Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Nah you just don't like a genuinely critical light being shone through the smoke under the hood of the mess that would be an independent Scotland's fiscal position.

Anyway, we've finally identified the plan: an independent Scotland would be arranged completely differently than now (reasonable) and so that would find £9bn (risible). That's all I wanted to understand, is how the fantasy was meant to fill the gap.

That will depend on negotiations. Debts and deficits and assets. The EU also. There's nothing BUT critical light being shone on a possible independent Scotland. It's been that way for the last 3 or 4 years. Independence and SNP support has only risen during. It's not about the money anymore.

Scotland will go sooner or later, we'll all get over it and get on with our lives. Politically there's no other possible outcome bar a left wing Labour govt the English will never vote for. Johnson, May, Fox or Osborne as PM will only seal the deal. Johnson would be cheering waving Scotland off. Scottish Labour voters that are left will vote Yes in absolute droves if any of the above take office next GE.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That will depend on negotiations. Debts and deficits and assets. The EU also. There's nothing BUT critical light being shone on a possible independent Scotland. It's been that way for the last 3 or 4 years. Independence and SNP support has only risen during. It's not about the money anymore.

Scotland will go sooner or later, we'll all get over it and get on with our lives. Politically there's no other possible outcome bar a left wing Labour govt the English will never vote for. Johnson, May, Fox or Osborne as PM will only seal the deal. Johnson would be cheering waving Scotland off. Scottish Labour voters that are left will vote Yes in absolute droves if any of the above take office next GE.

If it's not about the money then it is fair enough but I do have a problem with the way that finances are being portrayed as 'too complicated' or as if there is some contention over them. Ultimately it's just adding up. It's not that hard and the gap between spending and income is huge.

Scotland will get independence if the SNP are allowed a series of Neverendums. That's why Unionists don't want them.

Labour are the really big losers out of all of this. They aren't looking likely to form a Government on English votes at any time unless they move a very long way to the right. The trouble is, that won't play in Scotland. So what do Labour do? If they move far enough to the left to get Scottish votes then they lose England.

Even if they split into two parties with a Scottish party of hard left (in English terms) and an English party to the right (in Scottish terms) it's hard to see that working. The Tories in England would say well look at the Scottish party, vote for Labour down here and you get those lunatics. Equally the SNP (or whoever) could point to the English Labour Party and rightly point out that a vote for Scottish Labour wouldn't get you Scottish Labour policies as the English won't have it.

All of that makes a compelling political argument for independence but I just can't see anyone wanting to vote for a cut in the size of the state by 25% while taxes remain at the same levels overall. If the Scots were downtrodden and repressed then I could buy it but it's not so and I don't think that there is really a case to be made that it is.

I guess it boils down to a question of how much Scots are prepared to pay to get out of the union. I think the current price is way too high but that's just supposition.

Shakethedisease

zagubov wrote: »

Can't wait for this thread to finish. Clearly anti-union judging by its anti-devolved government rants, patronising at best, hateful at worst, contradictory always.

At one stage I thought I also detected a slight ant-independence bias, but what's the chances of that happening?

I must admit supreme boredom too. Generali has been posting the same tired old stuff since 2011 ( only then oil was running out ). T'is a terrible habit I have logging in here. Blimey Thrugelmir is back on about Salmond again lol, and ruggedtoast obsessing about The National readership figures.... again.

No idea what's going on in and around Scotland today I'm afraid. And I'm just an ordinary average Scottish woman posting on it some ordinary average forum thread (since your average Scottish woman votes SNP these days). Not a scooby. Tabloid trash as gospel and still, after all this time, absolutely no idea why the SNP may be about to landslide once again in May. Apart from vague references to 'spin', like the SNP have any sort of positive platform anywhere to spin from, not a clue.

This thread will end as it started. With Salmond and oil prices.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

If it's not about the money then it is fair enough but I do have a problem with the way that finances are being portrayed as 'too complicated' or as if there is some contention over them. Ultimately it's just adding up. It's not that hard and the gap between spending and income is huge.

