Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Tromking

Moby wrote: »

Your analysis is spot on. Labour made a major strategic error in standing on a joint platform with the tories during the referendum. The reality was they were the only credible party in Scotland to put the unionist argument. There is a significant democratic deficit in the UK. Even Heseltine has recently acknowledged the tories have no idea how to appeal in Scotland, Northern England and Wales.

Scotland will therefore ultimately go its own way and the rest of us will be stuck with the tories.:eek:
I think polling research is showing an increase in support for independence amongst younger voters. I wonder how long this will take to tip the balance?

A truly federal UK is the only way to solve this now. You neglected to mention the rising English appetite to be rid of the terminally expensive and ungrateful Celts BTW. The only democratic deficit I can see is against the English in our increasingly fooked up constitutional settlement. The Scots in large numbers themselves have abandoned national (UK) politics, it wasnt for Labour to appeal to Unionists other than make the case for the status quo in an indyref. Scotland is slowly becoming the New Ulster, how long before one party puts the word Unionist front and centre in its title?
FWIW, the moment any party offers a policy which includes an English Parliament as part of a wider UK federal set up, it gets a landslide courtesy of English voters.
Interesting times.

.string.

Tromking wrote: »

A truly federal UK is the only way to solve this now. You neglected to mention the rising English appetite to be rid of the terminally expensive and ungrateful Celts BTW. The only democratic deficit I can see is against the English in our increasingly fooked up constitutional settlement. The Scots in large numbers themselves have abandoned national (UK) politics, it wasnt for Labour to appeal to Unionists other than make the case for the status quo in an indyref. Scotland is slowly becoming the New Ulster, how long before one party puts the word Unionist in its title?
FWIW, the moment any party offers a policy which includes an English Parliament as part of a wider UK federal set up, it gets a landslide courtesy of English voters.
Interesting times.

Some support for that from me but qualified.

The present Devolution Settlement is not played out by any means, to think that is to play into SNP-think.

Devolution is a form of Federalism. It is a matter of scale only. We need to see the final package In action I think.

The SNP concept is that ALL money that can be argued derives from anything Scottish goes to the Scottish Goverment and they (under their own authority) allocate money for Defence and Foreign Policy (no mention of a subscription to currency management or common benefits) That was courtesy of Shakey some time ago.

The latter concept would be unacceptable; it would be the ultimate in parasitic SNP wet dreams about fleecing the English, and unsustainable. The SNP call it Fiscal Autonomy.

In Canada there is a provincial tax and a Federal tax existing s use by side. The Federal tax pays for the federal institutions, the Defence, Foreign Policy, Social benefits and the currency which is underwritten by the Federal Coffers.

I could imagine something along the lines of the Canadian Model would be suitable except that I am completely against the avalanche of power hungry and budget selfish new layers of politicians which would follow any regional federation of England, let alone federalising Wales and (think about the sectarian issues there) of NI.

I supose the H of L could become the Federal Parliament, although I still hanker after a chamber where alliances to political parties. Religions and other organised interests can indepently hold Parliament to account.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Your analysis is spot on. Labour made a major strategic error in standing on a joint platform with the tories during the referendum. The reality was they were the only credible party in Scotland to put the unionist argument. There is a significant democratic deficit in the UK. Even Heseltine has recently acknowledged the tories have no idea how to appeal in Scotland, Northern England and Wales.

Scotland will therefore ultimately go its own way and the rest of us will be stuck with the tories.:eek:
I think polling research is showing an increase in support for independence amongst younger voters. I wonder how long this will take to tip the balance?

The democratic deficit is because the Scots have become benefit junkies and sadly still have that huge inferiority complex.
They still dream of Bannockburn and fantasize about how badly they were treated by Thatcher.

Although I think independence will be bad for the scottish economy and bad for the UK in long terms issues of security and resilience against (unknown) future shocks, I reluctantly see it as the only way the Scots can grow up.
Without Independence, they will forever be locked in their ridiculous resentment of the more successful English and irrational hatred of a dead Lady.

