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

FTBFun

tomterm8 wrote: »

I've never heard anyone explain how Scotland could finance itself after north sea oil runs out. Never. It is actually a hard problem even at the UK level to work this out, but the Scottish nationalists always seem to just explain that something magical is going to happen. And then talk about clearances.

I believe pre-crash they were looking to emulate the Irish model (Salmond has been quoted on this). Not sure "building a load of homes that no-one needs" is really the solution.

jimibaboza

chewmylegoff wrote: »

as has been discussed at some length in this very thread, if you got rid of scotland, the labour party would have still been in power in the uk from 1997 to 2010.

Thats true but Labour would have had a smaller majority. Small enough to ensure that some of the more controversial measures like student fees would not have passed.

Shakethedisease

Check again on Unionism. The Conservative Party has long been the 'Village Green Preservation Society' (eg link, link, link).

The 'Village Green Preservation Society' !!!!!! is that ! "One of the central strengths and tensions within Conservatism, just as it was within the United Kingdom, was between Englishness and Britishness". If this is the sort of ideology you want to present as Scot/Union-friendly. You misjudged.

They were nice reads. But the 'Unionist' part of the name 'Conservative and Unionist party' is definately to do with Irish/UK politics over 100 years ago. ie " In 1886 the party formed an alliance with Lord Hartington (later the 8th Duke of Devonshire) and Joseph Chamberlain's new Liberal Unionist Party "

And elections so far as I'm aware, and the running of them, haven't came up as a 'problem area' mentioned by ANY party regarding Scottish independence. Feel free to correct me on this.

Just because the SNP has a wish list for a constitution, doesn't mean that Scotland has a constitution. For example, the SNP has decided the Queen will be Head of State. Has anyone asked her if she wants the job? I'm sure she would be delighted but it would be a sensible precaution to check with her first. It could save a lot of embarassment when the first Bill is sent to be signed into law.

She's descended from James VI of Scotland ( James I of England ). Who took the throne after Elizabeth I of England died without issue. He was King of Scotland first, son of Mary Queen of Scots ? So am sure while it would be nice to ask her first, she does actually owe her crown to a Scots bloke who became King of England in 1603. So am not sure there would be that much embarrassment there to be honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchs'_family_tree

Notice the top entry. You need to brush up on your UK monarchy history mabye ( I'm a big Jean Plaidy fan myself ). Anyway, Canada, Australia etc have her as 'head of state' too with nothing more than the fact that we sent a lot of crims there.

In addition, you don't just rock up to international institutions and take a seat. Scotland would have to negotiate the cost of entry to institutions, powers, rights, obligations and so on. I suspect it would be unlikely for Scotland to take the UK's seat on the Security Council for example.

No-one's suggesting that they just 'rock up' But, by the same token, I'm not convinced it would be an unsurmountable task either.

Where do you think the money for all of this will come from? That's before your 100% of GDP that someone is going to borrow from somewhere in order to fulfill a fantasy of Scotland being self sufficient in renewable energy any time in the near future.

Well they seem to be steaming ahead with it anyway, as far as being devolved allows. Like Germany I suppose. All that 'fantasy' renewable stuff seems to be catching right ? However, the largest hurdles are in the Scotland Bill, namely Corp taxes and Crown Estate management rights. And just watch Westminster put every hurdle they possibly can in their way for both of the above. Because it IS all 'money, money, money'.. or else they would've caved already, like they've already done on bringing forward devolved borrowing powers.

To pretend that it's going to be easy, cheap or a panacea for Scotland's problems is to fail to understand the undertaking.

Agree with you there but I don't think it's going to be prohibitive. Oh and chill, this is only forum banter !

I've never heard anyone explain how Scotland could finance itself after north sea oil runs out. Never. It is actually a hard problem even at the UK level to work this out, but the Scottish nationalists always seem to just explain that something magical is going to happen. And then talk about clearances

Ive never heard anyone explain how England would finance itself after North Sea oil runs out either ! Mr Osborne sure likes the tax from there doesn't he ? It's a common problem for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. When North sea oil runs out, it runs out for all four UK nations dependent on any funding/taxes and revenue from there.

Or, it could run out for three of them 5 or 6 years from now, should an independent Scotland be awarded them due to it's geography/territorial waters/international laws etc etc. Who knows. But it should never EVER be assummed that the oil running out is soley a Scottish problem, because it just isn't and people need to wake up to that. Scotland does however stand to make the most of the 10 years or so left ( if true ), should independence occur, not the least. It's the other three nations who should be a little worried.

