Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

elantan wrote: »

How do you think the rUK will manage without Scotland Generali ?

I don't think Scotland will be independent in my lifetime. The SNP had the golden opportunity and blew it. It's hard to think of a better opportunity than $100/bbl oil, a weak Government in Westminster and a referendum that only needed a simple majority.

If they couldn't win in those circumstances it's hard to envisage a set of circumstances that would allow a Yes win unless the Scots get to a point where they simply hate the English so much that they want out of the Union at any price.

The economics of quitting the Union are horrible for Scotland and that's if we assume that they can simply join the EU. Being out of the UK and the EU would be a disaster.

The only way I could see Scotland leaving as being economically feasible would be if the UK voted to quit the EU so the EU let Scotland in on a sweetheart deal. It strikes me as a vanishingly unlikely set of events but you never know...

Are Scottish separatists willing to subject Scotland to a lifetime of poverty? Leaving the UK and staying in the EU would mean a ~20% drop in GDP over a year or two. Leaving both doesn't bear thinking about. Perhaps a 1/3rd drop in GDP????

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Nah, it was nothing to do with anything English. It was the best of the options available in terms of currency. As far as being torn apart by the media every single option would've been whatever it was. A currency union was the simply the easiest to present and was what the Fiscal Commission recommended at the time.



I'm sure you did ( in terms of 'reflecting').. But then again, you live quite far away and rely on online newspapers for info on Scottish politics.

The English made it crystal clear that there would be no currency union. No means no.

It might have been the best perceived outcome for an independent Scotland but Unionist MPs aren't required to deliver the best outcome for an independent Scotland.

Generali

elantan wrote: »

My understanding is that sterling was to be a transitional thing ... not for ever ... Sillars actively campaigned against a currency union, a lot of people seem to either forget or not be aware that there were many players in the search for independence. .. I don't agree with with being in Europe for example and would vote to leave ... but I have no issue with EFTA ... roughly the same as other coutries

And all these things really should be hammered out before the next indy ref tbh ... we don't need the distractions

It really did feel like Yes was winging quite a lot of stuff, especially on the currency.

The daft thing is that an independent Scotland would be far better off with her own currency. The last thing you want is to have monetary policy set to reflect conditions in London or Lisbon.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

The whole currency thing was appallingly handled. AFAICS the policy was to force the English into a currency union. Hmm.....

I felt it reflected the 'cake and eat it' nature of the whole campaign where the SNP tried to claim that a victorious Scotland would be strutting around the world stage demanding and getting whatever they wanted. That was never a likely outcome from a Yes vote.

I'm pretty sure all you got in Aus was the British media's extremely one-sided take on the whole business where Torygraph/Mail journos churned out editorials and polemics about a future split they couldn't really marshall the wit to imagine. Even the Economist joined in IIRC.

I think the SNP must feel they've done very well out of their NO vote.
if they had got a YES it would have been a narrow margin.
They would have been the ones to suffer buyers remorse.
They would have to take the blame for any belt-tightening.
People would have continued their usual habit of voting in unionist parties' MPs in the May election to leverage a good exit deal.
If the economy was at a low ebb they'd have taken a kicking in the first independent Scottish elections next year and the party itself may have splintered.

Now everything that goes wrong is still under Westminster's watch.
People are queuing to join.
They've got some offered powers whose inadequacies they can highlight and pick over and moan about.
The voters have realised their only choices are a party that talks about Scotland all the time or else three useless irrelevant parties who just talk about the SNP all the time.

Turned out that what didn't kill them really did just make them stronger.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

The English made it crystal clear that there would be no currency union. No means no.

It might have been the best perceived outcome for an independent Scotland but Unionist MPs aren't required to deliver the best outcome for an independent Scotland.

I don't think there was concensus on this decision though was there?

If there was another referendum I reckon this question will come up again...the government will make their No proclamation ... the separatists will disagree, and noone will be any the wiser.

It will be like groundhog day

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I'm pretty sure all you got in Aus was the British media's extremely one-sided take on the whole business where Torygraph/Mail journos churned out editorials and polemics about a future split they couldn't really marshall the wit to imagine. Even the Economist joined in IIRC.

