Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
You really aren't thinking this through at all. Do you want Scotland to be financially separate from England or not? It can't be both separate and connected all at the same time. Either let go of nanny's apron strings or hold on.

Totally agree. You hear far too much half baked political solutions on here.

We need to set out a plan whereby an independent Scotland can survive and prosper. If such a plan involved significantly higher taxation and/or a much smaller state, then let the Scots decide if that is the kind of society they want.

This is much better than pretending it will all be okay because the ruling party are some kind of superior entity, able to defy the basic laws of maths and economics.

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Absolute masterstroke. Well played.

Realising that the Tories were going to put him the the middle of the election campaign whether he liked it or not. He jumps in with both feet. Completely neuters the endless Scottish Labour cries of 'Vote SNP get Tory', has the Tories apoplectic with rage over their own legislation re fixed term parliaments and how it works... and takes the heat completely off Nicola ( wrecking ball type headlines etc ) and on to himself as he's used to it. She's just been voted in a mega-yougov poll, as the most popular party leader... In England.

All Nicola has to do is concentrate on Scotland for the next few weeks, leaving Alex to annoy the right wing press down south.. then appear big time on the scene UK wide for leaders debates and the closing few weeks of the campaign.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/the-tory-partys-attitude-towards-scotlandisasstupidasitiscynical/

Yep it is beautiful to watch :T:T:T Sunday was a great day for politics watching :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: ... I sat and thought oh man he is having a ball, Anna Soubry was hilarious,

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

And until you understand how Scotland's potential fiscal situation has been utterly ruined by the fall in the oil price you will never understand how close you and your fellow travelers came to wrecking Scotland

So under no detriment Scotland and England are fiscally separated but there can be no change in the fiscal position of each...? That's what we economists call 'mental'. Either there is FFA or there isn't. If there is still a massive transfer of taxes from one place to another then there isn't fiscal autonomy.

You really aren't thinking this through at all. Do you want Scotland to be financially separate from England or not? It can't be both separate and connected all at the same time. Either let go of nanny's apron strings or hold on.

It would be too much of a shock to England's finances to do that overnight.;)

FFA/Devo Max/As near to federalism as it's possible to get. There are many versions of the above. It's not all or nothing. The Smith Commission made a start.. but it was an extremely weak one, and as shown, one that is unlikely to get through Westminster and the House of Lords without significant changes and watering down still further.

A good number of SNP MP's at the very least should stop it being watered down too much. And advocating for even further powers, is in essence what they are there to do.. but not to the detriment of the rest of the UK. There will be another 600 ( ish ) MP's there all looking after their own areas of the UK too remember. The SNP has put forward very openly what they wish to see UK wide ( no Trident renewal, anti-austerity etc )..

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Totally agree. You hear far too much half baked political solutions on here.

We need to set out a plan whereby an independent Scotland can survive and prosper. If such a plan involved significantly higher taxation and/or a much smaller state, then let the Scots decide if that is the kind of society they want.

This is much better than pretending it will all be okay because the ruling party are some kind of superior entity, able to defy the basic laws of maths and economics.

The problem, as HAMISH has graphically demonstrated, is that given the fall in oil revenues have been so vicious that Scotland would most likely be forced to both raise taxes and slash Government spending.

A fiscally independent Scotland would be FUBAR'd. The idea that the NHS in Scotland could continue to treat patients in the same way under fiscal autonomy given the current state of finances is utterly ridiculous.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It would be too much of a shock to England's finances to do that overnight.;)

FFA/Devo Max/As near to federalism as it's possible to get. There are many versions of the above. It's not all or nothing. The Smith Commission made a start.. but it was an extremely weak one, and as shown, one that is unlikely to get through Westminster and the House of Lords without significant changes and watering down still further.

A good number of SNP MP's at the very least should stop it being watered down too much. And advocating for even further powers, is in essence what they are there to do.. but not to the detriment of the rest of the UK. There will be another 600 ( ish ) MP's there all looking after their own areas of the UK too remember. The SNP has put forward very openly what they wish to see UK wide ( no Trident renewal, anti-austerity etc )..

Scotland can't have no austerity and fiscal autonomy as things stand. A vote for fiscal autonomy is, currently, a vote for massive austerity rather like Iceland saw a few years ago.

