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

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We discussed oil prices and the pros and cons of them endlessly in all the independence threads before the vote. And yes, if oil prices remain as low as they are, and Scotland had voted Yes then it would have been a problem if they remained low until 'independence day' whenever that might have been. The SNP said March 2016, others were saying it would have taken years.

But the Yes vote didn't happen. And I suspect that regarding independence there will be a much more gradualist approach to it. I assume through the SNP and other parties campaigning on gaining more and more fiscal powers as time goes on.. until independence doesn't seem such a great leap into the unknown.

In terms of oil prices in an independent Scotland on this board they have been discussed, and endlessly dissected. Do you really want to do it all again ? I agree that it would have been a problem IF they remained low until the day Scotland left. But I don't agree that independence as a whole, is dependent solely on oil prices. What else do you want me to say ? It's all hypothetical now.

It's being used as a means by the MSM to dampen down the SNP vote right now before May 2015. That and endessly carping on about how the SNP want Indyref2 asap. However, it doesn't appear to be working.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-daily-record-poll-shows-4859836


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-daily-record-poll-shows-4851556

Boy the Daily record must have been gritting their teeth with those articles.

That's all well and good but if the SNP couldn't get anywhere near a Yes vote under the circumstances of:

- Best likely fiscal position for Scotland
- Weak, Tory led Government in Westminster
- Fag end of the worst recession in living memory

What on earth would make a Yes vote ever possible?

Everything was in favour of a Yes vote and yet they couldn't get within 20% of the votes that No got. Given all of that, I simply can't see any way that a popular vote will ever back Yes.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

That's all well and good but if the SNP couldn't get anywhere near a Yes vote under the circumstances of:

- Best likely fiscal position for Scotland
- Weak, Tory led Government in Westminster
- Fag end of the worst recession in living memory

What on earth would make a Yes vote ever possible?

Time ? It took two attempts to get a Scottish parliament. And 45/55% .. another +6 % Yes -6% No ? Personally I don't think that's decisive enough.

The SNP won't go for another referendum until the polls are consistently showing a good % in favour next time. Over 55% plus before campaigning starts. They did pretty well considering that before this all started the No campaign were thinking that a Yes vote would be lucky to hit 30%.

In the meantime the Scottish parliament is being seen as more and more important and prominent in day to day lives. Further powers will only ever enhance that. Westminster is distancing, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem MP's are seeming more irrelevant. EVEL and the potential blocking of Scottish MP's ( and those from NI and Wales ) from voting there, and even the discussion of it, is speeding things along nicely.
It's going to be a gradual thing for the time being. And remember that the SNP is only such a force in Scottish politics, because the Scottish people put them there, twice. And look set to propel them for the first time en masse into Westminster too in May. The SNP didn't do this all by themselves ! The Scottish electorate did.

A Yes vote ? Not this time.. However, here's todays' Boxing day present to the SNP.

Labour set for a bloodbath in Scotland in general election, poll says

Traditional Labour heartlands turning to SNP, which could win 45 of 59 Scottish Westminster seats, Guardian/ICM survey finds.
The Scottish National party, which took only 20% of the vote in the 2010 general election, has subsequently more than doubled its vote to reach a commanding 43% of the prospective poll next May. Scottish Labour, which secured a very strong 42% in Gordon Brown’s homeland last time around, has since tumbled by 16 points to just 26%....


...One specific complaint of the nationalists about the plans is that London would retain control of corporation tax, something which Labour believes is necessary to avoid a cross-border race to the bottom in the rates paid by companies. But, by 53% to 23%, the voters are on the SNP’s side, saying that Scotland should be free to set its own corporation taxes...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/26/labour-bloodbath-scotland-general-election-2015-snp-westminster

The staunchest No voter I know, ( my dad, I've mentioned him loads before ).. said yesterday that there would be another vote in a few years. Labour has lost the plot ( Murphy ) and that the next time a Yes vote would 'win it oot the park'... He's still a No voter. He can just see the writing on the wall. He lives here. You don't.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Time ? It took two attempts to get a Scottish parliament. And 45/55% .. another +6 % Yes -6% No ? Personally I don't think that's decisive enough.

The SNP won't go for another referendum until the polls are consistently showing a good % in favour next time. Over 55% plus before campaigning starts. They did pretty well considering that before this all started the No campaign were thinking that a Yes vote would be lucky to hit 30%.

The SNP don't get another referendum, they had it already and they do not get to call another one or indeed one at all.

Clearly the SNP have always wanted the 'neverendum' but they aren't going to get them as Constitutional powers are held by the UK Parliament for fairly obvious reasons (it would cause immense practical problems for a Nation within the UK to have a constitution which contradicted the UK's constitution).