Renewable energy may well be 'just an unaffordable fantasy'.. but at the very least it's a bit forward thinking, nothing to do with banks, the public sector, cds's, house prices and bail-outs. Which it seems the rest of the world's largest economies have been built on for the last 10 years or so. Anything must be better than that at the moment !!!

Generali

Whichever way you twist it, the Conservative party have an ideology that includes Unionism and keeping Scotland in The Union and has done since at least the C19th. Whether the 'Unionist' in the name of the party refers to Scotland remaining in The Union or not is a just a semantic arguement.

The point about elections, foreign policy, defence etc isn't about whether Scotland can do this. It's about how she can do it and the cost of setting it up from scratch.

You make a lot of assumptions about how things will work out. The fact is that outside of The Union, Scotland will be just another tiny country, an outcrop of Northern Europe with a small economy. A bit part player financially and economically (45th in the world GDP rankings alongside the Czech Republic) massively dependant on banks (mostly owned by the British Government at present thanks to a bail out of about 3x Scottish GDP) and a declining oil sector to generate revenues. In 2008-9, oil revenues were about 7% of Scottish GDP but only 0.5% of UK GDP. Those revenues fell by half in 2009-10 (link)

ruggedtoast

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Or, it could run out for three of them 5 or 6 years from now, should an independent Scotland be awarded them due to it's geography/territorial waters/international laws etc etc. Who knows. But it should never EVER be assummed that the oil running out is soley a Scottish problem, because it just isn't and people need to wake up to that. Scotland does however stand to make the most of the 10 years or so left ( if true ), should independence occur, not the least. It's the other three nations who should be a little worried.

Yes thats very true. As an Englishman I literally cannot sleep at night from the awful worry as to how on earth we would get by without Scotland.

tomterm8

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ive never heard anyone explain how England would finance itself after North Sea oil runs out either ! Mr Osborne sure likes the tax from there doesn't he ? It's a common problem for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. When North sea oil runs out, it runs out for all four UK nations dependent on any funding/taxes and revenue from there.

The reason that no one is seriously considering whether England can support itself in the even that Scotland leaves the union is because England is a net contributor to the british state, and has been for the last two centuries.

Scotland has only been a net contributor very recently, historically speaking, as a result of north sea oil, which is running out. Once it runs out, you have the question of how you can afford to keep an economy going where 50% of GDP is spent by the government. I don't think that was even the case in Soviet Russia.

ruggedtoast

I'll confess that I actually think its a shame that Scotland will most likely be going. The United Kingdom has a long history of being a United Kingdom and for the most part it has worked very well. I will confess to really liking most of the Scots I have met and in my experience the cultural difference between English and Scottish people is imperceptible.

But this relationship has become so rancorous now I just dont see how it can continue. Scots feelings of resentment and their perception of a stolen history, no matter how misplaced, have been festering for two centuries. England's bill for containing that wounded pride now sees Scotland vastly overrepresented politically, significantly over compensated financially and enjoying a level of nationally funded public services in the midst of a crushing recession, that sitting from over the border I can only characterise as taking the pi$$.

We cant have Westminster fairly representing England because that will immediately shut off the taps to Scotland and they'll all vote Alex Salmond and leave. And we cant have an English parliament because that will immediately vote to shut off the taps to Scotland and they'll all vote Alex Salmond and leave.

But they're all going to do that anyway, its just not worth it.

As sad as it is, it is time to part ways while things are still amicable.

Shakethedisease

Yes thats very true. As an Englishman I literally cannot sleep at night from the awful worry as to how on earth we would get by without Scotland.

Lol. That made me giggle Awww..Pm me and I'll send you a few 'Corries' videos to cheer you up.

Generali

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Its 50% in USA. Its about that in UK I thought. Would have been 100% in USSR surely, officially

IIRC the state accounted for 70% of GDP in Czechoslovakia under communism. I'm not sure of the figure in the USSR. Generally there was some private enterprise eg co-operatives being able to sell surplus produce privately once quotas had been filled.

I think Albania was the only place where you couldn't have any private property. From memory, you were allowed 2 private possessions in Albania.

They should have given Alia the Ceausescu treatment.

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure of the figure in the USSR. .

The figures I saw said it peaked at 58% of GDP in the 1980's, just before the USSR collapsed. However, these were official figures, and there was a huge black market.