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

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

If Scottish independence was going to happen and be a success, I think 2014 marked a pretty high watermark.

You had projected oil revenues to support the argument, and it is undeniable that the UK as a whole was in better financial health. An independent Scotland is going to rely on a healthy rUK, certainly in the early years.

Of course, the independence supporters could try sell the independence dream on the slogan "you will be worse off post-independence but not as badly as being in the Union".

It's hardly aspirational though is it? In tough times don't you batten down the hatches and wait for better economic weather?

My recollection is that the SNP forecast of oil revenues was 'optimistic' compared to others.

But never mind. I have previously noted that an independent Scotland needs Brent Crude to be $100 plus to balance the books. Actual UK tax receipts from the North Sea were about 60 million a year last time I looked.

An independent Scotland facing the loss of the 8 billion quid subsidy would have to implement austrity plus.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

If Scottish independence was going to happen and be a success, I think 2014 marked a pretty high watermark.

You had projected oil revenues to support the argument, and it is undeniable that the UK as a whole was in better financial health. An independent Scotland is going to rely on a healthy rUK, certainly in the early years.

Of course, the independence supporters could try sell the independence dream on the slogan "you will be worse off post-independence but not as badly as being in the Union".

It's hardly aspirational though is it? In tough times don't you batten down the hatches and wait for better economic weather?

I disagree. I think Salmond and the SNP at the time were short footed by the scale of their win in 2011. The constituency/list system where they performed well, but not quite well enough. This meant they also gained seats via the list system making for a majority ( something Holyrood is not designed for). The problem for the SNP now is that they do far too well in the constituency vote.. which kills their chances of many list seats as the other parties make up the quota for balance. Salmond being Salmond went for it though. And possibly did better then even he dreamed back in 2011 by the time Sept 2014 came round.

There are convinced Yes voters like me and there are convinced No voters like Shaka for many political, personal and a myriad of reasons. The rest are in the middle watching out for what's best for their own jobs and pockets.

The question next time round won't be about 'Scotland' doing better with independence in a Brexit world and nothing much about oil. It'll be 'will I and my family' do better or be better off in a UK outside the Single Market/EU or an independent Scotland in the Single Market/EFTA/EU. No one knows yet.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Let's put it this way, if the SNP were to declare UDI, how is Holyrood going to operate without any money and no bank accounts?

See what happened in Catalonia. The merest suggestion of UDI and the banks (plus hundreds of other companies) relocated their head offices somewhere else.

UDI ? Who was talking about that ? If there's a yes vote and it has to be ratified and made 'legally binding' in Westminster later. Many MP's will vote for it. 1) Because their own constituents don't give a **** and after Scotland votes will be desperate to get rid. You've said it yourself here many times. 2) If a majority of ordinary Scots no longer wish to be part of the UK then it's going to prove very difficult to keep Scotland in the UK anyway. What would be the point exactly antrobus ?

There is only one version of the law at any one point in time.

Yes, in Scotland it's Scottish Law, in England and Wales it's English and Welsh Law. UK law isn't a 'thing'.

Parliament is sovereign. It can make or unmake any laws it likes.

That's right. But they have to make sure that they apply and comply with different systems. EU law applies in the UK because we've chosen to write them into all our differing legal systems over the years. Not because the EU are writing laws for us.

Anyway, know you seem to be floating a different scenario, when a post Brexit Scotland is suffering "massive day to day problems especially when it comes to jobs and the money in people's pockets"due to "being out of the Single Market"

I'm simply talking about peoples jobs and pockets being hit. The UK 'crashing out/cliff edge/whatever they are calling it'. Folks won't like it and if there's a chance to keep or bring things back to the status quo in terms of their day to day lives they'll take it if Sturgeon offers it regardless of political leanings.

See, I told you that Scotland could not 'remain' in the EEA.:)

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you.

Arklight

Doughty Scots care nothing for economics. They will suck in the sweet air of home rule no matter the cost, and no cost or penury is too high.

antrobus

Arklight wrote: »

Doughty Scots care nothing for economics. They will suck in the sweet air of home rule no matter the cost, and no cost or penury is too high.

