Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

You're not following any logic. Of course Salmond, and Sturgeon and the rest spent the whole referendum claiming a glorious economic bounty was waiting for Scotland to vote Yes, But you are right in that it was not just oil that was egged up, it was a whole range of spurious economic claims, from a vibrant financial sector bolstered by having free support from being in a currency union with the UK to promises of a glorious windfall from plundering English Museums for "assets" while not repaying Scotland's debt (the latter was not included in the financial budget included in the infamous White Paper).

As for your remarks about everyone getting the price wrong in the period before the referendum, I suggest you can that line of argument since it just shows time and time again, that you can't face the truth. How very collective!

But there you go again, trying to avoid the criticism by boasting about the number of people the SNP have fooled by still peddling a Natland overflowing with money trees.

Everyone DID get oil prices wrong before the referendum. I provided you with a graph and everything showing them. The SNP have admitted they did.

Support for independence however, has gone up almost in tandem with oil prices falling since June 2014. Logic being that oil prices are not the 'arrow to the heart of independence' you think it is. Never was, and probably never will be.

Again, any possible future referendums will hopefully be starting out with complete disregard to oil prices/oil volatility/running out, and the EU. Both are busted flushes. As is keeping the £. And in the white paper they seemed pretty upfront about 'challenging conditions' to me.

As with most developed countries – including the UK – Scotland is currently running an estimated fiscal deficit, which means that the revenues from taxation fall short of public spending

38. Of the 31 members of the OECD for which data are available, 27 are estimated to have been in deficit during 2012

39
.As a result of the recession, Scotland will inherit challenging fiscal position that will require careful stewardship in the years immediately following independence. The first Government of
an independent Scotland will need to make decisions based on the prevailing conditions.

( from the White Paper ). But really, I'm not sure reliving the referendum campaign here once again, is moving things forward any. If there's to be a future referendum, it will come with completely different debates and challenges for both sides than the last one.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

It's good to see that Swinney has fought hard to
-maintain the same income tax rates as the Tories
-and introduced a 3% second home 'stamp' duty supplement

looks like the SNP feel we are better together tax rates wise.

Those are tax raising powers from the Scotland Act 2012. He wasn't expected to raise them, as they can only be raised or lowered across every tax band by the same amount. He made explicit reference to this, and his hope that the powers for next years budget will be more flexible ( from the Scotland Act going though now ).

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

If you tell the nation the oil will be worth £3000,000 to each and every person you are implying they are going to be rich.

Salmond also said you'd keep the pound and would automatically become a member of the EU. Basically he was willing to lie and mislead to any degree to secure a yes vote.

There was no reason to think Scotland wouldn't be able to use the £, or be a member of the EU ( it took Greenland about years to leave when they left the EU predecessor )..

As for oil see above. The White Paper and Fiscal Commission worked off the information available to them at the time in 2013. Nothing more. There are no crystal balls in commodities. But I expect you know that.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Those are tax raising powers from the Scotland Act 2012. He wasn't expected to raise them, as they can only be raised or lowered across every tax band by the same amount. He made explicit reference to this, and his hope that the powers for next years budget will be more flexible ( from the Scotland Act going though now ).

obviously he wasn't expected to change the income tax rates as the SNP would have been hammered in the elections. I think he explicitly meant that, otherwise he could have said how he planned to use greater tax raising powers.

mind you, a wonderful example of better to together with the Tories, to have an innovative 3% percent surcharge on 'stamp duty' for second homes :

and good to see he is pressing ahead with more borrowing in scotland and a lot more PFI

mwpt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There was no reason to think Scotland wouldn't be able to use the £

I take it you aren't implying you could force a monetary union somehow but rather just adopt the use of the currency regardless of consent from rUK? What is the legality of this, can a country simply adopt use of a foreign currency regardless of consent from the originators? Zimbabwe for e.g. now primarily use USD (although ZAR and others are also used).

Also, why would you want to be in a monetary union when you have a weaker economy? This isn't working out terribly well for PIGS nations.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

I take it you aren't implying you could force a monetary union somehow but rather just adopt the use of the currency regardless of consent from rUK? What is the legality of this, can a country simply adopt use of a foreign currency regardless of consent from the originators? Zimbabwe for e.g. now primarily use USD (although ZAR and others are also used).

Also, why would you want to be in a monetary union when you have a weaker economy? This isn't working out terribly well for PIGS nations.

obviously the people of a country can use any currency and it is certainly practical to use any of the major currencies : I doubt you seek US government permission to use dollars in America or the ECB to use Euros in euroland.

however, that is quite different from a currency union (virtually unknown between significant countries).
The SNP acolytes either don't understand the difference or simply refuse to acknowledge the issue in line with uncle Alex dictats.

Tromking

CLAPTON wrote: »

It's good to see that Swinney has fought hard to
-maintain the same income tax rates as the Tories
-and introduced a 3% second home 'stamp' duty supplement

looks like the SNP feel we are better together tax rates wise.

Bleddy Tartan Tories.....progressive my ar*e! 😀

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously he wasn't expected to change the income tax rates as the SNP would have been hammered in the elections. I think he explicitly meant that, otherwise he could have said how he planned to use greater tax raising powers.

mind you, a wonderful example of better to together with the Tories, to have an innovative 3% percent surcharge on 'stamp duty' for second homes :

and good to see he is pressing ahead with more borrowing in scotland and a lot more PFI

The SNP don't do PFI. Anything in that department is down to when Labour where in power. They kept free prescriptions, eye tests, hospital parking, free tuition fees, a council tax freeze 9th year in a row, no bedroom tax, a big NHS cash injection, and investment into a house building program though.

But pretty much a 'steady as she goes' budget. They'll have five years to do far more ambitious stuff after May should they win a majority.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously the people of a country can use any currency and it is certainly practical to use any of the major currencies : I doubt you seek US government permission to use dollars in America or the ECB to use Euros in euroland.

however, that is quite different from a currency union (virtually unknown between significant countries).
The SNP acolytes either don't understand the difference or simply refuse to acknowledge the issue in line with uncle Alex dictats.

Oh no, we understood the difference re the £ and currency union very well. It seemed to confuse BetterTogether though who were absolutely adamant that Scotland couldn't use the pound at all ! Which of course as you say is total nonsense. So they came across as, total liars. Hence somehow managing to lose a 22 point lead during the campaign.

Support for the Yes campaign started going up immediately after Osborne's announcement actually as it happens. ( Iain McWhirter details it all wonderfully in his book ). But no, we understood the difference very well.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP don't do PFI.

That's not true.

http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/new-victoria-hospital

There are PFI commitments to sign up to all the way through these contracts.

Scotland relies on PFI just as the other bits of the UK do.