Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Early days. The Tories have only been in since May. Next May, if Scottish Labour does really badly, as Labour did in Westminter. The last large bastion of No voters Sept 14.. will probably give up and go home.

Go home? What do you mean?

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why don't you just save yourself some time and say that no matter what the oil prices are, that in your opinion a small country of 5 million people with oil and many, many other resources has no chance of making it as an independent country ? Too many financial black holes all over the place.

You miss the point. It's obviously possible to be an independent country without oil but it blows the 'yes' economic arguments out of the water without it.

The SNP nearly convinced enough people that their economic plans were credible with oil at $100 - they can no longer promise that Scotland will be better off as an independent country without looking like fantasists.

For all the talk about how the SNP are winning every argument yes are still only about 50% and that's at a time when there's no referendum on the horizon so big talk is very cheap.

The next push for a referendum comes when there's either a trigger ($100/ oil or a rUK supported EU exit) or when the SNP decide to take a desperate punt because they see it drifting away. I see the latter as being more likely and with polls 50:50 and $40 oil I don't rate the chances of success too highly.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Ask Denmark.

OK then....

Here's the (horrific) Danish income tax model.

1. Everyone with work-related income pays the job market contribution of 8 percent.

On the remaining income, the following tax rates will be applied:

2. A health care contribution of 6%.

3. Municipal taxes of 24.9 %.

Then the income tax rates:

4. The bottom-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 42,800 and is 6.83%

5. The top-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 488,152 and is 15%.



Are you really suggesting Scots should pay on average 56% of their income to the State in taxes as the Danes do?

Because the Yes campaign went to great lengths to say such drastic and draconian tax rises would not be required in an independent Scotland....

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why don't you just save yourself some time and say that no matter what the oil prices are, that in your opinion a small country of 5 million people with oil and many, many other resources has no chance of making it as an independent country ? Too many financial black holes all over the place.

That just doesn't sound credible to me. In fact, it sounds a little bizarre to be honest given there are so many other small independent countries without oil. Within Europe too.

But at least we've finally established that oil prices matter not a jot in unionist land. Whatever they are. And, since support for independence hasn't fallen right alongside oil prices.. that also in Yes land, they matter not a jot either. You can change the record now.

It's clearly true that Scotland would be totally viable as an independent sovereign nation with or without oil (or with high or low oil price)

Scotland would have to choose between

a. high spend and high tax like some of the Nordic countries
b. low spend (austerity) and low tax (Tory scenerio)
c. low spend (austerity) and high tax (with a sovereign wealth fund), apparently favoured by Scots who don't actually live in Scotland
d. high spend and low tax plus high borrowing (current Scottish model and formally the Greek model)

Obviously none of these options will be the one that the SNP will sell to the voters of Scotland:
well 'd' is the actual Scottish model but currently funded by Westminster but that option isn't appropriate to an independent Scotland even after you have defaulted on your share of our debts.

Obviously independence is worth any economic sacrifice : which option do you favour?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Everyone got it wrong. That's what happens with volatile commodities and why it's not a good idea to rely on them.:

Indeed.

But Wings 'Wee Blue Book' was so wrong as to be in fantasyland, while the SNP white paper got it markedly more wrong than the OBR...

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

What a silly thing to say.
You do realise that it's Unionists like Hamish that you need to convince to realise the dream?

The convincing won't be based on oil prices, or in fact anything much to do with oil ( before they fell, it was all running out)... Which IS entirely the point. If it was, like I pointed out, the Yes vote wouldn't have gone from barely 25% in some polls to 45%... and still be rising, despite the oil price falls. Support for independence, if based on oil prices.. would've plummeted south along with them. And they haven't.

QED, oil prices aren't a big factor in 'convincing' anyone about independence. Neither for, not against.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Does anyone remember this report, published before the election?

http:www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28245717

At the time, here on the forum, unionists were pointing out, time after time, the dangers of basing an economy on a volatile. Not much in the way of understanding of volatile by the nats then I revel. After the referendum, the word volatile was gradually rediscovered and is now being claimed to be about to cause a ruse in oil prices. Well it could not get much lower, so no points for a flash of inspiration there. You couldn't make it up --- at --- actually they did make up quite a lot.


