Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

gosh and I thought the result was NO
I must have read the unionist media

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

gosh and I thought the result was NO
I must have read the unionist media

Don't worry, it was a kind of NO, the unionist media generate so much random nonsense that even they occasionally get things right by accident.

And don't apologise for reading the unionist media, we all understand it was the only media available.:o

The good news is the SNP have gone away now, nobody ever heard from them again and the union lived happily ever after.:beer:

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Don't worry, it was a kind of NO, the unionist media generate so much random nonsense that even they occasionally get things right by accident.

And don't apologise for reading the unionist media, we all understand it was the only media available.:o

The good news is the SNP have gone away now, nobody ever heard from them again and the union lived happily ever after.:beer:

and there I was misunderstanding you
I thought you were saying the unionist press alienated the (otherwise naive unionist) scots into becoming YES voters
but there, I'm easily confused

anyway we can all look forward to May 2016 and see what unfolds

you can be assured on my support whatever the outcome.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Shake can I send u a pm ?

Of course.

Shakethedisease

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.

The problem however, is that that politics is overtaking the economics. For every Wings there's a Kevin Hague. Both using the same figures and coming up with whatever answer suits. For every economic black hole report storming the headlines, there's another widely read one online debunking it and vice versa for pro indy. It's kind of a problem for economics. There are always about 10 different answers to every one question. About 50% of the Scottish electorate don't bother with the MSM any more anyway. For every person that says Scottish independence is too risky, there's one saying it's an opportunity and so on an so on.

I'm afraid at the end of the day it really is votes and politics that count. Those that concentrate solely on economics/oil and currency are fast receding into yesterdays news. There's a perfect political storm brewing for the SNP. Far more perfect than in 2011. The Tories have a majority ! And they're doing all sorts of things that take Scots voters right back to 1979 and beyond again. Only this time the party that will 'protect Scotland' from the Tories isn't Labour. And has independence front and centre as a way out. All they have to do is keep calm, show repeatedly that sending Scottish MP's of any party to Westminster is totally pointless. And that there will never be any REAL changes from Westminster ( Vow, crap Scotland Bill, EVEL, Trident, Human Rights, Tories in power for the next 10 years )... and offer to, er, 'dissolve the union'. If people believe strongly enough that Westminster politics isn't working for them... then they'll vote out regardless of any economic argument to the contrary. <---- because there will be loads either side to choose from anyway.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Don't worry, it was a kind of NO, the unionist media generate so much random nonsense that even they occasionally get things right by accident.

And don't apologise for reading the unionist media, we all understand it was the only media available.:o

The good news is the SNP have gone away now, nobody ever heard from them again and the union lived happily ever after.:beer:

Actually it was a bit of a thrashing in the end. No got a majority of over 10% which is huge in a two horse race, especially when you consider that No started out with the disadvantage of being the negative choice, a position now noted by the Electoral Commission and not being used for the EU referendum.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The problem however, is that that politics is overtaking the economics. For every Wings there's a Kevin Hague. Both using the same figures and coming up with whatever answer suits. For every economic black hole report storming the headlines, there's another widely read one online debunking it and vice versa for pro indy. It's kind of a problem for economics. There are always about 10 different answers to every one question. About 50% of the Scottish electorate don't bother with the MSM any more anyway. For every person that says Scottish independence is too risky, there's one saying it's an opportunity and so on an so on.

I'm afraid at the end of the day it really is votes and politics that count. Those that concentrate solely on economics/oil and currency are fast receding into yesterdays news. There's a perfect political storm brewing for the SNP. Far more perfect than in 2011. The Tories have a majority ! And they're doing all sorts of things that take Scots voters right back to 1979 and beyond again. Only this time the party that will 'protect Scotland' from the Tories isn't Labour. And has independence front and centre as a way out. All they have to do is keep calm, show repeatedly that sending Scottish MP's of any party to Westminster is totally pointless. And that there will never be any REAL changes from Westminster ( Vow, crap Scotland Bill, EVEL, Trident, Human Rights, Tories in power for the next 10 years )... and offer to, er, 'dissolve the union'. If people believe strongly enough that Westminster politics isn't working for them... then they'll vote out regardless of any economic argument to the contrary. <---- because there will be loads either side to choose from anyway.

The political problem if Yes wins a second referendum of course is what the hell do you do with the vast number of people that voted No last time in the belief that they had won "for a generation". We mock the EU for making countries hold fresh votes until they come up with the right answer yet this is a model for Scottish independence....?

