The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Tromking

Scotland is going nowhere, the current machinations by the SNP are designed to feed the historic anti-English grevience in the vain hope that sometime in our lifetimes, when Scotland may not be economically dependent on the rUK they might call a referendum they can win.
As part of that referendum they'll no doubt cite the ignominy of June 2016 when the repressed Scots were dragged from a political Union by the nasty English.
You Nationalists are being played.

HornetSaver

Tromking wrote: »

You Nationalists are being played.

Looking at the most likely post-Brexit scenarios, and given the backtracking on some of the central pledges of the EU campaign, it is beginning to appear as though Leave voters were played. Didn't stop them winning a free and fair democratic referendum though.

elantan

HornetSaver wrote: »

Looking at the most likely post-Brexit scenarios, and given the backtracking on some of the central pledges of the EU campaign, it is beginning to appear as though Leave voters were played. Didn't stop them winning a free and fair democratic referendum though.

The same thing happened in indy ref, hence why a lot of people that voted no would vote Yes this time round, a lot of people regretted their vote

elantan

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Are you implying that Scotland would be able to leave the Union, split the debt, split assets, re-negotiate contracts, setup everything else they need on the basis of an advisory referendum?

It's quite clear to most I would think that any independence referendum cannot happen without a nod from Westminster, as it happens I think Scotland would get that nod anyway.

Yet the Scottish nationalists continually forget that they run a £15bn deficit (~9% of Scottish GDP) and that's including Barnett funding. The Scottish economy is structurally flawed and the debts would be crippling. They would not have control of their own currency and would I think have to choose between Sterling with no control and the Euro with a minority say in how it's ran.

They should just have the referendum, but the UK government should say "that's it for the next 100 years" or something equivalent. The circus needs to stop no matter who is in power up there.

Don't forget Scotland gets its share of the assets as well

.string.

elantan wrote: »

Don't forget Scotland gets its share of the assets as well

See my post

ruggedtoast

elantan wrote: »

Don't forget Scotland gets its share of the assets as well

The main asset Scotland would get would be Scotland.

I am highly doubtful that the Bank of England could actually force an independent Scotland to take on any of the UK's national debt.

The creditors lent, after all, to the United Kingdom. If bits of it split away and the remainder is commensurately less able to pay them back, then that's their tough luck. I doubt there was any specific covenant in any of the lending that an Independent Scotland would be on the hook for repayments.

If I lend £500 to George who lives with his 3 brothers, I don't really care that brother #2 moved out and isn't contributing to the family kitty any more. I lent to George and I expect him to pay me back.

The counter argument to this is that Scotland then wouldn't be able to borrow itself ,as no one would have confidence to lend. But thats a bit like saying

"if Scotland doesn't take on a massive debt it can't pay back then institutions won't lend to it."

Doesn't sound that likely to be honest.

I think Scotland should just push for independence right away and have another referendum in January 2017, shortly after whatever reptile the Tories appoint to be the new PM, is in post.

Then their accession negotiations can be wrapped up in Theresa May's Brexit negotiations. It'll mean using the euro but thats better than being stuck in sterling zone now.

TrickyTree83

elantan wrote: »

Don't forget Scotland gets its share of the assets as well

The assets will be a one time payment if you sold them off.

What's going to happen on going? £15bn structural deficit + £28bn loss of Barnett that's a £42bn a year black hole. More than the sum of the "severe-shock" forecast losses from HM Treasury regarding the EU ref. Then there's the oil, are you going to prop that up as well? It doesn't pay for itself let alone make a profit at the moment.

So Scotland will be left with no assets and a massive budget deficit to find. Alongside higher unemployment compared to the rest of the UK.

What's the SNP's plan for all of this?

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The main asset Scotland would get would be Scotland.

I am highly doubtful that the Bank of England could actually force an independent Scotland to take on any of the UK's national debt.

The creditors lent, after all, to the United Kingdom. If bits of it split away and the remainder is commensurately less able to pay them back, then that's their tough luck. I doubt there was any specific covenant in any of the lending that an Independent Scotland would be on the hook for repayments.

If I lend £500 to George who lives with his 3 brothers, I don't really care that brother #2 moved out and isn't contributing to the family kitty any more. I lent to George and I expect him to pay me back.

The counter argument to this is that Scotland then wouldn't be able to borrow itself ,as no one would have confidence to lend. But thats a bit like saying

"if Scotland doesn't take on a massive debt it can't pay back then institutions won't lend to it."

Doesn't sound that likely to be honest.

I think Scotland should just push for independence right away and have another referendum in January 2017, shortly after whatever reptile the Tories appoint to be the new PM, is in post.

Then their accession negotiations can be wrapped up in Theresa May's Brexit negotiations. It'll mean using the euro but thats better than being stuck in sterling zone now.

Even if the UK let them off the debt - which is highly unlikely they still have major economic issues to overcome.

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Even if the UK let them off the debt - which is highly unlikely they still have major economic issues to overcome.

They'll be right. They have to do it sooner or later anyway.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They'll be right. They have to do it sooner or later anyway.

Why do they have to do it?

It seems stupid to trade a greater voice in a local parliament (Westminster) for a lesser voice in a distant parliament (Brussels/Strasbourg) as well as huge financial difficulty for the sake of saying you're independent.

If you're an ultra nationalist I can see why you might vote for it as independence trumps everything else - you just don't care. But if you're worried about your job, high taxes and putting food on the table the sensible thing is to continue as part of the Union.