What are you saying, that Adam Smith was not"doughty"? I believe that he was Scottish and practically invented economics.

P.S. I suspect that only a unionist troll could post such drivel. But that's just my opinion.:)

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

UDI ? Who was talking about that ? ...

You were. Something about Sturgeon announcing the repeal of the Act of Union on the steps of Bute House.

But anyway, we have now established that UDI is off the cards. As I have always said; it is not a practical option.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...

If there's a yes vote and it has to be ratified and made 'legally binding' in Westminster later. ...

So only the UK parliament can grant independence.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

UDI ? Who was talking about that ? ...

Many MP's will vote for it. 1) Because their own constituents don't give a **** and after Scotland votes will be desperate to get rid. You've said it yourself here many times. 2) If a majority of ordinary Scots no longer wish to be part of the UK then it's going to prove very difficult to keep Scotland in the UK anyway. What would be the point exactly antrobus ? [/QUOTE]

The point of what? If and when Scotland ever votes for independence in a legal referendum, no one in the UK is going to be interested in blocking it. Once, of course, agreement has been reached on debt and the 'divorce settlement'.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, in Scotland it's Scottish Law, in England and Wales it's English and Welsh Law. UK law isn't a 'thing'.

The European Communities Act 1972 must be a figment of my imagination then.:rotfl:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's right. But they have to make sure that they apply and comply with different systems. EU law applies in the UK because we've chosen to write them into all our differing legal systems over the years. Not because the EU are writing laws for us.

I think we've established that you don't know how the law works

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm simply talking about peoples jobs and pockets being hit. The UK 'crashing out/cliff edge/whatever they are calling it'. Folks won't like it and if there's a chance to keep or bring things back to the status quo in terms of their day to day lives they'll take it if Sturgeon offers it regardless of political leanings.

Yes, I understand the fantasy scenario you are proposing. The UK leaves the EU in March 2019, which leads a recession, and the Scottish electorate react by supporting independence in order to return to the "status quo".

However your claim that Scotland could 'remain' in the single market was just plain wrong. Scotland will exit or not in line with the UK.

Then you are hoping that this will lead to a legal referendum which gives a yes result. (say two years)

Then you have to negotiate independence, as well as establishing a central bank etc (anything between two to five years I'd say)

Then you'd have negotiate signing up to EFTA/EU/EEA (another two to three years)

So that's at least six years of 'economic misery', which will be made worse by the loss of annual UK subsidy which will require this hypothetical independent Scotland to implement some serious cuts and/or tax increases. ( Or Brent Crude at $100:)) The EU neither wants nor needs another Greece.:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you.

Of course. If you said that you agreed or disagreed with anything, you wouldn't be able to post the same old nonsense again and again.:)

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
The question next time round won't be about 'Scotland' doing better with independence in a Brexit world and nothing much about oil. It'll be 'will I and my family' do better or be better off in a UK outside the Single Market/EU or an independent Scotland in the Single Market/EFTA/EU. No one knows yet.

Of course they will know some things.

Here's just a few things which seem firm predictions :

- state spend has to go up, to cover rising NHS costs and policing expensive things like terrorism monitoring. That deprives from the consumer pocket

- there is absolutely no sign that the regions will grow compared with London. 1/3 of graduates each year are predicted to head towards London. International money still treats London property as a piggy bank. Scotland, just like NE/NW, will struggle to grow.

- there will be another downturn/recession at some point, regardless of Brexit

- increased competition from China and India will mean challenges to UK companies. Scottish companies are no more immune to this than those south of the border.

The Single Market is merely a slogan; it won't offer any kind of divine protection.

Shaka_Zulu

You would think it could only happen in Zimbabwe but no.......dodgy land grabs in Scotland, nats not playing by the rules!

Are we surprised?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jamie-howard-i-wasnt-told-ulva-would-be-sold-to-the-community-gt5stt9zk?shareToken=940d7ed45d4841c6cdd734dd27bf4e66

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

You were. Something about Sturgeon announcing the repeal of the Act of Union on the steps of Bute House.

But anyway, we have now established that UDI is off the cards. As I have always said; it is not a practical option.

So only the UK parliament can grant independence.