Even if you believe the figures are cooked up by the hated English, surely even the most dyed in the wool independence seeking SNP fan must concede that when your biggest export and major source of taxation and well-paid employment tanks in price, perhaps that will have some kind of negative impact on the country's fiscal position.

If Scots people want to vote for poverty then more fool them. When they get their chance, "in a generation", hopefully the economy will have picked up a bit.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The political problem if Yes wins a second referendum of course is what the hell do you do with the vast number of people that voted No last time in the belief that they had won "for a generation". We mock the EU for making countries hold fresh votes until they come up with the right answer yet this is a model for Scottish independence....?

If you don't want another referendum. Then you don't vote for the SNP. It's as simple as that. As am sure vast numbers of No voters won't vote SNP for this very reason. The problem is that there may be even 'vaster' voters that will. We'll see.

Even if you believe the figures are cooked up by the hated English, surely even the most dyed in the wool independence seeking SNP fan must concede that when your biggest export and major source of taxation and well-paid employment tanks in price, perhaps that will have some kind of negative impact on the country's fiscal position.

If Scots people want to vote for poverty then more fool them. When they get their chance, "in a generation", hopefully the economy will have picked up a bit.

Some think that all of the above is a consequence of remaining in the Union. And that all the crappy figures you quote are as a direct result of mismanagement and not really having Scotland's best economic interests as any sort of priority. And of course, that's only to be expected and is fine as the UK govt has a big remit. That is, until people DO start voting for a party that has Scotland's best economic and social interests as a priority... end of. But some would see the figures you quote as evidence that Scotland's economic and financial health.. isn't going to get any better, nor ever have any opportunity to, while things remain as they are and have been for a very long time.

Whatever you think of the SNP. They do really and truly believe that Scotland would be best off, outside the union and free to make her own economic decisions based on Scotland's, and only Scotland's best interests. There's nothing malevolent in that. France, Australia, Denmark, Germany and just about every other independent country in the world do exactly the same. As am sure would England should the union come to an end ( this one and the EU for England ). Isn't that after all why there was to be no currency union ? <---- England acting in England's best interests ?

zenmaster

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, hating a piece of cloth is a bit weird

I'm not a big fan of the kilt.

elantan wrote: »

... we build some boats but I think we could build more ...

CLAPTON wrote: »

isn't the majority of scottish ship building commissioned by westminster?

I was going to mention that.

It was clearly a bribe. It could have, should have, gone Clydeside or Devonport. I wonder if Scotland are likely to see a piece of the Trident action.

To my mind, now would be an excellent time to [STRIKE]scrap[/STRIKE] renegotiate the Barnett formula. We have the upper hand and, as I recall, there would be only 1 dissenting voice that counts.

princeofpounds

Scotland is running a deficit of ~16% where ~5% is probably sustainable.

Even that is a very generous estimate of sustainability, given the level of the national debt and the rate of GDP growth (which as you correctly point out would be initially horribly negative with an independent fiscal position, though much better after the crash and devaluation).


I find this aspect of the debate (monetary and financial policy) really interesting, because in articulating it people would probably assume I am a die-hard unionist. But this is the real economics of the situation, absent an eternal oil price boom.


I am, just to reinforce that point, also happy to acknowledge that Scotland would be a much more vibrant place economically if it had its own currency.


It would probably also be a much more enterprising and right wing society, shedding some of the statist fug that has surrounded it since the UK deindustrialised.


But it would take that huge mark-down to get there. It would be a poorer country, in international purchasing power terms, something more like a Slovenia or a Spain perhaps.

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

Even that is a very generous estimate of sustainability, given the level of the national debt and the rate of GDP growth (which as you correctly point out would be initially horribly negative with an independent fiscal position, though much better after the crash and devaluation).
I find this aspect of the debate (monetary and financial policy) really interesting, because in articulating it people would probably assume I am a die-hard unionist. But this is the real economics of the situation, absent an eternal oil price boom.
I am, just to reinforce that point, also happy to acknowledge that Scotland would be a much more vibrant place economically if it had its own currency.

It would probably also be a much more enterprising and right wing society, shedding some of the statist fug that has surrounded it since the UK deindustrialised.

But it would take that huge mark-down to get there. It would be a poorer country, in international purchasing power terms, something more like a Slovenia or a Spain perhaps.

To clarify, I mean that the markets would probably wear borrowing at that sort of level for a few years. Clearly, borrowing can't be higher than GDP growth for long as otherwise you lose your ability to service the debt. That's just maths.