Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Great, so you'd have a renewables sector with one small non-price sensitive customer. That doesn't sound like a recipe for success.

It's only one sector. There are a few others.

I was replying to the assertion that the SNP wouldn't invest or put their money where their mouths were re renewables. They've done quite a bit so far with limited powers.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The UK economy is as vunerable as anyone else's to global factors and a decline in oil price revenues ( deflation ? ).. Let's not pretend it's all 'milk and honey' out there as part of the UK economy.
Without full powers over the Scottish economy, then obviously the Scottish Govt cannot ever remove the concentration risk you point out. That's where the sticking point is. And round in circles this debate goes.

No it doesn't go round in circles. You try to muddy the waters and pretend things are unclear which are perfectly clear.

Scotland's economy is about 16-17% oil. The oil price has tanked and there is no way back for it in the short term. That would be very bad for an independent Scotland and we are just a couple of months from where Scotland would have been waving goodbye to the Union if the Scots had been dumb enough to vote to leave.

In a couple of months a newly independent Scottish Government would be looking at having to make massive cuts right across Government. Forget any lofty ideals about investing into new industries. Keeping the heating on in schools and hospitals would be a big enough challenge.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There's some serious considerations going on as far as I can tell into offering Scotland a 'deal' if a Brexit looks likely. And not just in the Guardian, though I quote that as the most recent 'view from the outside'.

Joris Luyendijk http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/11/europe-turn-tables-bullying-britain-david-cameron-eu


Is all uncertain isn't it. Do you think England will vote to stay ?

I think the UK will vote to remain in the EU.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

No it doesn't go round in circles. You try to muddy the waters and pretend things are unclear which are perfectly clear.

Scotland's economy is about 16-17% oil. The oil price has tanked and there is no way back for it in the short term. That would be very bad for an independent Scotland and we are just a couple of months from where Scotland would have been waving goodbye to the Union if the Scots had been dumb enough to vote to leave.

In a couple of months a newly independent Scottish Government would be looking at having to make massive cuts right across Government. Forget any lofty ideals about investing into new industries. Keeping the heating on in schools and hospitals would be a big enough challenge.

Either Scotland makes the leap, or things stays as they are. An economic 'basket case' despite decades of oil coming ashore. Yet dependent on, what's the phrase 'English largesse' ? And 'dependent'. What kind of reasoning is that ? This argument absolutely does go round in circles. 'Can't go independent because oil prices make Scotland dependent --- should go independent because oil prices make Scotland dependent'.

Politically though things have changed and shifted massively. The SNP didn't crash and burn into insignificance after the referendum returned a No vote as everyone predicted ( more specifically Labour). Indications are there that more and more people are willing to make that leap in the face of another possible decade or more of a Conservative party. And right wing policies that only about 12-15% of the Scottish electorate actually want. Is extremely unlikely, imo as it stands.. that with the SNP dominant in Scotland, and the Conservative party dominant in England.. that the union will survive for much longer.

The economics of a possible split will follow the politics if there's a next time, not the other way round. The SNP learnt harsh lessons via the referendum in 2014 about the economic case for independence. The majority win in Holyrood 2011 was completely unexpected ( Holyrood voting is designed against it, Labour were leading in the polls just weeks before the vote ).. . You can be sure none of them will be repeated and that behind the scenes even now, there is a realistic case being built regardless of oil prices. Sturgeon is not the gambler nor anywhere near as confident as Salmond was.

But on the other hand, neither will there be any semblance of a BetterTogether type group to put forward the economic arguments against next time. Half of Scottish Labour will be out and proud for independence should they get a drubbing in May. They'll give up and start focusing inwards. There's only one MP in Westminster now after all. The rest are Scottish MSP's focused on Holyrood anyway politics wise. Independence wouldn't change that perspective much for them.

There it is.

I think the UK will vote to remain in the EU.

Oh good.

Generali

Maybe you're right about economics trailing behind politics in a new Scottish referendum but the SNP did their best to put economics centre stage last time (and then made an utter hash of it by flip flopping on the currency).

Be clear, a new referendum means asking the Scots to vote for decades of impoverishment to get rid of the English unless oil returns to and remains at all time highs. At least you now accept that there simply isn't an economic argument to be made in favour of independence STD. I wonder how well the message is going to go down on the doorsteps as you tell the eager voters that you'll be closing the local school and hospital because you won't be able to afford them but at least you're free.

It's a terrible price to rid yourself of the English.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP learnt harsh lessons via the referendum in 2014 about the economic case for independence.

. You can be sure none of them will be repeated and that behind the scenes even now, there is a realistic case being built regardless of oil prices.

The realistic case is easy to build.

In fact the Scottish Government has already built it and continues to update it every year via the GERS figures.

Scotland without oil is a basket case economy without either savage cuts or wholly unrealistic, fantastical, mythical, levels of growth an order of magnitude bigger than the previous SNP white paper claimed was possible.

You can be sure, however, that nobody from the SNP will ever utter one word of truth on that topic.

The rest are Scottish MSP's focused on Holyrood anyway politics wise. Independence wouldn't change that perspective much for them.
.

If you think Scottish Labour, or even the Scottish Tories, would support a course of action (indy) that must inevitably lead to Austerity Max - cuts so severe they make Osborne's 'cuts' look tiny - then you have another think coming.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Politically though things have changed and shifted massively.

Nothings permanent though. The SNP aren't a new party. Founded 1934. So easily could skip back into oblivion if they fail to deliver.

Scottish GDP figures this week didn't look good.

Nor did the news of Council tax rises.

Many challenges ahead that cannot be laid at the door of Westminster!

dktreesea

England needs get on with it and solve their flooding problems by building suitable dams in the catchment areas of their major rivers. This will have an added, and potentially vital, benefit to them of storing up water in case they need it to offset drought.


If a major drought does hit England, or even if the fracking projects actually start to produce gas, which will likely pollute underground water wherever it is carried out, then Scotland won't need the oil; they'll be too busy selling their southern neighbour water.

Thrugelmir

dktreesea wrote: »

England needs get on with it and solve their flooding problems by building suitable dams in the catchment areas of their major rivers.

What would flooding the Thames Valley achieve? :eek::eek::eek:

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What would flooding the Thames Valley achieve? :eek::eek::eek:

Getting rid of Reading?

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

Getting rid of Reading?

Their refusal to restrict new school building makes me worry they're also trying to get rid of writing and reckoning (oh all right, rithmetic)