Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.
There would be different policies on immigration, energy, austerity, welfare, defence and infrastructure. .

That part is true enough.

There would be more immigration, much more expensive energy, radically more austerity, huge cuts to defence, and almost no infrastructure spending due to the country being bankrupt.

One of the main changes would be politically.

That is also true.

Within the first 12 months after independence the core Yes voters would discover they'd been lied to about the state of an indy Scotland's finances.

As the costs of goods and services started to rise, lending into the economy came to a halt, and punitive tax increases started to hammer the working and middle classes. The wealthy would of course long since have left defeating SNP plans to tax them instead.

By the time of the second budget, it would become very clear that the savage cuts to benefits, services, and state employment dwarfed anything the Tories had planned for austerity.

And as Scotland slipped into a Great Depression, with actual poverty returning to the nation's people for the first time in 50 years, and unemployment pushing 25%, the SNP would become pariahs... Hated and despised, consigned to the political wilderness for generations to come.

So yes, it's fair to say, one of the main changes would be political.

Just not the change you were thinking....

elantan

.string. wrote: »

"Hogmanany"

So, as the SNP looks longingly to it's future Nanny State where childish aberations due to abhorrent parental care such as the ability to spell, or vote, correctly are banned forever by Big Sister, we will be left to ponder the warnings contained in Hamish's post#8375.

For my part I wish that this year's sees the return of honesty to Scottish politics where lies are not justified by opinion polls and where trust is earned, rather than stolen.

See I reckon Scottish politics is more honest than its been for years ...

Goes to show you everyone is different I spose

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. I accept they got the oil price wrong. But if in turn you think the entire Scottish independence and movement towards it depends entirely on the price of a barrel of oil. You're frankly a little deluded on that score.

Perhaps it's your needle that's stuck in the groove to the point of delusion. As long ago as March 2015.

Nicola Sturgeon has been forced to admit for the first time that the SNP had got its independence predictions for North Sea oil wrong as it emerged the growing shortfall in Scotland’s finances is the equivalent of a 17p hike in income tax.

What's happened to the oil price since?

.string.

elantan wrote: »

See I reckon Scottish politics is more honest than its been for years ...

Goes to show you everyone is different I spose

No it just shows you are gullible.

Hamish - re. Your proposed scenario above - I see that that Swinney character has a plan, which is to borrow billions after a separation in order to boost the economy or some such

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13165574.SNP_will_borrow_billions_to_end_austerity__says_Swinney/

What he would really need the money for is to offset the lack of cash which would immediately follow from separation. There are snags in his plan, not least the scale of the deficit to counter, but also the interest rates that would result from refusing to pay early debts (You may member that silly post a few pages back about Scotland not being liable for the UK's debts).

But why should he care, if the SNP can pretend there would be no pain after separation and lie about enough some of the gullible will swallow it.

Thrugelmir

.string. wrote: »

Hamish - re. Your proposed scenario above - I see that that Swinney character has a plan, which is to borrow billions after a separation in order to boost the economy or some such

Swinney knows that Scotland won't be financially independent. So at best it's a half truth. The borrowing will be required to maintain existing levels of welfare and public sector spend. The state pension was regarded as potentially unaffordable as long ago as 2013 by Swinney himself. Politicians intentionally word their responses very carefully.

kabayiri

.string. wrote: »

...
What he would really need the money for is to offset the lack of cash which would immediately follow from separation. There are snags in his plan, not least the scale of the deficit to counter, but also the interest rates that would result from refusing to pay early debts (You may member that silly post a few pages back about Scotland not being liable for the UK's debts).
...

Indeed.

Just a quick geography reminder for those a little unsure...

In Scotland => in UK
In Newcastle => in UK
In London => in UK
..etc

One might argue about how fairly or not these debts have been accumulated in specific areas, but that is history. These debts rest on all our shoulders now.

To suggest otherwise is indeed smoke and mirror trickery.

elantan

.string. wrote: »

No it just shows you are gullible.

it.

I think maybe you've just not been paying any attention till recently ?

.string.

elantan wrote: »

I think maybe you've just not been paying any attention till recently ?

I've been paying enough attention thank you.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

Indeed.

Just a quick geography reminder for those a little unsure...

In Scotland => in UK
In Newcastle => in UK
In London => in UK
..etc

One might argue about how fairly or not these debts have been accumulated in specific areas, but that is history. These debts rest on all our shoulders now.

To suggest otherwise is indeed smoke and mirror trickery.

Agreed.

The history aspects are important as costs or surpluses have consequences, a ripple effect, on subsequent figures. For example the cost of defending this country (the UK, not just part of it) in WW 1 and 2, the costs of loosing out on the Gold Price (a certain Scot involved there), oil revenues, revenue from financial services, overspending in the last years of the Labour Government etc. --- all these add up to the present situation and a debt that is now attributable to all of us.

HornetSaver

Tromking wrote: »

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.

Glad at least one person saw it. To be fair to the nationalists, I was surprised at the referendum outcome because it seemed to me that they were winning the economic arguments in the eyes of voters.

My question (which seems to have been missed), is how they win a future one when the SNP's own work is either improving a devolved Scotland's gains, or lessening its losses, from being part of the union, relative to the balance in 2014. I don't intend it as a loaded question - maybe a one-nation approach, compassionate but competent fiscal management, different tax approaches can swing the 5% or so needed. If anything I ask because I'm not sure what could be improved upon from the 2014 campaign, which whatever you think of it politically was well run and got its messages across.

'Subsidy' is a loaded word that I avoid by the way.