The SNP were surely well aware of the fragility of their fairy dust economy, yet did not level with the Scottish Electorate. They could have put out the truth, they chose to lie.

For information, the White Paper SNP manifesto used the figure of 6.8 to 7.8 billion £ from oil aka off-shore receipts.

OBR ? Ian ( Fracking ) Wood ? Enough said. Everyone got the oil prices wrong. So everyone must've been lying by your own argument.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK then....

Here's the (horrific) Danish income tax model.

1. Everyone with work-related income pays the job market contribution of 8 percent.

On the remaining income, the following tax rates will be applied:

2. A health care contribution of 6%.

3. Municipal taxes of 24.9 %.

Then the income tax rates:

4. The bottom-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 42,800 and is 6.83%

5. The top-bracket tax is paid on yearly income above DKK 488,152 and is 15%.

Are you really suggesting Scots should pay on average 56% of their income to the State in taxes as the Danes do?

Because the Yes campaign went to great lengths to say such drastic and draconian tax rises would not be required in an independent Scotland....

Aren't the Danish some of the happiest people in the world ?

Denmark took the top spot on the United Nation's World Happiness Report, 2013 & 2014 and came in third in the 2015 report, following closely behind Switzerland and Iceland.

I think the point is, that they're happy with how things are in their own country. And they get to chose how their money is spent via the ballot box. That they work off a different model to the UK is par for the course. Most independent countries choose their own paths.

An iScotland wouldn't have to follow either.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

You miss the point. It's obviously possible to be an independent country without oil but it blows the 'yes' economic arguments out of the water without it.

The SNP nearly convinced enough people that their economic plans were credible with oil at $100 - they can no longer promise that Scotland will be better off as an independent country without looking like fantasists.

For all the talk about how the SNP are winning every argument yes are still only about 50% and that's at a time when there's no referendum on the horizon so big talk is very cheap.

The next push for a referendum comes when there's either a trigger ($100/ oil or a rUK supported EU exit) or when the SNP decide to take a desperate punt because they see it drifting away. I see the latter as being more likely and with polls 50:50 and $40 oil I don't rate the chances of success too highly.

The SNP got where they are with a gradualist approach. A little at a time. It's snowballed recently.

Oil prices aren't enough on their own to remain in the UK for just about 50% of the country's voters already ? The next push for a referendum will either come from the EU ref, or more likely, another Conservative government installed at Westminster in 2020 especially if Labour collapses both UK wise, and the Scottish Holyrood party too... Oil prices won't figure in either. If they do go up, then yes, that'll be another trigger.

The White Paper was based on what was known in 2013. Convincing people in 2020 or whenever would be based on a completely different set of facts and figures. As I've already stated, the SNP weren't the only one's with opinions on what an independent Scotland might look after a Yes vote. Independence isn't about the SNP, they're just the vehicle. It's about basing all political and economic powers for in Scotland in Holyrood. Just like other countries do with their own parliaments. It's hardly a new idea !

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think the point is, that they're happy with how things are in their own country. And they get to chose how their money is spent via the ballot box. That they work off a different model to the UK is par for the course. Most independent countries choose their own paths.

An iScotland wouldn't have to follow either.

Shakey there are really only very limited choices for the economic model an iScotland could adopt.

1) You can keep our current benefits system and roughly similar numbers of people employed by the state and pay much, much, much higher taxes. Like some Scandinavian countries do.

2) You can pay roughly the same as our current level of taxes but drastically cut the amount of benefits paid and numbers of people employed by the state, with the scale of cuts required being much, much, worse than anything the Tories could even dream of.

If you want to win over the hearts and minds of those who voted No then being honest about the options would be a good start.

Explain to the nation that they'll be poorer, less prosperous, less financially secure, many will lose their jobs, most will lose at least part of their benefits/services, and some will lose their savings and houses. And that the outcomes, whether it be higher tax, or lower spending, will be worse than as part of the UK.

And then explain to us all why it's worth it anyway....