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

Kohoutek

bonsibabe wrote: »

Is there any particular reason why you are clearly xenophobic? You show a hatred for Scottish politics in a way that is unreasoned and ill-informed.

I'm not xenophobic, I'm just pointing out that Scotland being independent is an idiotic idea.

bonsibabe wrote: »

The Scottish people have been subjugated by Westminster for over 300 years ... it is time for change ... before the Act of Union, we were a proud independent nation

Maybe you should read some history about Scotland then, to get a more well informed view.

Scotland was one of the most economically backward countries in Western Europe before the Act of Union and was heavily dependent on trade with England. Immediately prior to the union, it made a failed attempted to establish itself as a colonial power that rendered Scotland virtually bankrupt. The Union made Scotland a far more prosperous country than it could ever have been on its own.

bonsibabe wrote: »

... some of us are sick and tired of being branded sponging jocks and the like

Maybe you should grow up a bit? Other sections of the UK population have suffered from far worse abuse in the recent past.

bonsibabe

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'm not xenophobic, I'm just pointing out that Scotland being independent is an idiotic idea.

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. I cannot see why you are not satisfied enough to let others have their opinions. And yes you are being xenophobic as your posts clearly show that you have a distinct "hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture", namely Scottish politics, people and culture.

As for reading history, I'm quite well versed in it thank you, and know enough to see where all the cuts happened back in the days of the clearances (something you have failed to mention) and the fact that the wearing of tartan, speaking of gaelic and playing of the pipes was an offence punishable by jail or deportation to the Americas or Australia. Something you conveniently "forgot" to mention.

And as for growing up, I'm quite grown up thank you very much, very well educated (thanks to the superior education system in Scotland - oh and I paid my own way through University by the way).

I really do not see where your hatred is coming from, however, I am not here for an argument with you, it is supposed to be a civilised discussion ... unfortunately it seems to have dissolved into childish name calling and playground insults.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What on earth have you been drinking tonight Generali ? Germany's population is 80 million or so, Scotland's is only 5 million lol !!!

In 2010, investments totaling 26 billion euros were made in Germany’s renewable energies sector. According to official figures, some 370,000 people in Germany were employed in the renewable energy sector in 2010, especially in small and medium sized companies. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to 2009 (around 339,500 jobs),

So EUR26,000,0000,000 was spent to create 30,500 jobs. How many jobs do you think Scotland will need in renewables for their 5,000,000 people? The German jobs cost slightly over EUR850,000 each in investment and 370,000 produce about 17% of Germany's electricity needs (link).

If a Scot uses the same electricity as a German then it would take a little more than 136,000 people to produce 100% of Scotland's electricity.

At EUR850,000 a job, 136,000 jobs would cost EUR115,600,000,000 to create. Each Scot would have to find EUR23,120 in investment to become self-sufficient in energy assuming that you don't have any spare capacity (highly risky) and you don't have any fossil fuel back up in addition (even riskier). Plus you need to add on running costs.

GDP per head in Scotland at an exchange rate of GBP = EUR 1.12 is about £20,086 = EUR22,500 or thereabouts. Scotland, if her Government were to invest in renewables, would have to take on a debt of over 100% of GDP. If her banks lend the money, where will it come from? The Scots people don't have it.

Kohoutek

bonsibabe wrote: »

And yes you are being xenophobic as your posts clearly show that you have a distinct "hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture", namely Scottish politics, people and culture.

If you say so. :rotfl:

I think you're taking this forum way too seriously...I've been to Scotland several times, I've met plenty of Scottish people, I've got Scottish ancestry. I've got nothing against Scotland. Just because someone rubbishes the idea of Scottish independence doesn't mean they're xenophobic.

bonsibabe wrote: »

As for reading history, I'm quite well versed in it thank you, and know enough to see where all the cuts happened back in the days of the clearances (something you have failed to mention) and the fact that the wearing of tartan, speaking of gaelic and playing of the pipes was an offence punishable by jail or deportation to the Americas or Australia. Something you conveniently "forgot" to mention.

I didn't mention the Highland Clearances because it has no relevance to whether Scotland would be a viable economic/political power and what I mentioned does.

bonsibabe wrote: »

I really do not see where your hatred is coming from, however, I am not here for an argument with you, it is supposed to be a civilised discussion ... unfortunately it seems to have dissolved into childish name calling and playground insults.

Well you were the one that brought up allegations of name calling...

bonsibabe wrote: »

... some of us are sick and tired of being branded sponging jocks and the like

All I was pointing out is that in recent history, people like Northern Irish Catholics and British people of African-Caribbean descent has suffered from systematic racism and discrimination. Scottish people have got nothing to complain about in comparison.

English people get called names by the Scottish too, anyway. Dislike of being called "a sponging jock" is not a very good argument for independence, is it?

Kohoutek

Generali wrote: »

Scotland, if her Government were to invest in renewables, would have to take on a debt of over 100% of GDP. If her banks lend the money, where will it come from? The Scots people don't have it.

That would be in addition to the share of the UK national debt an independent Scotland would inherit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/sean-ogrady-split-with-scotland-would-make-for-a-messy-divorce-2281295.html

the debt-to-GDP ratio of an independent Scotland might prove so large as to sink it financially before it was even born; 100 per cent of GDP is well within the bounds, being about 10 per cent of the UK's projected £1tr debt and Scottish GDP at about £100bn.

chewmylegoff

It's difficult to understand on the basis of that article why he thinks that Scotland, with only approx 1/17th of uk GDP should be expected to take on 1/10th of uk debt. Would be quite an odd formula to come up with that ratio. 1/17th of debt would seem more sensible.

Kohoutek

chewmylegoff wrote: »

It's difficult to understand on the basis of that article why he thinks that Scotland, with only approx 1/17th of uk GDP should be expected to take on 1/10th of uk debt. Would be quite an odd formula to come up with that ratio. 1/17th of debt would seem more sensible.

I'm not sure where the author got his information from, but the Scottish government's lastest figures for Scottish GDP is £99 billion - that's more than 1/17 of the uk.

chewmylegoff

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'm not sure where the author got his information from, but the Scottish government's lastest figures for Scottish GDP is £99 billion - that's more than 1/17 of the uk.

yes sorry, it's about 1/14th, isn't it, for some reason i had a figure of £1.7 trillion in my head whereas it's more like £1.4. the point still stands though as 1/14 is less than 1/10.

Kohoutek

I think the Indie journalist still has a point though, although I agree the exaggeration doesn't help the credibility of the article.

chewmylegoff

Kohoutek wrote: »

I think the Indie journalist still has a point though, although I agree the exaggeration doesn't help the credibility of the article.

i don't think it would represent an immediately problem for scotland as, if the uk as a whole can currently service a national debt of whatever it is, say 75% of GDP, then an independent scotland could probably continue to service a national debt of 75% of its own GDP going forward.

what would be an issue for an independent scotland, in my view, is that it would may well have to pay higher interest rates in order to raise new debt.