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

elantan

Ohhh aye .... and the Rev has released his wee black book ... what happened when Scotland voted no ... that's gonna be a goody

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Ohhh aye .... and the Rev has released his wee black book ... what happened when Scotland voted no ... that's gonna be a goody

Is it going to be funnier than this?

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/lesley-riddoch-today-we-begin-an-epic-journey-into-nationhood.15466

Independence Day: Lesley Riddoch reports from the alternate universe where Scotland voted Yes...

Well worth a read. Plenty of Nats taking that off to the bogs at work. :rotfl:

Oh even better, there's pages of the stuff.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/angry-salmond-welcome-to-the-independent-republic-of-scotland.15482

Cheered me up no end on a beautiful, sunny ride home on the ferry.

They've even got Fishface involved!

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/alex-salmond-whatever-success-is-earned-then-it-shall-be-by-our-own-efforts-and-our-own-national-will.15465

And he's pretending Scotland's solvent. Oh my aching sides.

elantan

Not sure will pick up my national a wee black book when I get a chance

Mistermeaner

Elantans lurched in to fake voice typing again.

Its a cringeworthy as posh kids from private drama schools putting on cockney accents to play urchins in oliver

.string.

24th Match 2016 - NON Separation DAY

Congratulations to all Scots

Today marks the day when Scotland can celebrate its escape from the financial gloom and social stress which would have accompanied the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom.

Scottish jobs remain secure, and the standard of the Scottish way of Life has been enhanced by the new Devolution Agreement approved by the ruling party of the Scottish Government as promised by the political leaders of the United Kingdom .

The way is set fair for Scotland to utilise those new powers to the benefit of both Scotland and the United Kingdom, with the continued unique contribution of the people of Scotland to the longest successful Union existing on Planet Earth. We wish Scottish Governments well in achieving the aspirations decided and settled by the Scottish Referendum of 2014.

Thanks are especially due on this day to the Scottish People whose Good Sense and Democratic Will soundly rejected the hollow siren words of Nicola Sturgeon who, referring to the SNP White Paper, said:

“This is a landmark document which sets out the economic, social and democratic case for independence … It demonstrates Scotland's financial strengths”

Scotland is Better Together within the UK

Generali

The IFS have been doing some work on Scotland's fiscal position:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8218

Oh dear.

Scotland is largely insulated from the consequences of the substantial gap between the government revenues it generates and the government expenditure undertaken in or on behalf of Scotland. This is because the Scottish Government gets most of its funding in the form of a block grant from the UK government, and the UK government uses revenues from across the UK to pay for non-devolved items like social security benefits and defence. The devolution of tax and welfare powers under the Scotland Bill 2015-16 will transfer some fiscal risk – and fiscal incentives – if its revenues or spending grows less or more quickly than those of the rest of the UK in the years ahead. But it does not transfer any responsibility for the existing larger gap between revenues and spending in Scotland. And while the Scottish Government can vary income tax, for instance, to increase or reduce the amounts it raises from these new powers, it cannot adopt a different fiscal stance to that of the UK government (changes in revenues must be balanced by changes in spending).

No wonder Scots don't want independence!

.string.

Reverting for the moment to the matter of UK Assets and the matter of how that would be shared between a Natland and the UK, it may not be clear to everyone exactly what the SNP claim amounts to.

There is a little bit of repetition from me from past posts in what follows but I think it sufficiently important to repeat the salient claim and the repost.


The following is an extract from the ink below it which should be read to understand the full extent of the claim and why the couplet "Debt and Assets" is constantly used.

Independence will generate a £109,000,000,000 asset windfall for Scotland

Scotland will inherit a fair share of the UK’s £1.3 trillion assets. This is of huge significance. These assets will generate a huge economic windfall for the people of Scotland of £109 billion. It will make Scotland far wealthier and allow us to reshape our institutions’ towards priorities that suit Scotland.

How will this happen?

After a ‘Yes’ vote negotiations will share UK assets between Scotland and the rest of the UK. This is because Scotland’s taxes have contributed to UK assets for generations. Hundreds of billions of pounds of our taxes have poured into infrustructure, equipment and property. As an independent country, Scotland is entitled to its share of these resources.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independence-will-generate-a-109000000000-asset-windfall-for-scotland/

This claim is considerable, the word "Looting" comes to mind.


This issue was discussed at length by the Scottish Affairs Committee.
The SNP claim, however, which is one of many statements in the "White Paper", has no legal basis at all.

