Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

elantan wrote: »

ahhh but you cant afford it.... your too wee to handle it... your no smart enough to be able to be in control of it ... well we gotta try cause WM kept trying that with us and some people believed it ...

As HAMISH says, oil is (or rather was) 15% of Scotland's GDP but only 1% of British GDP. If the oil price halves, when the oil price halved, it had no impact whatsoever on the British economy: the deflationary effect of the loss of revenue was easily offset by the reduced cost of fuel etc.

If Scotland was an independent country they'd be facing a trade crisis coupled with having to make up a deficit of 20%+ of spending.

Thankfully, membership of the Union means that armchair revolutionaries can simply ignore what the results of their fantasies would be. If Ms Sturgeon really is stupid enough to force FFA on Scotland before oil prices go up, if they ever do, then the Scottish people are in for a deeply unpleasant experience.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

elantan wrote: »

Or someone that likes the idea of governing themselves

Which we can absolutely do, if we choose to give up the £14.1 BILLION pounds a year subsidy from the rest of the UK that pays for all the leftist, socialist, profligate spending ways we have become addicted to.

Slash Scottish state spending by 20%, so 1 in 5 public sector workers get the sack, 20% of benefits get cut, etc, and then let the people decide if it's worth it.

That would be the honest way to achieve 'self governance'.

Not the blatant lies and propaganda the SNP and Yes campaign have fed their ill-informed and naive supporters.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The case can't be damaged, because 45% of the Scottish electorate voted for full independence just 7 short months ago. FFA or moves towards it is the consolation prize..

The booby prize you mean.

Having just won a reprieve from the drastic £14 BILLION pounds of cuts that indy would have wrought, you now want to implement them via FFA.

That takes a particular kind of masochism which only a nationalist would think is worthwhile.

Hence why Sturgeon was almost booed out of the hall for even mentioning it....

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The booby prize you mean.

Having just won a reprieve from the drastic £14 BILLION pounds of cuts that indy would have wrought, you now want to implement them via FFA.

That takes a particular kind of masochism which only a nationalist would think is worthwhile.

Hence why Sturgeon was almost booed out of the hall for even mentioning it....

I don't know, I didn't see the Tuesday one and skimmed last night's one. Booed or not in the hall, those watching at home didn't seem particularly bothered. No-one's up for another referendum right now. And what Nicola actually said re FFA was "Sturgeon revealed that she wanted it “as quickly as the other parties agree to give it” and that SNP MPs would vote for it in the next Westminster parliament.". Not a surprise. That's the long game for you Hamish.

We're all happy to wait and see what this very unpredictable election offers up first, and take it from there. Anything else is just froth and unnecessary carping about non-existent Scottish deficits and volatile oil prices.

One thing I do have to point out though, is that there are many Scots sick hearing about how crap Scotland was, is and will be forever more, and can see no way of changing that through the current status quo. Something's gonna give sooner or later. And the current boring old re-run of independence arguements against FFA, and from Labour ?. are falling on a lot of deaf ears. Rightly or wrongly, that's how it is. Been well over-played now, and people aren't taking much notice of the 'Blow to ( insert whatever ) ' headlines anymore. They're just part of everyday life in Scotland now, have been for the last 3 years.

The long game though.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Och away...

Reality is Scotland paid in more than it took out for a very brief couple of oil boom decades in the 300 years plus of union..... now the oil is declining rapidly it's our turn for payback.

They are subsidising us now, have been for years, and will be for as long as we stay in the union and milk them for it.

Only a complete blithering idiot would turn down a multi-billion pound a year handout from westminster.

'Tis the nature of this diverse island nation over our short history.

At one time Welsh coal was pretty important, likewise Yorkshire and North East coal.

The prosperity of the North ; King Cotton ; there's another example of the emergence of a prosperous region.

Tin mining, minerals from Cornwall. That's another.

Right now, we need a strong financial contribution from London. Things may change in the future.

I can't see why people see diversity of income as a bad thing.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Something's gonna give sooner or later.

A good old dose of Anglo-Saxon realism taking hold one hopes!:)

I caught most of the second Scots debate, and I have to say Sturgeon cut a rather pathetic figure trying to make the case for FFA in an oil slump whilst simultaneously trying not to scare Scots by saying FFA was imminent.
To those on here who are happy with FFA or independence whatever the cost, enjoy the current polls while you can this is the high watermark for Scottish Nationalism I feel.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't know, I didn't see the Tuesday one and skimmed last night's one. Booed or not in the hall, those watching at home didn't seem particularly bothered. No-one's up for another referendum right now. And what Nicola actually said re FFA was "Sturgeon revealed that she wanted it “as quickly as the other parties agree to give it” and that SNP MPs would vote for it in the next Westminster parliament.". Not a surprise. That's the long game for you Hamish.

We're all happy to wait and see what this very unpredictable election offers up first, and take it from there. Anything else is just froth and unnecessary carping about non-existent Scottish deficits and volatile oil prices.

