Economists Urge Scotland to Vote No......

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Hey! You were the one telling everyone that there was "no point" in having this debate. How patronising was that?:)

If you genuinely thought there was "no point" in having this debate why are you engaging in it?

No. I said that there had been a No vote and there was no point in comparing oil prices today.. since Scotland wouldn't have been independent until 18 months or so after the vote.. when there may well have been mild interest.

Personally I voted Yes, more interested in gaining levers to grow the other 80-85% of the Scottish economy under independence, but hey ho. And come on, I bet it's not every day you tell a poster here you're debating with to 'go and have a nice cup of tea or something'.. But happy to leave it there and still be pals.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

On that point I disagree. People that spend a lifetime focussed on a single idea. Rarely give up. It's the whole driving force behind the SNP. As in political terms there's little actual difference to the Labour party.

While independent powers make for good media coverage. The practicalities are somewhat different. Arguably decisive in nature. There's no magical solution to the current economic woes. Nor are the current crop of politicians in anyway equipped to deal with them. As global events will dictate policy. Not regional or national self interests.

Hmm you're still stuck in independence referendum land a bit I think. Whatever the media/press want to tell you. We really have moved on and very quickly. You should too. The story at the moment isn't another independence referendum.. it's just how much or how little power the SNP is going to have in Westminster after May.

Bookmakers have cut their odds on Labour forming a minority government after the general election with the Scottish National Party (SNP).

William Hill have Ed Miliband as the favourite to become the next Prime Minister at 4/5 and has taken “three figure bets” on his party entering a coalition with the SNP at odds of 13/2.
The bets are rolling in after Alex Salmond, the party’s former leader, told The Independent that the SNP could set aside its convention of MPs abstaining from votes on English-only laws to prop up a minority Labour government.

Graham Sharpe, William Hill’s politics spokesperson, said: “We have had to cut our odds for a Labour minority government from an original 7/1 to 4/1 in the face of continued support, perhaps on the basis of them forging an agreement or understanding with the SNP.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/odds-cut-on-labour-minority-government-after-alex-salmond-hints-at-snp-support-9936544.html

And I have to say that Alex Salmond's comments were also the most viewed and commented on in the Guardian today ( as well as a few Scottish newspapers )... and it was actually quite well received. I may have to re-think my comment about a lot of people south of the border not accepting the idea. Seems there are quite a few think it will be a very good thing. Or at the very least, a shove left-wards for Labour and getting rid of the Tories.

Strange days.

ruggedtoast

So annoying that they came up with that stupid vow. They should be closing Holyrood not pandering to it.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. I said that there had been a No vote and there was no point in comparing oil prices today.. since Scotland wouldn't have been independent until 18 months or so after the vote.. when there may well have been mild interest.

Personally I voted Yes, more interested in gaining levers to grow the other 80-85% of the Scottish economy under independence, but hey ho. And come on, I bet it's not every day you tell a poster here you're debating with to 'go and have a nice cup of tea or something'.. But happy to leave it there and still be pals.

Regardless of when Scotland would have become independent, which of course isn't going to happen as the electorate voted very conclusively against independence, only a fool would fail to learn the lesson that being so dependent on oil revenues for her Government revenue would put an independent Scotland into a very vulnerable position.

Perhaps Devo Max could be introduced on an experimental basis for a year or so to demonstrate just how precarious and volatile an independent Scotland's finances would be.

Personally would you be in favour of £3,000 of tax increases per worker or spending cuts of the same?

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hmm you're still stuck in independence referendum land a bit I think. Whatever the media/press want to tell you. We really have moved on and very quickly. You should too. The story at the moment isn't another independence referendum.. it's just how much or how little power the SNP is going to have in Westminster after May.

Power to do what? A cake can only be cut so many ways.

kabayiri

Recent events form a salutary lesson.

Scotland faces a number of challenges to diversify its economy to survive and thrive as an independent nation.

