Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh. Ok.... ( you didn't read it did you ).

and you point is what?

that Scotlands situation is totally different in virtually every way, to the 'eastern block' ex communist countries and that there are no lessons for scotland to learn?

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

and you point is what?

that Scotlands situation is totally different in virtually every way, to the 'eastern block' ex communist countries and that there are no lessons for scotland to learn?

It's an economist responding to Deutsche economic predictions just before the ref last year. This is what I meant when I say there are 10 opinions for every one economic question. 1000's in the case of Scottish independence. The reality would likely fall somewhere in the middle of it all. Not as good as the SNP claim, a lot of upheaval however, new opportunities..but nowhere near as apocalyptic as Westminster claim either, though still risky.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's an economist responding to Deutsche economic predictions just before the ref last year. This is what I meant when I say there are 10 opinions for every one economic question. 1000's in the case of Scottish independence. The reality would likely fall somewhere in the middle of it all. Not as good as the SNP claim, a lot of upheaval however, new opportunities..but nowhere near as apocalyptic as Westminster claim either, though still risky.

Haha.

There aren't ten economist answers to a potentially independent Scotland's finances right now. There are two: grim and impossible.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's an economist responding to Deutsche economic predictions just before the ref last year. This is what I meant when I say there are 10 opinions for every one economic question. 1000's in the case of Scottish independence. The reality would likely fall somewhere in the middle of it all. Not as good as the SNP claim, a lot of upheaval however, new opportunities..but nowhere near as apocalyptic as Westminster claim either, though still risky.

what exactly did Westminster claim? is it documented somewhere?

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Haha.

There aren't ten economist answers to a potentially independent Scotland's finances right now. There are two: grim and impossible.

Yes, that's why there are different 'predictions' all over the place. Above is one economist saying it would be ok, and another predicting an apocalypse. 99.9% of 'predictions' these days from economists are politically motivated when it comes to Scotland.

"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today."
- Lawrence J. Peter

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion"- G.B. Shaw

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

what exactly did Westminster claim? is it documented somewhere?

My mistake.;)

David Cameron 2007

First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3639114/Scots-and-English-flourish-in-the-Union.html

.string.

The "Biding Time" remarks from our SNP acolytes, emphasises the need for some precautionary thinking.

I'd like to add another variable into the discussion, namely the time elapsing between a neverendum rerurning a Yes result and the Union with Scotland being dissolved.

As I understand the SNP tactics, they wish to use all means to grow the infrastructure and diversify Scotland's infrastructure as much as they can until it is "ripe" for a new Referendum on separation.

Of course growing Scotland etc is all good news from a Union perspective, same as any other part of the UK but the clear separatist agenda of the SNP makes the idea of paying for that at the normal 10:1 ratio makes that a decidedly risky and probably fruitless investment from the Union perspective.

The SNP proposal for FFA was an attempted Con, laughable in it's transparency, to obtain an extended build-up to a viable economic state, while meanwhile accepting, not gratefully, the UK subsidy.

If a future Referendum were to return Yes, I would thus propose and hope that the above strategy would not be permitted and would therefore like to see permission for a legal referendum being given only on the condition that the Union was dissolved with, say 1 Yr (18 months max) of the date of the Referendum. In that I note that the Union can be dissolved unilaterally by the UK Government. This would limit the bleeding of UK resources to the detriment of the rUK. Otherwise I would be concerned that the SNP would spin out discussions, gleefully pocketing yet more handouts.

One can only put up with the mendacious SNP policies for so long and at a certain point the UK must concentrate on its own ok interests.

Should such an approach be countered on the claim that it was somehow "undemocratic" and that "Scotland should make the decision", then the Referendum would be a UK-wide referendum, truly a democratic process where the "UK will decide"".

elantan

Shake did u get that pm ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

The "Biding Time" remarks from our SNP acolytes, emphasises the need for some precautionary thinking.

I'd like to add another variable into the discussion, namely the time elapsing between a neverendum rerurning a Yes result and the Union with Scotland being dissolved.

As I understand the SNP tactics, they wish to use all means to grow the infrastructure and diversify Scotland's infrastructure as much as they can until it is "ripe" for a new Referendum on separation.

Of course growing Scotland etc is all good news from a Union perspective, same as any other part of the UK but the clear separatist agenda of the SNP makes the idea of paying for that at the normal 10:1 ratio makes that a decidedly risky and probably fruitless investment from the Union perspective.

The SNP proposal for FFA was an attempted Con, laughable in it's transparency, to obtain an extended build-up to a viable economic state, while meanwhile accepting, not gratefully, the UK subsidy.

If a future Referendum were to return Yes, I would thus propose and hope that the above strategy would not be permitted and would therefore like to see permission for a legal referendum being given only on the condition that the Union was dissolved with, say 1 Yr (18 months max) of the date of the Referendum. In that I note that the Union can be dissolved unilaterally by the UK Government. This would limit the bleeding of UK resources to the detriment of the rUK. Otherwise I would be concerned that the SNP would spin out discussions, gleefully pocketing yet more handouts.

One can only put up with the mendacious SNP policies for so long and at a certain point the UK must concentrate on its own ok interests.

Should such an approach be countered on the claim that it was somehow "undemocratic" and that "Scotland should make the decision", then the Referendum would be a UK-wide referendum, truly a democratic process where the "UK will decide"".

FFA ? or Federalism... Labour's coming round to the idea too. Or at least some of them.

Britain needs wholesale federalisation – and Labour must lead the way Chuka Umunna

....It would mean a system of what I call “devo default”: the assumption that power should be devolved from the centre unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. It would mean making Westminster a place where strong regional and city authorities meet to discuss and decide on matters affecting the whole country; perhaps with the House of Lords as a senate of sub-national representatives.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/britain-wholesale-federalisation-devolution-local-communities

...and Scottish Labour, have now decided once again, that the only way to prevent independence.. is to declare more independence from the shackles of Westminster Labour.

I wouldn't worry about an independence timeline just yet. 18 months-ish should be fine. Unless there are disagreements.. which there most likely would be. So who knows.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Shake did u get that pm ?

Yes. I've replied.