Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Just to help understanding, I made bold those parts of the post which were actually true, the rest being standard SNP spin; the same old drivel.

On the subject of having a Tory Government being good for the SNP I am reminded of the several times, before the last GE, when you said exactly that and how that would be win win for the SNP. Then there was that affair about the memo which was leaked regarding Sturgeon's remarks, amounting to much the same thing, to the French Ambassador. Attention focussed on the impropriety of the leak itself and a denial was issued by Sturgeon and also the French Ambassador. As the lies and spiteful spin mount, it becomes more and more difficult to believe anything said by the collective.

Forget about the SNP. EVEL is most bad for Labour. It's not SNP spin. You have to realise that the SNP can't do spin. No one will give them the extensive positive air or print to do so. I have no idea still where you imagine the SNP are getting all this positive coverage from ? Care to share ?

Forget about the memo too. Carmichael sealed his party's MSP's hopes in May with that when he admitted he lied.

EVEL isn't about Scotland. It's about locking Labour out of power in the UK

It will go down in history as the most narrow-minded exercise in partisan constitutionalism in British history...

....However, the next Labour Prime Minister could find that he or she is in office but not in power. This is because Tory MPs sitting in the English Grand Committee will have an effective veto on all legislation on domestic affairs.


Say Labour tries to repeal the Health and Social Care Bill 2011 that increased the freedom of private firms to bid for NHS contracts. MPs on the English Grand Committee could veto it on the grounds that this is an English only bill.
It would leave UK Labour ministers for health, education and justice unable to implement the policies on which the government was elected. How could any prime minister pretend to govern when he or she can’t implement their manifesto pledges over 85 per cent of the UK population?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/evel-isnt-about-scotland-its-about-locking-labour-out-of-power-in-the-uk-a6706701.html

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
At the end of the day, a specific Scotland targeted economy, would be better looked after by a specific Scottish government in control of all economic levers, targeted towards Scottish centric economic activity, borrowing and investments. With or without oil which is running out anyway.
...

Please....this reads like it came straight out of one of Tony Blair's spinmeister handbooks.

What does it mean? Give me one concrete example where Scottish centric is significantly different to London centric or Yorkshire centric.

You talk about oil running out. Would an independent Scotland divert precious resources to protect the oil industry up there from shedding more jobs? What would the good folk of Glasgow have to say when they are feeling the economic pinch to support a relatively wealthy Aberdeen?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You have no idea what the budget gap is or will be. Apart from what Kevin Hague says it will be.

All Kevin Hague does is chart the data that the Scottish Government produces.

He doesn't create the figures.

He just reposts them.

a specific Scotland targeted economy, would be better looked after by a specific Scottish government in control of all economic levers, targeted towards Scottish centric economic activity, borrowing and investments.

In order to close the economic gap with the rest of the UK and pay it's way, Scotland would have to increase GDP by 16% almost overnight while maintaining current proportions of taxation.

Otherwise Bankruptcy and failed Statehood awaits....

The SNP White Paper said that if Scotland had already had full control of all those economic levers and taxation for the last couple of decades, it might have been able to increase growth by 3.6% cumulatively.

Bearing in mind all independent nations have access to the same economic levers the SNP want for Scotland, and NONE of them have been able to create growth anywhere near what Scotland would need to do, can you tell me why Scotland is unique in being able to create miraculous, incredible, and fantastical levels of growth if it now gets those powers?

Why doesn't any other country achieve it?

What is so special about us?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Please....this reads like it came straight out of one of Tony Blair's spinmeister handbooks.

What does it mean? Give me one concrete example where Scottish centric is significantly different to London centric or Yorkshire centric.

You talk about oil running out. Would an independent Scotland divert precious resources to protect the oil industry up there from shedding more jobs? What would the good folk of Glasgow have to say when they are feeling the economic pinch to support a relatively wealthy Aberdeen?

Most countries that are countries with parliaments, don't have their economies run by the neighbouring country. Glasgow and Aberdeen are not countries. Scotland and England are.. via a political union...which doesn't seem quite so, palatable anymore, politically.

I think an independent Scotland would put far, far more effort into what happens when oil runs out or isn't economically viable anymore ( renewables ). Would welcome immigration ( to a point ) due to an aging population and declining tax base. Has already stopped 'right to buy' and are building socially rented housing again/looking into rent controls. Just for starters. We view all of the above as 'good' in Scotland. The Conservatives have cancelled a lot of investments they said they would keep if elected ( Carbon Capture etc ).. I could go on. But I can't honestly be bothered.

Scotland should have a Scottish Government that holds all the levers the UK government currently does. Just like any other country. So it can target it's own economic policies where it feels is best when problems arise. There's no real reason why not is there ? Do you want to name a few reasons why not ? I'd be happy to hear them. One thing for sure is that the UK won't be diverting any precious resources to protect the oil industry. They prefer to revel in it instead apparently.

