Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I've tried to explain on this thread previously string. It seems like part of the problem lies in the fact that some people have taken the referendum too personally. We voted yes so we wanted to leave you - yes, you personally! ( not exclusively only you )

It was about the end of a political union. Some feel an emotional attachment to the union. I've no problem with that. And some don't. It's that simple. I wanted Scotland to be in control of her destiny. A small, peaceful, nuclear free nation. That amongst other things were paramount to me.

I don't want to go round and round on this issue but it is frustrating to hear it endlessly when the reality for most was not breaking away from the English but the political union.

And the cost of the end of large chunks of the welfare state and state health care systems are worth it. Or do you genuinely believe that there is no subsidy from London?

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

And the cost of the end of large chunks of the welfare state and state health care systems are worth it. Or do you genuinely believe that there is no subsidy from London?

I didn't say that. What's a bit vague is exactly how much. So many different figures being bandied around. It's not clear at all and impossible to get transparent figures. That's my gripe, understanding and accepting the figures. I recall I posted an economics video here quite some time ago from a pro Indy group. Everyone disputed the findings and said the figures can easily be manipulated. My point exactly.

What is the present government doing regarding the deficit? Borrowing.......

I'd imagine Scotland would be doing the same. But oh, it would be catastrophic for an independent Scotland. No one would lend us, rates would be astronomical etc,etc,etc........

These arguments have been going on for such a long time now.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I didn't say that. What's a bit vague is exactly how much. So many different figures being bandied around. It's not clear at all and impossible to get transparent figures. That's my gripe, understanding and accepting the figures. I recall I posted an economics video here quite some time ago from a pro Indy group. Everyone disputed the findings and said the figures can easily be manipulated. My point exactly.

What is the present government doing regarding the deficit? Borrowing.......

I'd imagine Scotland would be doing the same. But oh, it would be catastrophic for an independent Scotland. No one would lend us, rates would be astronomical etc,etc,etc........

These arguments have been going on for such a long time now.

Regardless of the actual dollar figure, when the price of your main export drops by 2/3rds in a year or so it is likely that the finances of the country would be in trouble.

As I say, do what cost are you prepared to pay for independence. Given the massive loss of revenue that must have happened as a result of the falling oil price it is inevitable that potential Scottish government revenues must be lower than hoped for at the time of the referendum. Back then I don't recall anyone claiming that there was a massive surplus.

Even if you don't accept Whitehall figures, the simplest back of envelope calculation shows that the fiscal numbers must have got much worse.

Leanne1812

Generali wrote: »

Regardless of the actual dollar figure, when the price of your main export drops by 2/3rds in a year or so it is likely that the finances of the country would be in trouble.

As I say, do what cost are you prepared to pay for independence. Given the massive loss of revenue that must have happened as a result of the falling oil price it is inevitable that potential Scottish government revenues must be lower than hoped for at the time of the referendum. Back then I don't recall anyone claiming that there was a massive surplus.

Even if you don't accept Whitehall figures, the simplest back of envelope calculation shows that the fiscal numbers must have got much worse.

I think we all understand falling oil revenues means our finances are not quite as healthy.

Perhaps this article will show a different take on the never ending oil saga.

Yes, it's from a pro Indy group but all I can say is point out the flaws and I will ponder them.

Cheers.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/without-oil-would-scotland-already-be-independent/

.string.

@Leanne - re the "anti" discussion we were just having, I can believe you hold the views you described but don't extend that belief beyond yourself. You, as a patriotic Scot (as you define it) would understand that there are parallel British commitments and equally passionate feelings if not more so.

The consequences of separations are difficult to predict and I don't know that I would be able to predict my own reactions in that event, but you should not assume a fluffy detente with a rUK. I know that the SNP would like Scots to believe things will go on as before, but they won't. They really won't.

The subsidy, of whatever size, will go plus many other things which our Union has given us. The CLAPTONs of England will revel in it. I think it better not to list them but I make one prediction, that England, with the rUK, relieved of any obligation towards Scotland, will focuss inwards to minimise the costs to itself of separation, without thought or concern of the consequences for Scotland.

