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

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't think a lot of ordinary people do. We are frequently told it's becoming a scarce resource. Plus, people directly equate the cost of the commodity with the cost at the pump, even if this is incorrect.

Okay, a positive challenge to you then.

How do *you* suggest a future independent Scotland ride out volatile oil prices? What does it need to do to adapt it's economy?

You sound like a politician sometimes. Full of negatives but very few positive answers.

Oh no, I'm very positive. But pointing out facts and correcting assumptions just seems to annoy people here.

The SNP/Yes lost the referendum. However, they didn't disappear and are more popular than ever. That annoys people.

They look somewhat likely to hold the balance of power if there is a hung parliament in May. That also annoys people.

If so, they will push for further powers for Scotland, to get rid of Trident and push through anti-austerity policies. That really, really annoys people.

Casual talk such as above of 'Westminster won't allow' this or that.. doesn't wash when the SNP ARE a big factor in Westminster. God, that annoys people.

I'm only pointing out the truth. Some here, in fact most, don't like it.

Oil prices. An oil fund would be set up to ride out volatile oil prices. Like Norway did. Would probably take a few years of course. The dependence on oil by Scotland is overstated also. I'll let the Financial Times say it better than I can. We aren't so badly off. And it's not like even with fracking, and the current political oil price games that are being played out.. that the world is ever suddenly going to be awash with the stuff forever is it ? The Scottish Government is putting much faith in renewables anyway. With some pretty ambitious targets to be met by 2020 ( along with Germany ). Shame Cameron et al dismiss it as 'Green crap'...

If its geographic share of UK oil and gas output is taken into account, Scotland’s GDP per head is bigger than that of France. Even excluding the North Sea’s hydrocarbon bounty, per capita GDP is higher than that of Italy. Oil, whisky and a broad range of manufactured goods mean an independent Scotland would be one of the world’s top 35 exporters.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0

But once again, I have to point out that oil prices in a hypothetical independent Scotland has already been done to death on other threads. I see very little point in going over it all again. Especially since there was a No vote. Unless you see some real value in doing so ? $100 or $50.. it makes little difference now. And independence according to most here, would have been bad for Scotland whatever the oil price and it's volatility.

chewmylegoff

The SNP currently have 6 MPs in the UK parliament and are therefore irrelevant not a "big factor".

They are likely to be largely irrelevant after the next election as well, just with a larger number of MPs whom no-one wants to form a coalition with.

ruggedtoast

I thought I might post this for Shakey, as the event seems to have slipped her by somehow.

Or maybe it's like watching football replays where every time you re-watch Gareth Southgate line up to take that penalty it seems like that might be the time he'll get it in, except it involves watching the Western Isles ballot box be recounted.

:-)

I appreciate this is from the Telegraph, in which she doesn't believe, but they have aggregated pretty much every other newspaper everywhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11108226/Scotland-votes-no-to-independence-world-reaction.html



I really think it might actually be true. Scotland isn't going to be independent.

Nevertheless:

On the internet, Chinese commentators tweeted that “no one” had lost the referendum. “The UK shows the world its political civilisation and shows other regimes, which only show their muscle and use force, how there are alternatives to handling disputes.”
“Britain is the biggest winner,” tweeted another. “It shows its confidence and civilisation to the world and its full respect to human rights and public opinion. It brings shame to those rascal countries which frequently roll their tanks into the street.”
Some lamented their lack of similar democratic rights. “They can say yes, they can say no, we can say ‘Oh’,” wrote one.

Now if only the Nationalists, turning in their ever decreasing circles of bitterness, would realise that too and get on with doing something less futile and negative than trying to break up their own country.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, I don't. I can't speak for others.

You espouse the theory of gradualism (the inexorable slow journey to independence) but believe that when push comes to shove in referenda the Scots will never vote for it?
Strange.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Even if you really, really wish for it, the SNP can't call a referendum for Scottish independence unless it has a majority in the UK Parliament.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

2035 is an arbitrary date and could just as easily be 2040. There won't be another referendum for a generation at least or certainly shouldn't be.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Further powers have been promised. I would hope that fiscal responsibility comes with that: Scotland would put her share into UK-wide spending (debt repayments, defence, foreign office, running the Houses of Parliament etc) and then get to use the remaining funds raised in Scotland to pay for services in Scotland. It might teach a valuable lesson in what happens when you rely heavily on a single source of revenue for your spending.

I don't claim to know the constitutional state of the UK in 20 years time. I'm not sure why you think I would.

Shakethedisease

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I thought I might post this for Shakey, as the event seems to have slipped her by somehow.

Or maybe it's like watching football replays where every time you re-watch Gareth Southgate line up to take that penalty it seems like that might be the time he'll get it in, except it involves watching the Western Isles ballot box be recounted.

:-)

I appreciate this is from the Telegraph, in which she doesn't believe, but they have aggregated pretty much every other newspaper everywhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11108226/Scotland-votes-no-to-independence-world-reaction.html



I really think it might actually be true. Scotland isn't going to be independent.

Nevertheless:

Now if only the Nationalists, turning in their ever decreasing circles of bitterness, would realise that too and get on with doing something less futile and negative than trying to break up their own country.