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

A truly federal UK is the only way to solve this now. You neglected to mention the rising English appetite to be rid of the terminally expensive and ungrateful Celts BTW. The only democratic deficit I can see is against the English in our increasingly fooked up constitutional settlement. The Scots in large numbers themselves have abandoned national (UK) politics, it wasnt for Labour to appeal to Unionists other than make the case for the status quo in an indyref. Scotland is slowly becoming the New Ulster, how long before one party puts the word Unionist in its title?
FWIW, the moment any party offers a policy which includes an English Parliament as part of a wider UK federal set up, it gets a landslide courtesy of English voters.
Interesting times.

I guess the nightmare scenario for Labour and the Scots is that UKIP point out that if the Scots are told to go forth and multiply then a lot more London money can be spent in some pretty poor places in the North.

baldelectrician

mwpt wrote: »

I must admit I am at a bit of a loss as to what you (meaning nationalists) actually want. You seem to accept that you'll be worse off outside of the UK than inside (reference previous posts). You seem to be happy enough to take the subsidy right now, while complaining that westminster isn't good for you for some reason. You seem to think that being in a different union (EU) is acceptable, but not one with your closer neighbours (UK).

It strikes me as the primary driving force for separation is a bit of xenophobia rather than anything else.

What am I missing?

The primary motive for independence is CONTROL, not xenophobia.
After the Smith Comission (super duper faster powers that not delivered almost 500 days later) Scotland will have control of 15% of welfare and 25% of tax- leaving the rest (ie CONTROL) to Westminster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

baldelectrician wrote: »

The primary motive for independence is CONTROL

Which is one of the stupidest reasons for going indy you can imagine.

Without the massive Westminster subsidy we'd all be worse off, so having full control of how a much smaller budget can be spent, is much worse for Scotland than having partial control over a much bigger budget to be spent here.

What is the point of having control if it makes us all worse off?

And that, in a nutshell, is why the country voted No last year.

So if the indy campaign ever want to win a referendum then you need to be trusted to make a once in a lifetime major constitutional change, not just to run a regional assembly or have some opposition MP's, and that means telling the truth about the economics.

Admitting that the costs will be severe to ordinary people, that austerity will be much worse than under the Tories, that services and benefits will be subject to much more severe cuts, that many more people will lose their jobs, and that ordinary people will take a hit to their prosperity and standards of living that it'll take decades to recover from.

And then you need to convince them of why exactly it is worth it anyway.

Last year the handful of areas to vote Yes were the areas with the highest proportion of people with nothing to lose. Basically just Glasgow (and surrounds) and Dundee.

The poor, the benefits claimants, the least educated, voted Yes in the highest numbers. The middle classes, the educated, those with something to lose, voted No in overwhelming numbers. Even in areas where they voted SNP in previous elections.

Clearly those all important middle class voters did not believe or trust the SNP's story on the finances of an iScotland. Even though they were happy to vote for them on other occasions.

To win them over you need to tell the truth. And then convince them the loss is worth it. But if you do tell the truth, then you also have to admit to the poor and the working classes that indy means more austerity not less. So then you lose some of that vote.

I don't see any way of winning a referendum without an honest and credible plan for addressing the financial and economic implications to people's lives.

And clearly the plan last year was neither credible or honest.

.string.

baldelectrician wrote: »

The primary motive for independence is CONTROL, not xenophobia.
After the Smith Comission (super duper faster powers that not delivered almost 500 days later) Scotland will have control of 15% of welfare and 25% of tax- leaving the rest (ie CONTROL) to Westminster

I don't believe you, anti English sentiments oose out everywhere.