It is not a nice scenario that may beckon and I hope we avoid it. Think "Unintended Consequences".

You mentioned that this was a time for the end of the Union;. I regard it as a time for consolidation to a new maturity, if rational thinking prevails.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

It was about the end of a political union. Some feel an emotional attachment to the union. I've no problem with that. And some don't. It's that simple. I wanted Scotland to be in control of her destiny. A small, peaceful, nuclear free nation. That amongst other things were paramount to me.

so I guess you don't think scotland should join NATO; where an attack on one is considered an attack on all.

wotsthat

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I think we all understand falling oil revenues means our finances are not quite as healthy.

I know it's early in 2016 but this is my nomination for understatement of the year.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I think we all understand falling oil revenues means our finances are not quite as healthy.

Perhaps this article will show a different take on the never ending oil saga.

Yes, it's from a pro Indy group but all I can say is point out the flaws and I will ponder them.

Cheers.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/without-oil-would-scotland-already-be-independent/

It is good to see that Scotland is doing well within the Union, but I don't think you can relate that to a separated situation.

Last year I started examining shifting money from Scottish based banks because of their vulnerability to losing the protection of the £ and during that process had a talk at my local branch regarding the Nat West which is part of RBS. I was told, in good British fashion, don't panic --- because RBS had plans in place to relocate. So I still bank at Nat West.

These "scare stories" are for real. One should not equate the Scottish Economy within the Union with that without.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

@Leanne - re the "anti" discussion we were just having, I can believe you hold the views you described but don't extend that belief beyond yourself. You, as a patriotic Scot (as you define it) would understand that there are parallel British commitments and equally passionate feelings if not more so.

The consequences of separations are difficult to predict and I don't know that I would be able to predict my own reactions in that event, but you should not assume a fluffy detente with a rUK. I know that the SNP would like Scots to believe things will go on as before, but they won't. They really won't.

The subsidy, of whatever size, will go plus many other things which our Union has given us. The CLAPTONs of England will revel in it. I think it better not to list them but I make one prediction, that England, with the rUK, relieved of any obligation towards Scotland, will focuss inwards to minimise the costs to itself of separation, without thought or concern of the consequences for Scotland.

It is not a nice scenario that may beckon and I hope we avoid it. Think "Unintended Consequences".

You mentioned that this was a time for the end of the Union;. I regard it as a time for consolidation to a new maturity, if rational thinking prevails.

I'd imagine most people feel patriotic to their homeland. Isn't that normal? I do feel proud to be scots and it's nice knowing we are generally liked throughout the world. In asia you say scottish and they say Jonny Walker with a smile :-) pity I despise the stuff.

Oh I absolutely understand that the rest of the U.K. will look after its own interests first and foremost just as Scotland would. It would be strange to imagine otherwise. However, I'd like to think we'd be friendly, not bitter neighbours and if something is in our joint interest or benefit then we'd all be mature and responsible enough to make it happen.

Your postings on this thread has lead me to believe that you do have a strong emotional attachment to the union. Therefore your visions of the rUK being somewhat bitter and possibly wishing Scotland would fail and revelling in it do not ring true with me.

I still cannot reconcile all the leaders descending en masse to Scotland just prior to the vote to beg us to remain. It was very bizarre and left me thinking why on earth keep us unless it is for some sort of benefit. If we are such a drain they'd have happily waved us off but no......

Hey ho, we are in a union and I don't spend my life wishing to be out of it. I accept we are but my preference would be independence. Meanwhile I'd like a friendly, mutually beneficial partnership and I don't always feel that's what we have. Not talking finances here, just a general disdain or dismissive attitude that is evident sometimes.

Leanne1812

wotsthat wrote: »

I know it's early in 2016 but this is my nomination for understatement of the year.

Why thank you. Such an honour to be nominated so early into the new year