In short, imagine France dictating your economic policy. Then try and imagine that's exactly what a lot of Scot's feel like currently.

We don't vote en masse for the Conservatives as a general observation. And there aren't that many keen on the economic policies that always come with a Tory government in a neighbouring country... implementing policies that hardly anyone wants nor voted for in Scotland. Then shoving a grant north and telling the Scots they they are 'subsidy junkies' and should be grateful for what they deign to give. Well, not everyone wants to be painted as subsidy junkies, and hardly anyone wants a Conservative government either.

You can keep them. Some of us would prefer independence, and a far more Scotland centric approach instead ( since we don't vote for them, why put up with them in power ? ).<--- That would make a good T shirt.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

All Kevin Hague does is chart the data that the Scottish Government produces.

He doesn't create the figures.

He just reposts them.
In order to close the economic gap with the rest of the UK and pay it's way, Scotland would have to increase GDP by 16% almost overnight while maintaining current proportions of taxation.

Otherwise Bankruptcy and failed Statehood awaits....

The SNP White Paper said that if Scotland had already had full control of all those economic levers and taxation for the last couple of decades, it might have been able to increase growth by 3.6% cumulatively.

Bearing in mind all independent nations have access to the same economic levers the SNP want for Scotland, and NONE of them have been able to create growth anywhere near what Scotland would need to do, can you tell me why Scotland is unique in being able to create miraculous, incredible, and fantastical levels of growth if it now gets those powers?

Why doesn't any other country achieve it?

What is so special about us?

Kevin Hague spins just as much as Wings over Scotland does Hamish. You're a fool to believe either of them without question. Hague has an agenda the same as Campbell does. And if you ask me he's far more 'fame hungry' too. I've seen him tweeting 'notables' with his 'latest' posts looking for recognition. At least Stu Campbell doesn't bother with any of that malarkey. Not even the SNP will aknowledge him.

Standard and Poor were completely wrong then, and we should all listen to Kevin Hague instead. Pull the other one luv. People on this forum give you far too much credit for copying and pasting his dinky wee graphs if you ask me. Then turning it into 'fact' which they think if repeated enough makes it so. Well it doesn't. He's just another twitter user/armchair economist with an opinion. End of.

."Standard & Poor's have concluded that Scotland's wealth levels are comparable to those of AAA-listed nations, and that as an independent country - even without North Sea oil - Scotland will qualify for S&P's highest economic assessment."

Crude Oil Price History Chart

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. Time for the scales to fall from yours.

27 February 2014 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13147964.Standard_and_Poor_s__challenges_facing_iScotland_s_economy_are_significant_but_not_unsurpassable/

I think you're just one of many amateur ( Scotland wise ) economists with an 'opinion', largely coloured by the friends you have here quoting Kevin Hague ( another armchair economist popular because he says things unionist's want to hear ).. and other sources.. There are other views, and opinions. Scotland is more than oil prices. You're no more credible than anyone else I'm afraid. Though is good in debating terms re pros and cons.

At the end of the day, a specific Scotland targeted economy, would be better looked after by a specific Scottish government in control of all economic levers, targeted towards Scottish centric economic activity, borrowing and investments. With or without oil which is running out anyway.

House prices crashing in London is a bit of a worry isn't it....

I'm not an amateur economist, I get paid for it these days. I do feel a bit like an amateur when I see my pay cheque but I'm sure I'll cheer up when my bonus is announced.:money:

As an analyst, I like to look at the actual data rather than a newspaper's rather shoddy interpretation of it. A quick antrobus turns up this:

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/StandardAndPoorsKeyConsiderations.pdf

which I assume is the paper that is being referred to. Indeed it does say that Scotland would be a viable state. However, as with pretty much every economic prediction, it does rather depend on the assumptions that you use. So what assumptions does the paper use? That would be my first question. Among the key assumptions are these:

- Scotland would have its own currency (hmm, don't recall that being the plan)
- Oil prices are high (ahem)

S&P states that it is highly likely that the big banks based in Scotland (RBS and HBOS) would relocate under conditions of Scottish independence and that the state would be highly subject to changes in oil prices. It sees key risks as being oil prices falling and the banks leaving and as a result Scotland being unable to maintain its fiscal position and its gross external financing requirements.

So S&P identified the risks in 2014 that the SNP were so blithe about and now those risks have become reality. The fact is that the oil price collapsing was always the big problem Scotland could face had Yes won. Now the oil price has collapsed, Scotland isn't viable as a state. Not in its current form with very high levels of state employment (25% of the workforce is employed by the Government according to the paper from S&P) and Government spending contingent on high oil prices.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Most countries that are countries with parliaments, don't have their economies run by the neighbouring country. Glasgow and Aberdeen are not countries. Scotland and England are.. via a political union...which doesn't seem quite so, palatable anymore, politically.