Luckily for Scotland as part of a currency union with the rest of the UK she would be spared the worst of the horrors faced by Iceland as imports would continue to be available. Still medicines like cutting-edge chemotherapy or retro-virals would only be available for the rich or those able to travel to England.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Err, no he isn't.

Generali focusses on macro level economics. Unsurprisingly really, given that this is an economics forum.

When one particular commodity plays such a big part of your export market, then it is important to pay attention to it.

Some would say the UK as a whole is too fixated on global banking, but we would be stupid to ditch the serious revenues it brings in. The oil industry is no different. We need to support it with the resources the UK can bring.

Some would say Scotland is too dependent on oil prices, yet have little means in the forseeable future for any way of changing this. You and Generali seem unable to grasp that the idea of FFA/Devo Max is talked about so that any over-reliance can be changed, compensated for and other areas of the Scottish economy grown and diversified.

Within the constraints of Barrnett and sticking with 'things as they are' there are no means economically by which Scotland can do so. It gets a fixed grant. Without further fiscal autonomy the Scottish economy will stay, until it runs out, forever over-dependent on oil prices ( <--- if that's what your perspective is ). Change is needed.. and change is what Scotland I guess, is voting to get through their MP's in a few weeks time. They've made no secret about what they are all standing for.

Generali just goes on and on about oil prices never seeing the bigger picture. He was exactly the same when they were high too. For posters like him, and Hamish, there is NEVER, ever going to be any way on in any situation Scotland would survive without the union whether oil prices are rock bottom or at an all time high. And that's about the size of it. The fixation on them gets a little wearing. Like I said, it's hard to answer the same posts 100 times over. And believe me, I was answering the same one's when oil was $110 a barrel ( only then it was going to run out too). But he's welcome, as are you to your view. There are many who feel the same way.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Some would say Scotland is too dependent on oil prices, yet have little means in the forseeable future for any way of changing this. You and Generali seem unable to grasp that the idea of FFA/Devo Max is talked about so that any over-reliance can be changed, compensated for and other areas of the Scottish economy grown and diversified.

Within the constraints of Barrnett and sticking with 'things as they are' there are no means economically by which Scotland can do so. It gets a fixed grant. Without further fiscal autonomy the Scottish economy will stay, until it runs out, forever over-dependent on oil prices ( <--- if that's what your perspective is ). Change is needed.. and change is what Scotland I guess, is voting to get through their MP's in a few weeks time. They've made no secret about what they are all standing for.
...

This just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I can use a clear example. I, along with many others, was involved with the massive growth in the Chinese industrial base.

Do you think that at the end of the 80s, China had sufficient capital to implement the industrial change needed? They had NOWHERE close to those funds.

It was Western capital they managed to attract. This worked because those same investors could see the potential in the economy and it's workforce.

There is no reason why a lean Scotland could not attract major capital investment. It can take years though, and involves tough changes. Don't use Westminster as an excuse holding you back.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Luckily for Scotland as part of a currency union with the rest of the UK she would be spared the worst of the horrors faced by Iceland as imports would continue to be available. Still medicines like cutting-edge chemotherapy or retro-virals would only be available for the rich or those able to travel to England.

The rich in Scotland would always survive such change.

People like Hamish would ply their skills in a welcoming rUK. Money would buy you health support in rUK. There would be plenty of state money spent on change. My IT freelance mates would be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect!

It's the poor people who would be shafted.

..as if Scottish health outcomes weren't poor enough already.

Voltaire7

kabayiri wrote: »

This is much better than pretending it will all be okay because the ruling party are some kind of superior entity, able to defy the basic laws of maths and economics.

Are you taking about the Conservatives?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

any over-reliance can be changed, compensated for and other areas of the Scottish economy grown and diversified.

Perhaps over a 10-20 year period. Under the policies you propose Scotland would be broke today. That ruination would prevent any investment in shifting the focus of Scotland's economy.

IIRC, the SNP's idea was to shift energy production to renewables and then export the surplus. Last time I checked, renewables prices in Scotland were about 3xoil/gas electricity costs (actually slightly less). The change in the prices of gas and oil since would imply that renewables would be about 5-6x the price of oil/gas powered electricity.

What's the new plan for economic diversification?