The legal situation was explained in the following written statement, and is quoted below:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmscotaf/140/140iiwe07.htm

Scottish Affairs Committee
Supplementary written evidence submitted by Professor Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law, University of Glasgow

1. I appeared as a witness before the Scottish Affairs Committee on 15 January 2014. During the course of the evidence I undertook to supply the Committee with further written evidence on what would happen to UK institutions, assets and liabilities in the event of Scottish independence. I indicated to the Committee that the Scottish Government’s independence white paper (Scotland’s Future) contained a number of legally mistaken assertions or assumptions in this regard. This note identifies and explains a number of these mistakes.

2. The background is that, in terms of public international law, what would happen in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum on 18 September is that Scotland would become a new State in international law and that the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the “continuator” State. This position was authoritatively set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper (Cm 8554, February 2013) and in the legal opinion co-authored by Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle that was annexed to that paper. As I understand it, this legal analysis has not been seriously questioned by the Scottish Government since February last year.

3. The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence. Thus, for example, the UK’s security and secret intelligence services would become the security and secret intelligence services of the rest of the UK (“rUK”). The Bank of England is a UK institution. So is the BBC. As UK institutions they would not fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland.

4. The UK’s assets and liabilities, on the other hand, would fall to be apportioned equitably between the rUK and an independent Scotland. The apportionment of the UK’s assets and liabilities would constitute a large part of the separation negotiations that would have to follow any Yes vote in September’s referendum. Whilst the details would be a matter primarily of political negotiation, those negotiations would take place within a broad framework of international law. International law provides a number of presumptions that are likely to shape such negotiations. Among these presumptions are the following:

The UK’s fixed property in Scotland (eg Government buildings) would become the property of the new Scottish State; conversely Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.

The UK’s movable property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State where it is specifically for local use.

Other assets and liabilities would fall to be apportioned equitably. This may be calculated by such means as share of population or, possibly with regard to the national debt, for example, by share of GDP. Historical contribution appears to be of no relevance: thus UK fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish State even if its construction had been paid for UK taxpayers as a whole, and no compensation would be due to the rUK

5. Working out how these principles and presumptions would apply in the context of unpicking a 307-year-old Union is inevitably going to be a hugely complex task.

6. In the Scotland Analysis Paper on Defence (Cm 8714, October 2013), an indication was given of how complex these negotiations would be in the context of HM Armed Forces. In that Paper it was noted that “an independent Scottish State could not simply co-opt existing units that are primarily recruited or based in Scotland, as these are an integral part of the UK armed forces … While many military personnel and capabilities are located in Scotland, these do not operate in isolation; … they depend on close integration with other capabilities, services and infrastructure spread across the UK” (p. 10 and para 1.85). Movable military and defence assets located in Scotland would not therefore become the automatic property of an independent Scotland. If they are integral to the defence and security of the UK as a whole they are not “specifically for local use”.

7. The Scottish Government’s independence white paper appears to be have been written without regard to the distinction explained above between institutions (on the one hand) and assets and liabilities (on the other). As a result, Scotland’s Future falls into legal error in numerous places. The following are among the key examples.

8. On the pound, the white paper states that “The pound is Scotland’s currency just as much as it is the rest of the UK’s” (p. 7). This is incorrect. The pound is Scotland’s currency now precisely because Scotland is part of the UK now. If Scots vote to leave the UK they will be voting to leave the UK’s institutions, including the pound. As we all know, Scotland could then seek to negotiate its way back into these institutions but the rUK would agree to this only if it was persuaded that it was in the national interest of the rUK do to so. And, as we further know, the current UK Government have indicated that it is “highly unlikely” that it would be in the interests of the rUK for it to enter a formal currency union with an independent Scotland, at least without a binding fiscal pact. As I sought to explain in my oral evidence, this does not mean that Scotland would be unable to use the pound: any State may use the currency of another State (as Panama uses the US dollar). But for a State to make this choice means that that State has no control over its monetary policy or interest rates: rather, these matters are effectively surrendered to a foreign power.