I think an independent Scotland would put far, far more effort into what happens when oil runs out or isn't economically viable anymore ( renewables ). Would welcome immigration ( to a point ) due to an aging population and declining tax base. Has already stopped 'right to buy' and are building socially rented housing again/looking into rent controls. Just for starters. We view all of the above as 'good' in Scotland. The Conservatives have cancelled a lot of investments they said they would keep if elected ( Carbon Capture etc ).. I could go on. But I can't honestly be bothered.

Scotland should have a Scottish Government that holds all the levers the UK government currently does. Just like any other country. So it can target it's own economic policies where it feels is best when problems arise. There's no real reason why not is there ? Do you want to name a few reasons why not ? I'd be happy to hear them. One thing for sure is that the UK won't be diverting any precious resources to protect the oil industry. They prefer to revel in it instead apparently.

In short, imagine France dictating your economic policy. Then try and imagine that's exactly what a lot of Scot's feel like currently.

We don't vote en masse for the Conservatives as a general observation. And there aren't that many keen on the economic policies that always come with a Tory government in a neighbouring country... implementing policies that hardly anyone wants nor voted for in Scotland. Then shoving a grant north and telling the Scots they they are 'subsidy junkies' and should be grateful for what they deign to give. Well, not everyone wants to be painted as subsidy junkies, and hardly anyone wants a Conservative government either.

You can keep them. Some of us would prefer independence, and a far more Scotland centric approach instead ( since we don't vote for them, why put up with them in power ? ).<--- That would make a good T shirt.

You and your fellow Scots are free to leave whenever you want to. What is it that makes you stay I wonder?

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

What is it that makes you stay I wonder?

That the majority want to stay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think an independent Scotland would put far, far more effort into what happens when oil runs out or isn't economically viable anymore ( renewables ). Would welcome immigration ( to a point ) due to an aging population and declining tax base. Has already stopped 'right to buy' and are building socially rented housing again/looking into rent controls. Just for starters.

Looks like that's it folks.

Shakey lectures us daily on how independence will open up new opportunities and bring prosperity. When asked how the SNP will revolutionise Scotland's economy he suggests they'll build a few more council houses.

:rotfl::rotfl:

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Looks like that's it folks.

Shakey lectures us daily on how independence will open up new opportunities and bring prosperity. When asked how the SNP will revolutionise Scotland's economy he suggests they'll build a few more council houses.

:rotfl::rotfl:

I'm female. And that's not what I said..

Anyway, look what we have here. It's possible FFA/Devo Max/Federalism and a new Vow ! So soon after the last one too. They soooo know what's on the cards don't they ?

A new Act of Union...

Cross-party group proposes new Act of Union to save United Kingdom from Scottish independence

PROPOSED laws are being drawn up by cross-party politicians to create a new Act of Union that would “wrest back the initiative from the separatists” and help save the 300-year-old United Kingdom by creating a bottom-up federal system.
The group hope to win the backing of the devolved governments for their plans, which if passed into law, would be put to the people of the UK's four nations in a new referendum within the next few years.
It would have to win approval from voters in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for the new system to be implemented, meaning any one of them would have a veto....

....In its written evidence to the committee, the group said: "We see an immediate threat to the constitutional future of the United Kingdom in the likelyhood of a repeated referendum on Scottish independence in the near future“
Lord Salisbury told the committee: “Those who want to keep Scotland in the UK need to wrest back the initiative from the separatists, which has been lost (to them).” He explained the “neatest way” of doing that was to propose a new Act of Union; some 300 years or so since the original acts created one united kingdom of Great Britain...

...The formal introduction of draft legislation would be preceded by consultation and parliamentary scrutiny but Lord Salisbury explained: “It could be brought into force only by a post-legislative referendum; which would obviously have to be approved by all four parts of the kingdom.”

The group is likely to propose two main options - a fully federal system or, once central functions are identified, using the current system of devolution to distribute power to local, regional and national institutions.
The Tory peer said the hope was that as support grew for the new legislation that the UK Government would, over the next two years or so, take up the idea of having a new Act of Union.

The former Conservative Leader of the Lords argued that draft legislation would enable the idea of a new constitutional settlement to be “injected into the political bloodstream” in the run-up to the May 5 elections in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England.
“We have made very considerable progress in a first attempt at a draft bill, which we hope to have at least three-quarters cooked within the next relatively few days.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14202518.Cross_party_group_proposes_new_Act_of_Union_to_save_United_Kingdom_from_Scottish_independence/

( Too long to quote in full ).

"We see an immediate threat to the constitutional future of the United Kingdom in the likelyhood of a repeated referendum on Scottish independence in the near future“

In other words, Scotland would go.