I can't really conceive of a better set of conditions for Yes to win and they were beaten by 2m to 1.6m. That's a huge margin on as large a turnout as you'll ever see without compulsory voting (Aus has compulsory voting and only got 80% of the voting age population to vote at the last election).

On top of that, in most countries a major constitutional change needs more than a simple majority so the bar was set low for Yes to get over and they got nowhere close. They may have done better than expected but still came a very distant second in a 2 horse race.

As I say, I just can't see how Yes can win a referendum in 2035, the next realistic date. The oil will be all but gone and Scotland's relatively strong potential fiscal position with it: the closest region to Scotland which gives its fair share of revenues to the Exchequer versus spending is London and without oil I would imagine Scotland would have more in common with Yorkshire or Lancashire than London or the South East: a region with a great industrial history which is struggling to find a place in a post-industrial country.

Also it's highly unlikely that the UK will be recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.

I thought the referendum was a great thing for Scottish politics. An 85% turnout is great and it's good to see Scottish people of all political backgrounds having carefully considered what they think is best for their community and voting accordingly in huge numbers.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The staunchest No voter I know, ( my dad, I've mentioned him loads before ).. said yesterday that there would be another vote in a few years. Labour has lost the plot ( Murphy ) and that the next time a Yes vote would 'win it oot the park'... He's still a No voter. He can just see the writing on the wall. He lives here. You don't.

LOL. Given our respective predictive powers on the Scottish referendum I would say that a residential qualification counts for little or nothing.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's going to be a gradual thing for the time being. And remember that the SNP is only such a force in Scottish politics, because the Scottish people put them there, twice. And look set to propel them for the first time en masse into Westminster too in May. The SNP didn't do this all by themselves ! The Scottish electorate did.

It`s astonishing the amount of Nationalists who think electoral support for the SNP (outside of referenda) equals tacit support for an independent Scotland, yourself included.
If you`re not going to have a life of savage disappointment re. independence, please accept that the attraction of the SNP is that they`re anti-English, broadly speaking competent in government and able to fight Scotland`s corner more than any Unionist party could ever do.
Whenever the Scottish people have had the chance to ditch the English comfort blanket too many have chosen not to, that is the truth of it and will never change.
The UK is headed toward a federal arrangement, and as an English taxpayer it cant come quick enough.

ruggedtoast

Tromking wrote: »

It`s astonishing the amount of Nationalists who think electoral support for the SNP (outside of referenda) equals tacit support for an independent Scotland, yourself included.
If you`re not going to have a life of savage disappointment re. independence, please accept that the attraction of the SNP is that they`re anti-English, broadly speaking competent in government and able to fight Scotland`s corner more than any Unionist party could ever do.
Whenever the Scottish people have had the chance to ditch the English comfort blanket too many have chosen not to, that is the truth of it and will never change.
The UK is headed toward a federal arrangement, and as an English taxpayer it cant come quick enough.

Quite right. If the SNP want to raise revenue from Scotland to spend in Scotland let them do so. I don't see why we should continue funding things for Scots we no longer get ourselves.

Scotland doesn't want independence but it doesn't want to be part of the UK either. The worst of all worlds, for them, is a constitutional agreement where they contribute to defence and national government, and rely on themselves for revenue. But this is what they seem to want so let them have it.

ruggedtoast

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Time ? It took two attempts to get a Scottish parliament. And 45/55% .. another +6 % Yes -6% No ? Personally I don't think that's decisive enough.

The SNP won't go for another referendum until the polls are consistently showing a good % in favour next time. Over 55% plus before campaigning starts. They did pretty well considering that before this all started the No campaign were thinking that a Yes vote would be lucky to hit 30%.

In the meantime the Scottish parliament is being seen as more and more important and prominent in day to day lives. Further powers will only ever enhance that. Westminster is distancing, Tory, Labour and Lib Dem MP's are seeming more irrelevant. EVEL and the potential blocking of Scottish MP's ( and those from NI and Wales ) from voting there, and even the discussion of it, is speeding things along nicely.
It's going to be a gradual thing for the time being. And remember that the SNP is only such a force in Scottish politics, because the Scottish people put them there, twice. And look set to propel them for the first time en masse into Westminster too in May. The SNP didn't do this all by themselves ! The Scottish electorate did.

A Yes vote ? Not this time.. However, here's todays' Boxing day present to the SNP.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/26/labour-bloodbath-scotland-general-election-2015-snp-westminster

The staunchest No voter I know, ( my dad, I've mentioned him loads before ).. said yesterday that there would be another vote in a few years. Labour has lost the plot ( Murphy ) and that the next time a Yes vote would 'win it oot the park'... He's still a No voter. He can just see the writing on the wall. He lives here. You don't.

I can't help but feel that your desperation to secure independence for Scotland might not be better expended on attempting to convince your countrymen. Rather than us.