The point of what? If and when Scotland ever votes for independence in a legal referendum, no one in the UK is going to be interested in blocking it. Once, of course, agreement has been reached on debt and the 'divorce settlement'.

The European Communities Act 1972 must be a figment of my imagination then.:rotfl:

I think we've established that you don't know how the law works

Yes, I understand the fantasy scenario you are proposing. The UK leaves the EU in March 2019, which leads a recession, and the Scottish electorate react by supporting independence in order to return to the "status quo".

However your claim that Scotland could 'remain' in the single market was just plain wrong. Scotland will exit or not in line with the UK.

Then you are hoping that this will lead to a legal referendum which gives a yes result. (say two years)

Then you have to negotiate independence, as well as establishing a central bank etc (anything between two to five years I'd say)

Then you'd have negotiate signing up to EFTA/EU/EEA (another two to three years)

So that's at least six years of 'economic misery', which will be made worse by the loss of annual UK subsidy which will require this hypothetical independent Scotland to implement some serious cuts and/or tax increases. ( Or Brent Crude at $100:)) The EU neither wants nor needs another Greece.:)


Of course. If you said that you agreed or disagreed with anything, you wouldn't be able to post the same old nonsense again and again.:)

It just like this antrobus. At some point there will be a vote. You can paint as you like illegal/unofficial etc etc ( and you and folk like you certainly will !).. but a vote there will be at some point in the next few years if Brexit continues to be the disaster in the making it's starting to looking like.

If its a Yes vote Westminster is free to ignore if they wish. My own betting is that they won't. There's no point.

In a similar vein Alex Salmond did an independence convention this weekend. He's usually sent out these days as a bellweather for future SNP policy and direction. He's talking about EFTA and a vote taking place at the point of a Hard Brexit. This generally means the SNP will announce the same at some point in the near future. For now though, back seat with popcorn watching the Tories implode.

The former leader of the Scottish National party, Alex Salmond, has said Westminster politics is “decaying before our eyes” ......Salmond said the platform the movement decided upon would dictate the timing of another referendum, repeating his belief that membership of the European Free Trade Association (Efta) would be the best course for an independent Scotland.

“In that case the referendum must be held at the point of hard Brexit or at the point of transitional agreement beyond hard Brexit,” he said.
Such a position would offer an “island of certainty in a sea of confusion and that would be of enormous value in winning the next independence referendum”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/alex-salmond-westminster-politics-decays-before-our-eyes

Some folks might be wishing they hadn't unseated him as an MP to be honest. He's after the Scotsman too.

Alex Salmond joins bid to take control of anti-independence paper the Scotsman

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/02/alex-salmond-scotsman-johnston-press

:rotfl:

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It just like this antrobus. At some point there will be a vote. You can paint as you like illegal/unofficial etc etc ...

Anytime between now and the year 2050.

P.S. I am not painting a referendum as anything. It's either legal or it isn't.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
( and you and folk like you certainly will !).. but a vote there will be at some point in the next few years if Brexit continues to be the disaster in the making it's starting to looking like....

Brexit hasn't happened yet. But I understand you want it to be a disaster,

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..
If its a Yes vote Westminster is free to ignore if they wish. My own betting is that they won't. There's no point. ,,,

My guess would be that the unionist parties would campaign for a boycott of any illegal referendum, and that the UK government would make it clear that it would take no notice in advance.

An 80% yes vote on a 30% turnout isn't going to change anything.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

....In a similar vein Alex Salmond did an independence convention this weekend. He's usually sent out these days as a bellweather for future SNP policy and direction. He's talking about EFTA and a vote taking place at the point of a Hard Brexit. This generally means the SNP will announce the same at some point in the near future. For now though, back seat with popcorn watching the Tories implode.

Some folks might be wishing they hadn't unseated him as an MP to be honest. He's after the Scotsman too.

Yes, I understand that the SNP want to engineer some kind of reason to hold a referendum.

But none of that changes the economics of an independent Scotland. A fiscal deficit of almost 10% of GDP is unsustainable.

Unless Brent Crude gets back up to $100, this HIS would need to impose austerity plus to balance the books. The SNP is strangely silent on this topic.