Maybe the oil industry needs to become leaner as well. It was interesting to note on the radio the other day how production costs have risen significantly in recent years. They can't afford to do nothing.

Scotland always was going to face a challenging few years, inside or outside the Union.

zagubov

kabayiri wrote: »

Recent events form a salutary lesson.

This will pass.

kabayiri wrote: »

Scotland faces a number of challenges to diversify its economy to survive and thrive as an independent nation.

Yes it has, and it has plenty of work ahead of it. Still they seem to have more drive and energy than the Coke vs Pepsi parties down here in Westminster.

kabayiri wrote: »

Maybe the oil industry needs to become leaner as well. It was interesting to note on the radio the other day how production costs have risen significantly in recent years. They can't afford to do nothing.

I'm sure that's true

kabayiri wrote: »

Scotland always was going to face a challenging few years, inside or outside the Union.

Yes indeed. The challenge is to see how well Scotland does now inside the Union. It's Westminster that's got it all to prove and I hope it's up to the job. Wagging a finger at the SG and saying "you'd have been in deeper doo-doo if you were independent right now, which was in no party's manifesto, but never mind,you need a telling-off anyway, you uppity scroungers" isn't going to fool any of them.:D

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Power to do what? A cake can only be cut so many ways.

Sorry I should have qualified the comment for this board when I said

Or at the very least, a shove left-wards for Labour

Left-wards economically/anti-austerity policies. As well as having to have a real think about Trident renewal and it's costs ( the SNP's line in the sand ). Plaid and Greens are already on-board with the SNP on the above.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), Green Party and Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru have vowed to join forces whenever possible to fight the mainstream parties’ ‘obsession’ with austerity.
Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Natalie Bennett (Green Party) and Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru) said the general election next May is an opportunity to change politics for the better.

http://rt.com/uk/214911-snp-cymru-green-austerity/

So in answer to your question, the power to do what ? The power to change direction politcally and economically in Westminster. It's also unlikely with the SNP anywhere near power supporting a minority Labour govt, that an in-out EU referendum with be held. EVEL will also probably bite the dust or be kicked into the long grass. SNP MP's don't vote in English only issues anyway.

It will all depend on arithmetic of course, and what Labour do if they do have to 'do deals' to get into power. Personally I think UKIP's star is on the wane, and a lot of UKIP voters will return 'home' in May. It'll be a very exciting election don't you think ?

Oh and on oil.. nothing to panic about. Sir Ian Wood ( of 'the oils running out fame during the ref, and oil guru according to Hamish and his word trusted implicitly... )... has said :-

His intervention follows concerns by the explorers’ association this week that the industry was “close to collapse”.
Sir Ian said: “These comments are over the top for an industry which thinks and plans long-term. It’s important to have a balanced perspective at this time. The UKCS [UK Continental Shelf] does face a very difficult year to 18 months which will see a slowdown in investment, the loss of some offshore production, up to 10 per cent, and the possible loss of around 15,000 jobs within an industry which employs 375,000, although this is difficult to estimate.
“It will be a tough time for the industry and the people that work in it, but we are entering a downturn from which we will recover.”
The price of oil s likely to bounce back in 2015 or early 2016, he added.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/north-sea-oil-industry-will-recover-ian-wood-1-3639439

Sir Wood is never wrong on these things after all.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

SNP MP's don't vote in English only issues anyway.

So would be unable to support a Government in Westminster as you can't have a Government that can get through bills on Britain but not on England.

Unless they change their stance of course.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So in answer to your question, the power to do what ? The power to change direction politcally and economically in Westminster.

Been apparent for some years that the available choices are at best limited. The May 2015 election was always going to be a watershed. Politicians may huff and puff, but the inevitably that certain courses of action are a necessity hasn't gone away. Bridging the deficit gap is going to require some unpopular decision taking. These have little to do with politics. Far more to do with sound financial management.