Scotland will get independence if the SNP are allowed a series of Neverendums. That's why Unionists don't want them.

Labour are the really big losers out of all of this. They aren't looking likely to form a Government on English votes at any time unless they move a very long way to the right. The trouble is, that won't play in Scotland. So what do Labour do? If they move far enough to the left to get Scottish votes then they lose England.

Even if they split into two parties with a Scottish party of hard left (in English terms) and an English party to the right (in Scottish terms) it's hard to see that working. The Tories in England would say well look at the Scottish party, vote for Labour down here and you get those lunatics. Equally the SNP (or whoever) could point to the English Labour Party and rightly point out that a vote for Scottish Labour wouldn't get you Scottish Labour policies as the English won't have it.

All of that makes a compelling political argument for independence but I just can't see anyone wanting to vote for a cut in the size of the state by 25% while taxes remain at the same levels overall. If the Scots were downtrodden and repressed then I could buy it but it's not so and I don't think that there is really a case to be made that it is.

I guess it boils down to a question of how much Scots are prepared to pay to get out of the union. I think the current price is way too high but that's just supposition.

I guess if they/we vote Yes. At the end of the day they're prepared to pay whatever it takes and live with the consequences. It's not like we haven't been warned, repeatedly and constantly for years now.

Labour have lost interest in Scotland. There's only 1 MP there now, and little hope of any sort of short/mid term revival. Labour English MP's will live in fear of another 'possible coalition' with the SNP being highlighted constantly in the press in 2020. They know they'll lose off the back of it like last time. English voters do not want the SNP at Westminster. Neither do the SNP come to that, nor do most of those who vote for them ( which is now about half of Scotland).

You must see which way all this will end ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess if they/we vote Yes. At the end of the day they're prepared to pay whatever it takes and live with the consequences. It's not like we haven't been warned, repeatedly and constantly for years now.

Labour have lost interest in Scotland. There's only 1 MP there now, and little hope of any sort of short/mid term revival. Labour English MP's will live in fear of another 'possible coalition' with the SNP being highlighted constantly in the press in 2020. They know they'll lose off the back of it like last time. English voters do not want the SNP at Westminster. Neither do the SNP come to that, nor do most of those who vote for them ( which is now about half of Scotland).

You must see which way all this will end ?

As I say, IMHO it boils down to costs vs benefits. There are clear costs to quitting as the subsidy disappears. The benefits seem more nebulous to me.

English voters generally regard the SNP as being a group of hard-left extremists that they do not want anywhere near power. Actually my view is that they talk left but act centrist for the most part although the idea that they might start to confiscate land is a little alarming. We'll see what the final policy/law looks like.

Yes this could all end in independence but there is nothing inevitable about history and the reality is that support could wane as easily as it waxed. YouGov's latest shows a complete lack of support for another referendum.

Oh and I am right about oil running out. Production is down about 2/3rds since the late 90s although it did go up a little last year.

It's funny. People always seem to like my posts that they agree with. When I disagree with them I'm a grumpy fool.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...Oh and I am right about oil running out. Production is down about 2/3rds since the late 90s although it did go up a little last year....

And, according to the Scottish government, oil revenues are down to £7 million per month. Which is £84 million a year, technically known as 'doodly-squat'.

Although I do believe that HMRC have said that oil revenues are now negative.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess if they/we vote Yes. At the end of the day they're prepared to pay whatever it takes and live with the consequences. It's not like we haven't been warned, repeatedly and constantly for years now.
...

Genuine question.

What do you suggest the 1/3 to just under 1/2 of Scottish voters who vote No to the independence option actually do?

Presumably, by your definition, they are unwilling to accept the economic consequences.

And yes, this means people like Hamish, who do pretty well out of the current Union.

Establishing a newly independent country on a fragile economic base provides a ready made opportunity for an Unionist movement which will use any bump in the road to remind everybody how much better things were "in the good old days".

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

And, according to the Scottish government, oil revenues are down to £7 million per month. Which is £84 million a year, technically known as 'doodly-squat'.

Although I do believe that HMRC have said that oil revenues are now negative.

