Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The UK is already in the EU ?

I'm sure the EU will only be too happy to take over our role of subsidising you forever.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

I'm sure the EU will only be too happy to take over our role of subsidising you forever.

Or else mabye, 'so long, and thanks for all the fish' ?

But I guess rUk will have it's own problems. All those banks and businesses fleeing 'en masse', millions of job losses, capital flight, interest rates going stratospheric, no oil revenue, out of NATO, border controls, ex-pats fleeing homewards, those working in the EU jobless overnight with no rights.... *insert any argument you like which was used to justify a No vote in the Scottish referendum re being 'kicked out of the EU'*.

Scotland still being in the EU would perhaps be the very least of rUK's worries. Oh and Northern Ireland would be more than likely having a referendum as well. They don't need Westminster's 'permission' either to do so.

Look they've started the 'scaremongering' (cc Alex Salmond ) already.

Eurosceptics have attacked the latest campaign threat as scaremongering and blackmail.Those in the 'Out' campaign argue that trade would not be affected by an exit, often citing Norway, which is not a member but still a large exporter to the EU.Lord Lawson, the new head of a Conservative Brexit campaign, said Britain could “negotiate a free trade deal with the rest of Europe”, entailing “a more amicable and realistic relationship”.

But ‘In’ campaigners claim that a vote to withdraw from the EU would threaten millions of British jobs.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/609778/EU-leaders-punish-UK-Brexit-threat-of-economic-chaos-referendum

elantan

Don't forget Asda will leave as well

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes because a party who has stood and campaigned for full Scottish independence since the early part of the last century, and held a referendum only 18 months ago, on full Scottish independence.... is obviously desperate to hold on to any 'English' subsidies. You don't make sense, speak logic, or reason with any of that. In fact it made me laugh. It's such a stupendously daft thing to say.

I'm here to entertain Shakey!😀
I'm trying to square your answer above with every single utterance the SNP has ever made on the Barnett Formula. You see a party anxious to jettison English subsidies in favour of full independence, I see a party desperate to hang on to them. Just like the Scots who willingly took their nation into the Union three hundred years ago, the SNP seem remarkably wedded to the idea of unearned cash courtesy of the English taxpayer. I guess things haven't changed too much up there really.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I'm here to entertain Shakey!��
I'm trying to square your answer above with every single utterance the SNP has ever made on the Barnett Formula. You see a party anxious to jettison English subsidies in favour of full independence, I see a party desperate to hang on to them. Just like the Scots who willingly took their nation into the Union three hundred years ago, the SNP seem remarkably wedded to the idea of unearned cash courtesy of the English taxpayer. I guess things haven't changed too much up there really.

I guess if you can separate 'while in the Union' and 'independence' it will all make sense to you. While in the Union, Westminster hold most of the purse strings. The SNP of course will put Scottish interests first when it comes to getting the best it can for Scottish taxpayers/citizens and residents ( think David Cameron and the EU ).

Independence means no Westminster holding the purse strings. No need to get the 'best deal' for Scots from another Govt. No 'subsidies' either.

In short, you're asking the Scottish Govt to act and make policies as if it's already independent, when it's Westminster that dish out the pocket money. Alas, Scotland isn't independent, so the SNP are stuck with simply getting the best deal it possibly can from Westminster. While in the Union.

Simple enough for you ?

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

I'm here to entertain Shakey!😀
I'm trying to square your answer above with every single utterance the SNP has ever made on the Barnett Formula. You see a party anxious to jettison English subsidies in favour of full independence, I see a party desperate to hang on to them. Just like the Scots who willingly took their nation into the Union three hundred years ago, the SNP seem remarkably wedded to the idea of unearned cash courtesy of the English taxpayer. I guess things haven't changed too much up there really.

The bit you're missing is that the SNP have consistently lied to Scots to the extent that there is a commonly held view that fiscal life will carry on as is, that an independent Scotland could simply redirect existing spending as they see fit.

The reality is that an independent Scotland would spend the first couple of years working out how to reduce spending by 10-15% while dealing with a huge surge of unemployment and the collapse of the welfare state.

I realise that sounds overblown but that is the reality of a cut in the state of the size the SNP is proposing just so they can be ruled by people with different accents.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess if you can separate 'while in the Union' and 'independence' it will all make sense to you. While in the Union, Westminster hold most of the purse strings. The SNP of course will put Scottish interests first when it comes to getting the best it can for Scottish taxpayers/citizens and residents ( think David Cameron and the EU.)

I was talking about the SNP attitude to the English subsidy "while in the Union", is was you who started talking about full independence.
Westminster does not just hold the purse strings, to Scots and their penchant for the nicer things in life it is THE purse. Controlling the levers of the Scottish economy doesn't eradicate the fiscal blackhole, it means as Generali has stated, that the SNP has to make difficult choices, choices so far it seems reluctant to share with the Scots people. No wonder Nationalists keep losing referendums.
The point a poster made a couple pages back, that the more Scots extract by way of subsidies from a jumpy rUK the harder it will be to make a financial case for an independent Scotland is a good one.
It's ironic that the more the SNP protects the interests of Scots, the closer it binds Scotland to the Union.

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

I was talking about the SNP attitude to the English subsidy "while in the Union", is was you who started talking about full independence.
Westminster does not just hold the purse strings, to Scots and their penchant for the nicer things in life it is THE purse. Controlling the levers of the Scottish economy doesn't eradicate the fiscal blackhole, it means as Generali has stated, that the SNP has to make difficult choices, choices so far it seems reluctant to share with the Scots people. No wonder Nationalists keep losing referendums.
The point a poster made a couple pages back, that the more Scots extract by way of subsidies from a jumpy rUK the harder it will be to make a financial case for an independent Scotland is a good one.
It's ironic that the more the SNP protects the interests of Scots, the closer it binds Scotland to the Union.

The point that the SNP try to make is that spending will rise as a proportion of GDP as that is often how Government spending is measured. However, if GDP/head is smaller, as is the case, then that means less spending in cash terms.

Generally speaking, nurses, teachers, firemen and plod all like to be paid in squids not in %ages of GDP.

Tromking

Rinoa wrote: »

Just what the EU needs. Another country with a large budget deficit. They're sure to welcome you with open arms.

Perhaps the EU will see iScotland as a way of picking up a bit of the slack from the loss of the UK's monthly £1 billion contribution to its budget. Scotland would be a net contributor to the EU wouldn't it? 😀

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

Perhaps the EU will see iScotland as a way of picking up a bit of the slack from the loss of the UK's monthly £1 billion contribution to its budget. Scotland would be a net contributor to the EU wouldn't it? 😀

I believe so.

I think that the fundamental calculation for payments into the EU pot are calculated on non-EU exports. That's how it used to work at least and an independent Scotland would be a huge exporter (oil, tourism and whisky).