I think the SNP must feel they've done very well out of their NO vote.
if they had got a YES it would have been a narrow margin.
They would have been the ones to suffer buyers remorse.
They would have to take the blame for any belt-tightening.
People would have continued their usual habit of voting in unionist party's MPs in the May election to leverage a good exit deal.
If the economy was at a low ebb they'd have taken a kicking in the first independent Scottish elections next year and the party itself may have splintered.

Now everything that goes wrong is still under Westminster's watch.
People are queuing to join.
They've got some offered powers whose inadequacies they can highlight and pick over and moan about.
The voters have realised their only choices are a party that talks about Scotland all the time or else three useless irrelevant parties who just talk about the SNP all the time.

Turned out that what didn't kill them really did just make them stronger.

If the aim was 'more SNP' then the outcome was a rip roaring success. If the aim was an independent Scotland then obviously the outcome was an abject failure.

To see why Scottish independence is doomed never to happen, all you really need is an A' Level of understanding of macro economics. Scotland is running a deficit of ~16% where ~5% is probably sustainable. That means a cut of 10% of Government spending would be required if independence was won. That is about 5% of GDP and given that estimates for the multiplier in the UK vary from 0.9 - 1.7 that implies a fall in real GDP over ~18 months as a result of independence of 4.5-8.5% in the first instance just from the drop in Government spending. To put that into context, the UK's GDP fell by 7.2% in the period following the Credit Crunch.

I simply can't see people voting for that.

As to the newspapers. I'm quite capable of independent thought and the above, simple analysis is enough to tell me why independence for Scotland is a pipe dream.

I've only examined the direct fiscal consequences of independence in the most facile way. How much investment in Scotland do you think big business would undertake given an uncertain future vis-a-vis being able to export what was made to England let alone to the EU?

You've really gotta hate the English to want to impose that on a nation simply to get rid of them.

CLAPTON

May 16 will be the key time


If the SNP momentum is sustained then there should be 60-70% vote for the SNP


Nicola will of course conduction lots of secret polls to see the strength for independence


if above 60 % ish then the campaign for a new referendum will become intense


interesting times

elantan

Shake can I send u a pm ?

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

If the aim was 'more SNP' then the outcome was a rip roaring success. If the aim was an independent Scotland then obviously the outcome was an abject failure.

To see why Scottish independence is doomed never to happen, all you really need is an A' Level of understanding of macro economics. Scotland is running a deficit of ~16% where ~5% is probably sustainable. That means a cut of 10% of Government spending would be required if independence was won. That is about 5% of GDP and given that estimates for the multiplier in the UK vary from 0.9 - 1.7 that implies a fall in real GDP over ~18 months as a result of independence of 4.5-8.5% in the first instance just from the drop in Government spending. To put that into context, the UK's GDP fell by 7.2% in the period following the Credit Crunch.

I simply can't see people voting for that.

As to the newspapers. I'm quite capable of independent thought and the above, simple analysis is enough to tell me why independence for Scotland is a pipe dream.

I've only examined the direct fiscal consequences of independence in the most facile way. How much investment in Scotland do you think big business would undertake given an uncertain future vis-a-vis being able to export what was made to England let alone to the EU?

You've really gotta hate the English to want to impose that on a nation simply to get rid of them.

You may well find they do vote for it.

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't think there was concensus on this decision though was there?

If there was another referendum I reckon this question will come up again...the government will make their No proclamation ... the separatists will disagree, and noone will be any the wiser.

The unionist media may have had some true points to make but they buried it too deep in obvious nonsense which nobody with a multi-digit IQ could take seriously. Frankly anybody could have gargled alphabet soup and puked more plausible sentences.

You won't remember it but people were talking about driving on the right, bombing airfields, splitting off counties, being expelled from NATO, the EU, the Scouting movement and the Lollipop League. Or something.

Wait and see. All that has to happen is that the Tories keep doing things that look a bit anti-Scottish. And what's the chances of that happening?

elantan

Labour even came out with some sort of alien rubbish ... honestly it was NUTS here