Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

.string. wrote: »

Actually I don't believe for one moment that the SNP want FFA. It is merely a straw man to be negotiated away, with faux outrage, for a lesser agreement where they can muddy their responsibly and indulge in their fetish of blaming Westminster for the mess they get into.

But as I mentioned before, I don't think that FFA is compatible with being in a Union. As soon as the S NP has cash problems they would stop paying for any common Union activities, roll on their backs and demand to be bailed out.

Unless we see a significant rise in the oil price that would basically be straight away.

FFA isn't necessarily incompatible with Union, the USA has a form I believe. The logical way to bring it in would be for the Union to impose a tax to pay for the military, FCO etc and the Scottish Parliament & local Government then takes everything else.

The problem that Scotland would face is that as her economy fell off a cliff in the face of the massive austerity that the SNP would be forced to implement , the Union tax would be harder and harder to pay. As for the taxes to pay for Scottish stuff? That tax base would also be hollowed out but would only be Scotland's problem.

kabayiri

There was an interesting comment on the Wright Show earlier.

There was a comment that at the moment the rest of the Union is subsidising Scotland.

Mr Wright countered by suggesting that the UK as a whole benefitted from Oil revenues in earlier years.

This feels like reparation. Is there genuinely a view that Scotland deserves to walk away with a generous settlement in any split due to previous contributions?

If you take into account historic contribution from all regions then it would get extremely complicated.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Unless we see a significant rise in the oil price that would basically be straight away.

I find this independence goal a conundrum.

If there was serious help provided to Scotland to diversify her Industrial Base and attract more revenue then it would strengthen the argument for becoming independent. I don't think this is something the main UK parties want.

However, if you continue to plough socialist style spending into Scotland don't you just increase the dependency culture on that spending, making it harder to break away?

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

There was an interesting comment on the Wright Show earlier.

There was a comment that at the moment the rest of the Union is subsidising Scotland.

Mr Wright countered by suggesting that the UK as a whole benefitted from Oil revenues in earlier years.

This feels like reparation. Is there genuinely a view that Scotland deserves to walk away with a generous settlement in any split due to previous contributions?

If you take into account historic contribution from all regions then it would get extremely complicated.

If you included the initial £300,000 debt that Scotland brought into the Union and compound it at the BoE base rate you get about £1,000,000,000,000. That should clearly be offset against any reparation for oil revenues.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

There was an interesting comment on the Wright Show earlier.

There was a comment that at the moment the rest of the Union is subsidising Scotland.

Mr Wright countered by suggesting that the UK as a whole benefitted from Oil revenues in earlier years.

This feels like reparation. Is there genuinely a view that Scotland deserves to walk away with a generous settlement in any split due to previous contributions?

No, and it's usually best not to conflate an offhand comment on a daytime breakfast show with the feelings of 5 million people.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey I know what I think, but I'm interested in what your analysis is, especially since, if I recall correctly, you said that FFA would be a sharp shock, or some such wording, do you evidently have a different opinion.

No I didn't actually. Generali did and ( see posts above ) keeps saying it. Seems unaware of gradual transfer of powers and responsibilities, as opposed to one day Scotland is as now, the next day it isn't. Even independence would've taken a while to implement.

If you're not convinced Scotland wants FFA then see all polls that ask the question since 2011. If you're not convinced the SNP want FFA or independence, then you're living on a different planet from the rest of us down in reality.

Any sharp, shock, I alluded to will be in the form of another referendum. No-one is suggesting another one at the present time. So we should concentrate on realities perhaps.

As to what I think re the two articles you posted. Why don't you go first ? :cool:

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, and it's usually best not to conflate an offhand comment on a daytime breakfast show with the feelings of 5 million people.

To be fair I think he was volunteering a suggestion to counter the hard facts here and now view.

If anything it was pro Scottish.

....besides, it's a brunch show

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

To be fair I think he was volunteering a suggestion to counter the hard facts here and now view.

If anything it was pro Scottish.

....besides, it's a brunch show

Playing 'devil's advocate' to get the chat flowing. I see. But I didn't say he was being anti-scottish. I was just questioning the bit in your post where you said 'is this really how they feel in Scotland ?'.. then went on to expand a bit on historical reparations etc.

But since it was a brunch show, rather than a breakfast one, then that's fine.

6 August 2014

If you minus Scotland’s total tax receipts generated per person since 1980 from the average for the UK, they’ve contributed a surplus of £222 billion in today’s prices (again, counting Scotland’s geographical share of North Sea oil and gas).
But, on the basis of a population share, or just looking at the taxes it generates on dry land, Scotland generates fewer taxes per person than the UK average.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/phoebearnold/9-claims-from-the-scottish-independence-debate-fact-checked?bffbuk

There's good years, bad years when it comes to oil prices.. then there's overall. Dry land does need to catch up, but Scotland needs the levers to do so. But with FFA or independence re oil it would of course be the geographical share that matters, overall. Generali is far too caught up in oil prices over the last 3 or 4 months and in awe of Hamish's ( biased as WingsoverScotland's ) posts. There's a much bigger picture. The above piece it has to be said, was generally negative re independence. Just so you don't think I'm quoting something out of context. But feel free to do a spreadsheet or something on the oil tax receipts since 1980.. and then use Hamish's crystal ball to predict oil prices for the next 10-20.

GERS itself is also full of estimates from the Treasury. Who seem reluctant to let the SNP anywhere near it. Hopefully someone will get the chance for a dig through in the coming months and years just to clarify. If Scotland is never going to survive either FFA or independence, I think we should have the right to know with 100% transparency if that IS the case. But with the likes of the McCrone report coming to light a few years ago.. it's very hard to trust what we're being told.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Where did you get all that from ? I've read David Torrance's biography ( he's not exactly a Salmond fan either but he is fair ), and Iain McWhirters books. I don't recognise anything much you've said above as true.

.

The first section is my own view or observation. No more no less, but still allowed in a debate. As it happens I think that fellow Torrance has come close to it. He's praised , Salmond's skill in succeeding in being so critical and scathing of Labour and Tory , without alienating or insulting the people who traditionally voted for them by inference.

The second section re Swinney etc come from comments made by both Swinney and Geoff Aberdein in Alex the Rebel. Was quite a revelation that programme, in more ways than one or five. And not in the way I think Salmond envisaged.

Apologies for going off topic to all, just wanted to answer STDs question. Back to the the economy and a question.

Is the the recent paper Scotlands Economic Strategy 2015, workable or relevant to today's circumstances and if so, how long would it take. I started reading it, but gave up half way, as it seemed repetitive. But I'm no economist.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

There was an interesting comment on the Wright Show earlier.

There was a comment that at the moment the rest of the Union is subsidising Scotland.

Mr Wright countered by suggesting that the UK as a whole benefitted from Oil revenues in earlier years.

This feels like reparation. Is there genuinely a view that Scotland deserves to walk away with a generous settlement in any split due to previous contributions?

If you take into account historic contribution from all regions then it would get extremely complicated.

Next the Incas will be suing the Spanish Catholic Church for the return of their gold.

Nor forget that the British Empire pillaged the world to make the UK as wealthy as it became.

The world moves on.