Maybe if you hadn't spent half your time in the last two years on here arguing with half a dozen Englishmen (one of whom lives in Australia) there might have been a few more yes votes. And maybe if all other nutty cybernats had toned it down a bit there might have been a few hundred thousand more yes votes.

Not that it matters now.

.string.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Quite right. If the SNP want to raise revenue from Scotland to spend in Scotland let them do so. I don't see why we should continue funding things for Scots we no longer get ourselves.

Scotland doesn't want independence but it doesn't want to be part of the UK either. The worst of all worlds, for them, is a constitutional agreement where they contribute to defence and national government, and rely on themselves for revenue. But this is what they seem to want so let them have it.

I agree with the concept of the Scots having to fund much of their welfare excesses. They've splashed out during the SNP years, following the tactic of making it seem that the SNP has got good governance all for the purpose of their myopic ambitions, but in fact relying on the English Taxpayer to keep the funds rolling in. So that has to stop, the economic buck for some of these things has to stop with the Scottish Parliament.

But there are several things that also have to be paid: there are many things, all under the banner of UK benefits and expenditure. Just to mention a few

Infrastructure costs, for example transport, power security, communications
The proportionate cost of the currency - if Scotland retains its financial sector that may need bailing out or if the SNP run their economy into the ground then that will cost. In other all these things cost money and are not things that the English tax payer should pay alone.

then of course there is the National debt that the SNP wanted to default on - Scotland has to pay its share of that
as, indeed, in their share of the pain of reducing the deficit.

... and the BBC. and so on and so on ...

The cynical demands for devo Max from the SNP are, in my view, yet another attempt to avoid their paying for these things while still free-loading on the rest of us.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

....The SNP won't go for another referendum...

On a point of order.

It's not within the power of the SNP to "go for another referendum". That is a matter for Parliament to decide. The UK one, you understand.

I doubt the SNP will even ask for one with Brent Crude under $60 a barrel.:)

kabayiri

If the SNP win a majority in the next election (as seems likely) I think it's time for them to become more positive.

Scotland's economy will need diversifying to make it more able to survive as an independent country. It's time for the SNP to show their mettle and outperform the rest of the UK when it comes to growth policy.

A continually negative attitude towards Westminster will only end up continuing this bitter divide. It's time to be positive and progressive.

I read all of STDs' posts, and they never seem to offer positive policy suggestions. It's just politicking. Most voters live in the real world - not the political world. This might explain their reticence to vote for independence.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The SNP don't get another referendum, they had it already and they do not get to call another one or indeed one at all.

Clearly the SNP have always wanted the 'neverendum' but they aren't going to get them as Constitutional powers are held by the UK Parliament for fairly obvious reasons (it would cause immense practical problems for a Nation within the UK to have a constitution which contradicted the UK's constitution).

I can't really conceive of a better set of conditions for Yes to win and they were beaten by 2m to 1.6m. That's a huge margin on as large a turnout as you'll ever see without compulsory voting (Aus has compulsory voting and only got 80% of the voting age population to vote at the last election).

On top of that, in most countries a major constitutional change needs more than a simple majority so the bar was set low for Yes to get over and they got nowhere close. They may have done better than expected but still came a very distant second in a 2 horse race.

As I say, I just can't see how Yes can win a referendum in 2035, the next realistic date. The oil will be all but gone and Scotland's relatively strong potential fiscal position with it: the closest region to Scotland which gives its fair share of revenues to the Exchequer versus spending is London and without oil I would imagine Scotland would have more in common with Yorkshire or Lancashire than London or the South East: a region with a great industrial history which is struggling to find a place in a post-industrial country.

Also it's highly unlikely that the UK will be recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.

I thought the referendum was a great thing for Scottish politics. An 85% turnout is great and it's good to see Scottish people of all political backgrounds having carefully considered what they think is best for their community and voting accordingly in huge numbers.



LOL. Given our respective predictive powers on the Scottish referendum I would say that a residential qualification counts for little or nothing.

I'm sorry, but it's yourself who has been posting up links the last week or so about a possible 'next referendum' not me. I was simply asserting that if there were to be another one, the SNP wouldn't call one until things look much more favourable than 45%. No-one is calling for one. Certainly not right now. However, one would be foolish to rule one, or the possibility of one out forever.

But, no. I wasn't posting about any next referendum. You were. And still are going by your reply above and even seem to have a 2035 date set in your head. I posted about gradualism. And how the SNP may end up in a position of power there using it to full advantage.

Further powers is the order of the day. And who know's where that will lead to in the next few years. There may be another referendum, there may not. But things are changing. Even my dear old dad can see the ground shifting under his feet. Much to his disgust.

No-one can even predict the results of a General Election a mere four months from now. I think you're on to plums predicting what's going to be the constitutional state of the UK 20 years from now. Either that or very arrogant.