Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Enterprise_1701C

When you take examples like the Higher Education Bill that was carried by votes from Scotland, even though it did not affect Scotland, then I think Westminster has every right to be worried about Scottish incursion.

I will say again, if Scotland want to be as independent as possible, then why should they have any say about any laws in England? I have no objection to them voting on UK laws but the idea of that bully in charge of the SNP having any part in voting for the laws of a country she appears to detest really is quite alarming.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Tromking wrote: »

Hamish demolishes yours and others child like case for an economically viable independent Scotland, so you simply move the emphasis to something else!
You've got it bad!

Well quite....

To be clear though, I have never said a fiscally autonomous or indy Scotland couldn't survive, it absolutely could.

But that would look nothing at all like the left leaning but still relatively prosperous Scotland we have today.

A fiscally autonomous or indy Scotland, no longer able to access subsidies and cheap lending as part of the UK and with an eye watering deficit, would rapidly run out of borrowing capacity and be forced by economic reality to dramatically slash and burn government spending. In the region of 25% for starters.

So imagine 1 in 4 state workers being sacked, benefits claimants seeing their benefits reduced by 25%, and comparable cuts to all other areas of government spending, from construction contracts, to procurement, to defence, the NHS, education, etc.

Unemployment would soar, the private sector would also then shrink payroll, reduce spending, investment would dry up, and we'd enter a grinding, painful, horrific recession as businesses and high earners pulled out.

Then comes the second round of cuts, as the new lower tax take cannot support even the massively reduced government spending.

At this point, we're basically the Greece of Northern Europe. 25%+ unemployment, 50%+ youth unemployment, pensioners scavenging in bins for food, horrific prospects for a lost generation of the young who would basically be rioting in the streets, and hospitals running out of medicine.

At some point however things would stabilise, albeit at a much, much poorer level than today.

We would survive.

But that Scotland would be an utterly miserable place to be.

A nation and it's people reduced to abject poverty by the delusions and vanity of economically illiterate nationalists.

No thanks....

.string.

All this separatist head-in-the-sand stuff reminds me of an old saying; modifying it to fit this situation:

The SNP can fool the people some of the time
The SNP can't fool the people all of the time
But they can fool some their acolytes all of the time.

.. and we see the latter in glorious blue and blue here.

I see thate the ultimate form of evasion has been adopted by denying the importance of economics in comparison with the glory of SNP politics.

One recalls another old saying

It's the economy stupid.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We would survive.

But that Scotland would be an utterly miserable place to be.

A nation and it's people reduced to abject poverty by the delusions and vanity of economically illiterate nationalists.

No thanks....

TBH, at the top of the SNP I don't think it's economic illiteracy. They must get briefings from the Civil Service that tell them exactly what the results of their choices would be and I refuse to believe that you get to run a political party that runs Scotland by being an idiot.

It must simply be that the end justifies the means. Any amount of suffering for the Scots is okay as long as the yoke of the English is thrown off. That was effectively the Sinn Fein message and outcome in the early C20th. Nationhood for the Irish was more important than anything else (and I can't say I blame them given the history). Is Scottish nationhood really thay important? I guess not which is why the SNP lie over and over again.

kabayiri

Leanne1812 wrote: »

...
Why wasn't an oil fund considered when the revenues were huge?
...

:rotfl:

Seriously! What is the point of looking into the past?

I can play that game.

Why wasn't a Scottish politician; Gordon Brown; concerned with the property and asset boom pre 2007?

Why did a Conservative government join the ERM at too high a rate; unsustainable in fact - leading to black wednesday ?

It's pretty easy to know the right decisions months and years after the event has passed. Alas, it teaches us *nothing*.

The UK wide appetite with the oil revenue was to *spend that money*. This had to be the case given that there is no widespread appetite here for a higher taxation economy.

Even the lefty SNP seem reluctant to use their tax raising powers. They aren't stupid enough to ignore the fact that people do not like tax!

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

TBH, at the top of the SNP I don't think it's economic illiteracy. They must get briefings from the Civil Service that tell them exactly what the results of their choices would be and I refuse to believe that you get to run a political party that runs Scotland by being an idiot.
...

They are clever political animals. It's more politically literate than economic.

They want to use a marginal position to leverage significant concessions from the much larger remainder of the Union.

Scotland already gets a higher grant per capita. We know that. It seems this is not enough. They want more.

Imagine the outrage if all the City workers in the London economic powerhouse started to demand more. But that would be painted as "anti-Scottish" somehow.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
But that Scotland would be an utterly miserable place to be.

A nation and it's people reduced to abject poverty by the delusions and vanity of economically illiterate nationalists.

No thanks....

We only have to look both around the world and back in history to see the demise of national fortunes as a result of the political ideology of a relatively small few.

Sadly, voters fall for these pipe dreams over and over.

padington

Poll says labour wipeout in Scotland ...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/23/labour-faces-electoral-rout-scotland-snp

Could Labour align with the Tories and ever hope to win in Scotland again? Ed's in a sticky situation. Perhaps the place for Labour to be is in opposition?

Generali

padington wrote: »

Poll says labour wipeout in Scotland ...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/23/labour-faces-electoral-rout-scotland-snp

Could Labour align with the Tories and ever hope to win in Scotland again? Ed's in a sticky situation. Perhaps the place for Labour to be is in opposition?

Blair won a majority ex-Scotland. The hard left can't win Britain ex-Scotland but moderate Labour can.

If Scotland wants to vote for extremism then I see no reason for Labour to prop that up. If Labour lose England they will see Government once a century like the Liberals.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

This may or may not be news to you STD but Labour and Tories from Scotland are very welcome in London. Many PMs and senior cabinet ministers have been Scottish down the years including 2 of the last 3 Chancellors of the Exchequer.

When Scotland sends Nationalists with a narrow remit to support only the Scottish part of the Union, it is natural for England, Irish and Welsh voters to view them with cynicism.

Oh dear me no, it's not news to me. However, I think it may have come as a bit of a shock to some who voted No under the misplaced idea that Scotland is an 'equal partner' in the union.

I also think you're confusing 'Scottish' politicans with Scottish Labour politicians. If Scotland votes SNP politicians down to Westminster, then it's just going to have to be dealt with. Scottish Labour politicians came to the fore in big numbers in the wake of 18 years of Thatcher.. when it seemed that only Scotland kept voting Labour regardless. Hence a large pool of Scottish Labour MP's.

The same to a lesser extent is a happening now.