IMO those neglible numbers will be less of a focus than the day to day effect on tens of thousands of people working in and around the oil industry.

How do you convince these people that the Independence process will offer a better livelihood?

.string.

Swinney urged to pass "final hurdle" on fiscal framework as deadlock continues

Greg Hands, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said that the parties were "nearly there" over an agreement but warned that "the ball is now fully in the court of the Scottish government" over whether to accept it and pass a "final hurdle".

However, sources close to Mr Swinney insisted that it was Mr Hands who should prepare to give way over key issues, with the SNP maintaining that the Treasury position flies in the face of the "no detriment" principle agreed by the Smith Commission.

and what is the problem?

The key area of dispute is around population growth, with the Scottish Government insisting that it should be compensated if, as predicted, its population grows slower than the rest of the UK. The Treasury, however, believes that it is being asked to transfer unreasonable levels of tax revenues from England and Wales north when the cash will be needed to pay for public services there.

...
Mr Hands said
"The Scottish Government’s deal would mean the Scottish Government benefitting from billions of pounds from the growth in income and other taxes in the rest of the UK, long after these taxes have been devolved, whilst keeping all devolved taxes in Scotland to themselves."

So it's the same old story, the SNP asking for the unfair and impossible, manoeuvring, regardless of the consequences for Scotland, for an excuse to walk away from the Devolution Settlement and start on a never-ending process of whinge and no action.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

As I say, IMHO it boils down to costs vs benefits. There are clear costs to quitting as the subsidy disappears. The benefits seem more nebulous to me.

English voters generally regard the SNP as being a group of hard-left extremists that they do not want anywhere near power. Actually my view is that they talk left but act centrist for the most part although the idea that they might start to confiscate land is a little alarming. We'll see what the final policy/law looks like.

Yes this could all end in independence but there is nothing inevitable about history and the reality is that support could wane as easily as it waxed. YouGov's latest shows a complete lack of support for another referendum.

Oh and I am right about oil running out. Production is down about 2/3rds since the late 90s although it did go up a little last year.

It's funny. People always seem to like my posts that they agree with. When I disagree with them I'm a grumpy fool.

With oil prices at an all time low, and running out. Now is the time to be changing focus in Scotland and changing policies to concentrate on other areas of potential growth. Other small countries cope with little or no oil revenues at all. Scotland would be no different in that respect. Under Westminster, any past, and more importantly future Scottish Govt's are hamstrung completely in it's abilities to tailor and produce policies in order to cope with oil running out. Or to induce much in the way of growth. Devolving income tax powers without any other tax to Scotland is just yet another hamstring. Income tax raises are supposedly banned in the UK via the Conservatives for a reason. Votes.

Critical light as you say has been shone blindingly on current ( under Westminster), and the potential economics of an Scotland (independence). Neither are positive. In fact I don't think I've ever seen a good official economic report about Scotland. But what's for sure is that under Westminster that situation is unlikely to change.

On the one hand we're told pooling and sharing is what the UK does within it's constituent nations. Then on the other we're told that the Scottish Govt's should forever be raising income taxes and accept Scotland Bill's which could potentially cut Scotland's economic future off at the knees. Introducing a system whereby Scotland has to produce both economic and population growth at rates never seen before, just to stay as we are.

At least with independence Scottish Govt's would have access to a full range of powers. There would be change too and as things stand there seems to be fewer and fewer reasons to look at the Union and say well at least we're better off. Sure there are some compelling ones. You're 100% correct on that. But they're getting fewer as the months and years pass by. Scotland being kicked out of the EU is yet another safer in the UK/BetterTogether cornerstone argument to bite the dust recently. I feel sorry for those Scots who voted No on the EU basis actually. Also those who thought that Labour would be in no 10 just now reversing all previous Tory/Lib Dem policies they don't like. Boy did they get a wake up call in May 15 too.

Imo it's been good that the Scottish pro independence debate has had to move on from oil and concentrate on other areas. The Scottish media in particular has been struggling without that particular prop to keep slinging out there every few days !