% of seats they have in Scotland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/8495468/Scottish-Election-2011-results-map.html

Even the General Election in 2010, the UK government

You should also consider the situation in Wales, where the combined Con / Dems only have 38% of the countries constituencies voted for them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/wales/8495354/Welsh-Assembly-2011-results-map.html

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

IT's about your vote being counted.

We have a Conservative / Lib Dem government, yet only have 15.6% of seats they have in Scotland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/8495468/Scottish-Election-2011-results-map.html

Even the General Election in 2010, the UK government

You should also consider the situation in Wales, where the combined Con / Dems only have 38% of the countries constituencies voted for them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/wales/8495354/Welsh-Assembly-2011-results-map.html

It's a bit of a non-argument TBH. There aren't many Labpur voters in Sevenoaks but they had to suffer a Labour government on more than one occasion.

WhiteChristmas

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Can you think of another reason for that ?

That the numbers in the public domain aren't the whole truth?
That the McCrone report isn't as far past its sell-by date as some would like to believe?
That potential reparations for 40 years of misappropriated revenues would cost rather more than "The City" could stomach?

I luuuuuurve playing conspiracist!

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

IT's about your vote being counted.

We have a Conservative / Lib Dem government, yet only have 15.6% of seats they have in Scotland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/8495468/Scottish-Election-2011-results-map.html

Even the General Election in 2010, the UK government

You should also consider the situation in Wales, where the combined Con / Dems only have 38% of the countries constituencies voted for them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/wales/8495354/Welsh-Assembly-2011-results-map.html

What about 1997 - 2010? Was that alright? I can't be bothered to look the numbers up but isn't it the case that labour were only in power for a significant chunk of this time because of their Scottish mps?

Independence won't solve this problem as there will always be periods where the country is governed by someone you didn't vote for.

Kohoutek

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I am sorry, but I've backed up point after point with references and figures.

:rotfl: No you haven't. Did you actually read what you posted?

New analysis released today by the Carbon Trust shows the UK could capture just under a quarter of the global marine energy market. Equivalent to up to £76bn to the UK economy by 2050, this growing sector could also generate over 68,000 UK jobs, if the technology is successfully developed and deployed internationally and the UK builds on its existing lead.

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/news/news/press-centre/2011/Pages/global-marine-energy.aspx

Could be worth £76bn in 40 years time, could be worth 68,000 jobs in 40 years time....If you look at the full article they don't bother to explain how they worked out such precise figures for something that will happen 40 years in the future. It's little more than guesswork written by a thinktank that exists to promote renewable energy.

I'm sure renewable energy has a great future in Scotland, but it's ludicrous to suggest it is some kind of guaranteed path to prosperity as Alex Salmond suggests. The idea that England would oppose Scottish independence because of Scotland's natural resources would be a very convincing argument in the heyday of the North Sea, but it's facile to suggest that Scotland's potential for renewables is the reason Cameron opposes independence. Why can't England build wind turbines or tidal generators in its waters? Building a barrage in the river Severn alone would generate 5% of the UK's total electricity supply.

WhiteChristmas

chewmylegoff wrote: »

isn't it the case that labour were only in power for a significant chunk of this time because of their Scottish mps?

Not at all. Their smallest majority was 66 at a time when they had 44 MPs from Scotland.

Shakethedisease

but it's ludicrous to suggest it is some kind of guaranteed path to prosperity as Alex Salmond suggests.

I'm not, I'm suggesting that there are reasons for Tories wanting to 'defend the Union' and 'fight with every fiber' of their beings that MAY go beyond sentiment.

No you haven't. Did you actually read what you posted?

... still better than anything you've come up with so far.

It's little more than guesswork written by a thinktank that exists to promote renewable energy.

Sigh.. you made me do it, but here's another little 'think tank' that released a major report on energy yesterday..

Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world's energy needs by mid-century, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC is charged with providing analysis on climate issues to the world community, and its conclusions have been endorsed by governments.
“The IPCC report will be a key reference for policymakers and industry alike, as it represents the most comprehensive high level review of renewable energy to date.”

The report analysed 164 “scenarios” of future energy development; and the ones in which renewables were most aggressively pursued resulted in a cut in global greenhouse gas emissions of about one-third compared with business-as-usual projections by 2050".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13337864

I'm no fan of the IPCC myself, (vested interests and all that).. but it seems a lot of governments around the world are.

"As with all IPCC reports, the summary for policymakers – the synopsis of the report that will be presented to governments and is likely to impact renewable energy policy – had to be agreed line by line and word by word unanimously by all countries. This was done at Monday's meeting in Abu Dhabi."

Feel free to trawl through the 1000 pages in it yourself if you are still moaning about me not providing data on how they worked it out. I have no idea. And get back to me when you feel you know better than all the scientists involved in this little 'think tank' and their 'guesswork'.

Anyway, you seem determined to keep a closed mind on things. I am far from claiming that Salmond and his renewable 'revolution' is achievable or sustainable. Simply pointing a few possibilities out there that he MAY be on the right track ( given the way renewable energy reports are hitting the press recently).. and that Cameron knows it.;)

pinkfluffybabe

Kohoutek wrote: »

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.

Political parties are similar in that their main focus is survival. Self interest is at the heart of everything they do.

What frustrates me is the parties who feel the people of Scotland shouldn't have the right to choose. The people should choose and the parties should have to adapt to the will of the people, no matter what that choice is.