Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

It's an interesting (and a tad infantile) argument that says Scotland as a constituent part of the UK deserves higher public spending simply because they might be richer if they were an independent nation!
If being in the Union is such a drain on the true wealth Scotland, it begs the question why did YES lose of course.
I'm in favour of total tax and spend autonomy for Scotland now as you cannot give a people almost total political autonomy yet rely on other people's taxes to make it work. The only problem with that of course if you're Scot, is you replace the relative certainty of the UK block grant weighted heavily in favour Scotland with the volatility of the Scottish oil industry for instance. What cannot be allowed to continue however is the situation we have now, it's not based on any system of fairness that I recognise.

Generali wrote: »

Interesting if true. I suspect that he's cherry picking data points. I'll have a look at GERS as when I have, I've come up with a very different story to the extent that STD claimed that GERS was a conspiracy against the Scots.

And therein lies the problem.....if my guy is cherry picking but your analysist isn't where does that leave people seeking out the truth?

I said during the referendum it came down to who you trust more. Who you chose to align with. Myself & quite a few others chose the Scottish Gov.

Leanne1812

Tromking wrote: »

It's an interesting (and a tad infantile) argument that says Scotland as a constituent part of the UK deserves higher public spending simply because they might be richer if they were an independent nation!
If being in the Union is such a drain on the true wealth Scotland, it begs the question why did YES lose of course.
I'm in favour of total tax and spend autonomy for Scotland now as you cannot give a people almost total political autonomy yet rely on other people's taxes to make it work. The only problem with that of course if you're Scot, is you replace the relative certainty of the UK block grant weighted heavily in favour Scotland with the volatility of the Scottish oil industry for instance. What cannot be allowed to continue however is the situation we have now, it's not based on any system of fairness that I recognise.

Yes lost because many like & want to remain in the union. It is entirely possible & plausible that the Vow & Project Fear had some bearing on the vote playing out as it did.

robmatic

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Yes lost because many like & want to remain in the union. It is entirely possible & plausible that the Vow & Project Fear had some bearing on the vote playing out as it did.

Possibly not a great impact though. Support for Scottish independence has remained broadly static for years at about 1/3rd of the voting population, which is what the referendum ultimately showed.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.....if my guy is cherry picking but your analysist isn't where does that leave people seeking out the truth?

I said during the referendum it came down to who you trust more. Who you chose to align with. Myself & quite a few others chose the Scottish Gov.

I do my own analysis when I can. I am lucky enough to have the skills to do so.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Interesting if true. I suspect that he's cherry picking data points. I'll have a look at GERS as when I have, I've come up with a very different story to the extent that STD claimed that GERS was a conspiracy against the Scots.

Erm nope. I simply posted up the other side of the coin, an attempt from a pro-indy economist to unravel GERS ( a few years back) and pointed out that the Treasury themselves admitted they didn't feel the need to be impartial in the run up to the referendum.

As Leanne says, it boils down to trust. And a lot of us don't trust just endlessly getting told that England subsidies Scotland ad finitum. Ivan McKee is just as serious in his analyses as any other economist. I too would be very interested in your take on his presentation. And fair play to you for not just doing the usual pro-indy dismissal.

Shakethedisease

robmatic wrote: »

Possibly not a great impact though. Support for Scottish independence has remained broadly static for years at about 1/3rd of the voting population, which is what the referendum ultimately showed.

Since when did a third = 45% ?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Since when did a third = 45% ?

when of those eligible to vote only 38% chose to vote yes

Tromking

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Yes lost because many like & want to remain in the union. It is entirely possible & plausible that the Vow & Project Fear had some bearing on the vote playing out as it did.

Project fear or project reality?
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice I suppose.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

when of those eligible to vote only 38% chose to vote yes

So ? Those eligible to vote No didn't reach 50% either. You're twisting figures to suit in the most laughable way possible. Of those who voted the split was 45/55% and at the end of the day, that's the figure that mattered in Sept.

Let's see what that same 45% (or 38 % if you really prefer it ) brings in May shall we ? The Times today seem a little... worried... :eek:

Dangers of the SNP

The rise of the Scottish nationalists poses a mortal threat not just to Labour’s election prospects but to Britain’s future. Unionist parties must seek to neutralise it

David Cameron declared after the Scottish independence referendum in September that the question had been settled for a generation and perhaps for a lifetime. How wrong could he have been? Though Scotland voted to remain part of the union, the margin of victory for the No campaigners was comfortable rather than crushing. It has galvanised the nationalist cause...

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So ? Those eligible to vote No didn't reach 50% either. You're twisting figures to suit in the most laughable way possible. Of those who voted the split was 45/55% and at the end of the day, that's the figure that mattered in Sept.

Let's see what that same 45% (or 38 % if you really prefer it ) brings in May shall we ? The Times today seem a little... worried... :eek:

Most level headed people would agree that a 'normal' general election or a council election would get a different turnout to that of a decision to break up a sovereign state.

The result was indeed determined by those that voted but it would be wrong to deduce that 55% of the Scottish electorate were in favour of staying or that 45% of the Scottish electorate were in favour of independence.

The results in May will be what they will be but they will have no relevance to independence.