One thing I do have to point out though, is that there are many Scots sick hearing about how crap Scotland was, is and will be forever more, and can see no way of changing that through the current status quo. Something's gonna give sooner or later. And the current boring old re-run of independence arguements against FFA, and from Labour ?. are falling on a lot of deaf ears. Rightly or wrongly, that's how it is. Been well over-played now, and people aren't taking much notice of the 'Blow to ( insert whatever ) ' headlines anymore. They're just part of everyday life in Scotland now, have been for the last 3 years.

The long game though.

If the Scots are sick of hearing how crap they are it's totally self inflicted.
Only their self imposed inferiority complex and enormous chip on the shoulder and eagerness to accept the corrupt Barnett formula plus the 'anything but the English' rubbish is responsible.

The English never say the Scots are crap although there is the occasional resentment of the unfair Barnett formula and the constant SNP whining for England to borrow more money to support the benefit and handout culture of Scotland.

It is a well established observation that dependent people often resent the hand that feeds them.

Scotland would be a stronger region if they collectively rejected the Barnett formula and argued for equal and fair distribution of the wealth of the UK to all the people and openly acknowledge the unpleasant racist of 'anyone but the English' and the awful Flower of Scotland.

Basically i support the independence of Scotland because, like Ireland before you, it will take 100 years for many to grow up.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

'Tis the nature of this diverse island nation over our short history.

At one time Welsh coal was pretty important, likewise Yorkshire and North East coal.

The prosperity of the North ; King Cotton ; there's another example of the emergence of a prosperous region.

Tin mining, minerals from Cornwall. That's another.

Right now, we need a strong financial contribution from London. Things may change in the future.

I can't see why people see diversity of income as a bad thing.

On the contribution of the Financial Sector - it is not that easy to find but the following gives some insight.

Financial Services: contribution to the UK economy.

That shows that about £127 billion gross were contributed last year, distributed from the different regions of the UK (see Table 2)

Of which London contributed £60.5 billion and Scotland £8.2 billion.

It is worth noting that the financial contribution of the Banking Sector outweighs that of North Sea oil.

Had Scotland separated, the contribution of the banking sector to Scotland's finances would have probably reduced - see Scottish banking and finance which would have added to the financial woes and shrunk - let's say by £4 billion, assuming only half left since many major customers are in UKr.

Below you will find the SNP's forecast of the financial comings and goings in the first year of separation, copied from the so called Scotland's Future.. Sorry about the loss of tabular form. (Page 75).

where you can appreciate the added impact of the loss of the financial sector, not to mention oil revenue.

Note also that that table does not mention paying back the national debt, only the interest on Scotland's share, according to two criteria, presumably because the ingoing assumption was that the UKr would pay it all until interest payments reached zero.

TABLE C

TABLE – ESTIMATE OF SCOTLAND'S FINANCIAL POSITION (2016/17) £ BILLIONS – UNDER CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Total Expenditure (Non-Debt Interest) £63.7
Currently Devolved £37.3
Defence £3.0
Reserved Social Protection £18.8
Other Reserved Spending £4.6
Public Sector Debt Interest (1) £3.9 to £5.5
Total Public Sector Receipts £63.7 to £64.8
Onshore Receipts £56.9
Offshore receipts £6.8 - £7.9
Net Fiscal Balance (2)
Including historical share of debt interest payments -£2.7 to -£4.0
Including population share of debt interest payments -£4.3 to -£5.5
As Percentage of GDP -2.5% to -3.2%
UK Public Sector Net Borrowing(3) -£61
As % of GDP -3.4%

Figures are rounded to the nearest hundreds of millions and therefore may not sum
(1)Range based on historical or population share
(2)Scottish Government Projection
(3)Office for Budget Responsibility- March 203 Economical & Fiscal Outlook

Generali

One of the advantages for FFA would be that it would allow Scotland to retain a financial services sector of size.

Independence would force most South of the border as banks can't survive without the subsidy that is the state guarantee. Scotland's Government would be too small to provide that.

Anyhoo, that's all behind us now.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

One of the advantages for FFA would be that it would allow Scotland to retain a financial services sector of size.

Independence would force most South of the border as banks can't survive without the subsidy that is the state guarantee. Scotland's Government would be too small to provide that.

Anyhoo, that's all behind us now.

Would FFA be an advantage? - remember what I pointed out before; FFA would mean that Scotland did not contribute enough to the UK to earn financial security. If they did contribute anything you can be sure it would only be a nominal amount and since everything would be under Scottish Full Fiscal Control even that is not certain if Scotland gets into financial difficulties (think Greece).

If Scotland's finances went bust or even downhill, it would leave the UK with an obligation to bail them out. That would be far too risky for us poor sods who would have to foot the bill; it's the same situation that we all discussed in connection with a separated Scotland formally keeping the pound.


FFA is not compatible with Union, as I keep pointing out.