If it was just about control the SNP would not be slavering over membership of the EU. Even I, as a supporter of the EU, would not deny that the EU invokes sharing of responsibility between member States on some issues. And since Natland, as a new member, would have to join the EURO, you would kiss goodbye to fiscal autonomy as well, having just 1 vote against whatever it is by now. In any case, your remarks on control just serve to show your rejection of a shared common interest for all of our country (GB in case you have forgotten).

I'd like to know how you get your percentages and what you think the percentages should be

---

110%?

rtho782

Back during the referendum, the "middle position" between the SNP's promise of an oil fuelled utopia and the No campains assertion of increased austerity, was that it would work out as a wash, and people wouldn't be much better or worse off.

That was with oil at around $102 per barrel. It's now $37. It seems unlikely it will be back over $100 for the next few years at least.

Had Scotland voted yes, they would be staring down the barrel of a financial abyss right now, just about to assume independance.

It was a lucky escape for Scotland.

Shame the rest of us didn't get to vote if we wanted to keep Scotland

baldelectrician

.string. wrote: »

I don't believe you, anti English sentiments oose out everywhere.
Anti-Westminster YES, not anti-English
I'd like to know how you get your percentages and what you think the percentages should be

---

110%?
Don't understand the last bit

On the GB thing- I don't see myself as British and never will. It may be unfortunate we are attached to the failing British Empire but that will end in due course (after the next referendum)


Looking at the money and the 'subsidy' this is all fuelled by UK debt (which Scotland pays its share of interest costs)


I go to my control remark- we could become independent and keep doing things the way Westminster have done; cutting funding to flood defences after 2010 for example or doing as the (Labour) Scottish Executive did and invest in flood defences since 2003 as well as stopping new builds in flood plains.


Its about doing things different- the UK have added £750 Billion to the national debt, Scotland's share is around £70 billion.
Just imagine (bearing in mind we have spent this money already) how the economy would look if Scotland had spent 30% of this debt on infrastructure and new housing.
What's the point of paying someone to stay on working benefits when you can pay them (a fair wage ) to work?


It's all about making different choices not repeating the same mistakes.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

baldelectrician wrote: »

Looking at the money and the 'subsidy' this is all fuelled by UK debt (which Scotland pays its share of interest costs)

Its about doing things different- the UK have added £750 Billion to the national debt, Scotland's share is around £70 billion.
Just imagine (bearing in mind we have spent this money already) how the economy would look if Scotland had spent 30% of this debt on infrastructure and new housing.

And that is the sort of economic illiteracy that pervaded the Yes campaign.

The Scottish deficit is much bigger than our (population based) share of the national debt indicates. The balance is a subsidy from rUK.

The Scottish deficit was around £15bn a year when oil was at $100.

It's much worse now.

In order to "spend 30% of the debt on infrastructure and housing" you'd have had to borrow an additional 30%, on top of the money we already got to subsidise our extra deficit, which was on top of the money borrowed to cover our population based share of the national deficit.

For 2015 as an example...

UK deficit is around £90bn.

Scotland's share @ 8.7% of population = £7.8bn.

Scotland's deficit = circa £18bn after oil prices collapsed.

Amount that is given to us as a subsidy by the rest of the UK = £10.2bn, on top of the £7.8 bn that is our share of the deficit and that we 'pay interest on'.

If Scotland were independent we'd have to borrow that £18bn and be full responsible for all the interest and repayments, and if you then wanted to spend 30% of it on 'housing and infrastructure' then you'd need to either cut £6bn form our current spending (which is an amount greater than the entire education budget for Scotland) or you'd need to borrow another £6bn... Making the total borrowing for the year £24bn. (which by the way nobody would lend us, as it's completely unsustainable as a % of GDP, and the country would be bankrupt)

Indy Scotland = Super Plus Austerity Max to a level that would make Osborne blush with embarrassment.

Indy Scotland = The deepest of cuts to services, slashing of government spending, mass unemployment of public sector workers, and huge benefits cuts.

And the challenge for the Indy campaign is to explain why it's worth it anyway...