9. On the UK’s embassies, the white paper states that “Scotland would … be entitled to a fair share of the UK’s assets” (p. 13) and that “Scotland would be entitled to a fair share of the UK’s extensive overseas properties (or a share in their value) allowing us to use existing premises for some overseas posts” (p. 211). Again, this is mistaken. As explained above international law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (here, the rUK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (here, Scotland). In the Scotland Analysis Paper on EU and International Issues (Cm 8765, January 2014), the UK Government correctly state that “An independent Scottish state would not be entitled by right to any UK diplomatic premises, equipment or staff” (para 2.16). As the Government go on to state: “the legal position is clear: the bodies that support the UK now … would continue to operate on behalf of the remainder of the UK on the same basis as before Scottish independence. If an independent Scottish state wanted to continue to receive services from UK institutions or utilise them to carry out functions in relation to Scotland, that would be a matter for negotiation and would have to be agreed with the continuing UK” (ibid).

10. On defence assets, the white paper states baldly that “we will inherit a share of existing UK defence assets” (p. 234). While the white paper acknowledges that the matter will have to be negotiated, it suggests that Scotland’s share could be calculated based on population, giving it a share of assets worth £7.8 billion (ibid). As we have seen above, however, such a crude calculation overlooks the complexity of the fact that that which is integral to the defence and security of the UK as a whole might not fall to be apportioned with an independent Scotland at all. Working out what an independent Scotland’s share of the UK’s defence infrastructure would be is a more complex matter than simply dividing the UK total by Scotland’s population share and, moreover, is likely to result in Scotland’s share being markedly less than is assumed in the white paper.

11. Finally, on security and secret intelligence, the white paper states that “In the early years we will make a significant level of investment in setting up the [new Scottish security and intelligence] agency. Scotland, of course, already has a substantial existing capital stake, from our investment in UK intelligence infrastructure. We will expect investment to be recognised in the arrangements that are agreed with the UK as part of the independence settlement” (pp 266–7). Again, this is flawed as a matter of legal principle. Past investment and historic share are not material factors in determining how assets and liabilities should be apportioned equitably. Just as rUK taxpayers would not be compensated if UK property in Scotland became the property of an independent Scottish State, neither would Scotland’s historic contribution to UK institutions affect the fact that such institutions would simply remain those of the rUK in the event of independence.

12. Two conclusions may be drawn from the above analysis. The first is that core elements of the Scottish Government’s approach to independence are based on assumptions which are questionable in law. The second is that the costs of independence may be considerably greater than has generally been understood. If an independent Scotland would have no right to a share of the UK’s embassies and diplomatic services, for example, it follows that it would have to purchase, rent or build its own. The Scotland Analysis Paper on EU and International Affairs explained something of the increased costs that would have to be met by Scottish taxpayers in the context of Scotland seeking accession to the EU as a new Member State. It may be, however, that this is but one example of the hidden costs of independence—a matter which the Committee may wish to explore further in the course of its inquiries.

January 2014

.string.

@generali - I want to send you a PM but you've run out of space, PM me when you have cleared some and I'll try again.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

...
They've even got Fishface involved!

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/alex-salmond-whatever-success-is-earned-then-it-shall-be-by-our-own-efforts-and-our-own-national-will.15465

And he's pretending Scotland's solvent. Oh my aching sides.

Yes, appropos the matter of assets & debt, he wrote:

THE refusal of former Chancellor George Osborne to agree to our offer of a shared currency was a factor in the turmoil which has recently engulfed the English Conservative Party. However this and other negotiations on the distribution of UK assets and liabilities carried the not insubstantial benefit of relieving our new state of close on £150 billion of accumulated UK debt and the interest payments thereon.

Which ties in exactly with what I have been saying.

He just can't stop misleading the Scots!

pogofish

.string. wrote: »

24th Match 2016 - NON Separation DAY

Congratulations to all Scots

Today marks the day when Scotland can celebrate its escape from the financial gloom and social stress which would have accompanied the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom.

Scottish jobs remain secure, and the standard of the Scottish way of Life has been enhanced by the new Devolution Agreement approved by the ruling party of the Scottish Government as promised by the political leaders of the United Kingdom .

The way is set fair for Scotland to utilise those new powers to the benefit of both Scotland and the United Kingdom, with the continued unique contribution of the people of Scotland to the longest successful Union existing on Planet Earth. We wish Scottish Governments well in achieving the aspirations decided and settled by the Scottish Referendum of 2014.

Thanks are especially due on this day to the Scottish People whose Good Sense and Democratic Will soundly rejected the hollow siren words of Nicola Sturgeon who, referring to the SNP White Paper, said:

“This is a landmark document which sets out the economic, social and democratic case for independence … It demonstrates Scotland's financial strengths”

Scotland is Better Together within the UK

You have the wrong date - It should be the First of May 1707. When England first ignored the terms of the Act of Union, which came into force the same day.