I have don't have the faintest idea or any clue as what point you are trying to make with your wee collage. Other than you can't seem to leave my posts alone. Take your own advice perhaps, and start ignoring the nationalists. You're clearly getting a bit carried away by the whole thing.. ( or mabye that you like to re-live the 19th Sept a lot ? ).

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

You espouse the theory of gradualism (the inexorable slow journey to independence) but believe that when push comes to shove in referenda the Scots will never vote for it?
Strange.

No you said that I equated electoral support for the SNP with support for independence. I don't. Not everyone planning to vote SNP wishes independence. This has been the case more or less in Scotland since 2007 when the SNP took power there.

Your 'revelation' that voting SNP does not necessarily equate to support for independence, is a least 7 years old for most of us up here.

3 months ago, Scotland voted No. I don't believe that should another referendum be held very soon that would change. But I wouldn't rule it out in the future, in fact, perhaps in the near future depending on events. Does this come as news to you also ?

The independence referendum, and SNP in Westminster are two very different things.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Even if you really, really wish for it, the SNP can't call a referendum for Scottish independence unless it has a majority in the UK Parliament.

2035 is an arbitrary date and could just as easily be 2040. There won't be another referendum for a generation at least or certainly shouldn't be.

Further powers have been promised. I would hope that fiscal responsibility comes with that: Scotland would put her share into UK-wide spending (debt repayments, defence, foreign office, running the Houses of Parliament etc) and then get to use the remaining funds raised in Scotland to pay for services in Scotland. It might teach a valuable lesson in what happens when you rely heavily on a single source of revenue for your spending.

I don't claim to know the constitutional state of the UK in 20 years time. I'm not sure why you think I would.

Because you seem to be very sure that constitutionally another referendum will never be allowed. How can you say that if in a few short months from now, SNP is holding the balance of power ? Who will stop them ? Why not have Alex Salmond as Sec of State for Scotland negotiating with the First Minister over further powers... <

---

this is a joke.

But the plain fact is that most referenda in this country are advisory. There wouldn't really be anything to stop the Scottish govt running another one if it wanted to do so. There is no written constitution in the UK. Of course abiding by the result would be something different altogether.. but then again, if there are lots of SNP MPs about in Westminster ?

The further powers have underwhelmed. All the polls bear this out so far. And as for Scotland wanting fiscal responsibility and you wagging a virtual finger about it.. wasn't independence good enough for you in terms of 'fiscal responsibility' ?

And au contraire re funding. You have it the wrong way round. Most of the polls show that far from Westminster handing Scotland a cheque after taking what she 'owes' out of it. Most Scots want it precisely the other way round. With Scotland collecting her own revenues.. then handing Westminster a cheque for defence and foreign affairs. Devo Max. The Smith commission's proposals haven't exactly set the world on fire up here I can assure you.. ( hence the SNP jump in the polls ).

But yes, you are completely correct. Scots do want to be fiscally responsible. Just much more than Westminster..and I use that it encompass all 3 parties offerings of further powers..want them to be. If you have any moans about that, direct it their way won't you ? They don't want things to change very much. And there is absolutely NO danger of Scotland having to find out that 'it relies heavily on a single source of revenue' ( not that I agree with you on that ) with the offerings so far.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because you seem to be very sure that constitutionally another referendum will never be allowed. How can you say that if in a few short months from now, SNP is holding the balance of power ? Who will stop them ? Why not have Alex Salmond as Sec of State for Scotland negotiating with the First Minister over further powers... <

---

this is a joke.

But the plain fact is that most referenda in this country are advisory. There wouldn't really be anything to stop the Scottish govt running another one if it wanted to do so. There is no written constitution in the UK. Of course abiding by the result would be something different altogether.. but then again, if there are lots of SNP MPs about in Westminster ?

The further powers have underwhelmed. All the polls bear this out so far. And as for Scotland wanting fiscal responsibility and you wagging a virtual finger about it.. wasn't independence good enough for you in terms of 'fiscal responsibility' ?

And au contraire re funding. You have it the wrong way round. Most of the polls show that far from Westminster handing Scotland a cheque after taking what she 'owes' out of it. Most Scots want it precisely the other way round. With Scotland collecting her own revenues.. then handing Westminster a cheque for defence and foreign affairs. Devo Max. The Smith commission's proposals haven't exactly set the world on fire up here I can assure you.. ( hence the SNP jump in the polls ).

But yes, you are completely correct. Scots do want to be fiscally responsible. Just much more than Westminster..and I use that it encompass all 3 parties offerings of further powers..want them to be. If you have any moans about that, direct it their way won't you ? They don't want things to change very much. And there is absolutely NO danger of Scotland having to find out that 'it relies heavily on a single source of revenue' ( not that I agree with you on that ) with the offerings so far.

You might want to have another go at reading what I wrote.

BTW, the Scottish Parliament can't call a referendum. They can call a glorified opinion poll if they want. I'm not convinced that they could even pay for it with taxpayers' money TBH.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

You might want to have another go at reading what I wrote.

BTW, the Scottish Parliament can't call a referendum. They can call a glorified opinion poll if they want. I'm not convinced that they could even pay for it with taxpayers' money TBH.

I think the ability to call a referendum might be on Sturgeons wish list in return for propping Labour up if the polls bear out. So that would be that wouldn't it.