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

westernpromise

antrobus wrote: »

It's actually not down to the Barnett Formula but, never mind Scotland does receive an annual subsidy of some £8 billion plus a year from mainly English taxpayers. That will obviously cease on independence,

Total UK North Sea oil revenues were £1.2 billion for 2017-18. They were even negative in 2015-16. Irrespective of what share of revenues any hypothetically independent Scotland believes it can negotiate, it's unlikely to be enough to cover the loss of the subsidy unless the price of Brent Crude is well north of a $100 a barrel. It's currently about $70.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2017-18/pages/4/

This is the reason why any hypothetically independent Scotland will have to impose austerity plus from the get go, in order to get the fiscal deficit down to something sustainable. Independence would be very painful for the Scots, but wonderful for the rest of us. That £8 billion plus would be enough to sort out the NHS and social care.

That's why I'm rather disappointed at the lack of enthusiasm for independence north of the wall. And the lack of any real action from the SNP.

Scotland's share of revenues from existing UK oil and gas fields will be nil, because they belong to the UK. As Scotland would be leaving the UK, they would leave without the UK's oil.

The SNP should stand candidates in England.

westernpromise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The UK is a state consisting of 4 countries. It's an oddity in the modern world.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is also a single state that consists of 4 countries each with their own Parliament.

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No you were saying Scotland was 'absorbed'. You failed to show any evidence to back up your claim and are now imo trying to shut down the 'argument' because you actually can't.

Scotland did indeed give up being a sovereign nation when it joined parliaments with England in 1707. But you are trying to argue the toss that this current state of affairs cannot be reversed because 'something something precedent, statute something something international law' ? I'm simply pointing out to you that the current state of affairs will be reversed and Scotland a sovereign nation again ( and I'm saying that as a fact not with the Corries or Braveheart on in the background ).. as soon as Scotland votes to remove it's MP's from Westminster.

In other words what you or anyone else choose to call or think of Scotland as now, be it 'absorbed', a 'nation', a 'country' a 'region of the UK' or whatever else including Steve...is completely irrelevant after that vote. Scotland will just be a nation/country like any other in the world, with it's own govt and parliament ( and the oil fields ).

Is that what you actually believe? Why?

Irrespective of the notions of Scottish MPs getting on the train to London or not, I am interested in why you think the act of union was in any way voluntary.

The general Nat strain of grievance is that England colonised Scotland, which has been fighting for its independence ever since (if moaning ceaselessly while repeatedly voting to stay anyway, counts as fighting). You appear to view it as an amicable joining of equals.

Scotland wasn't equal to England. It was a small broke country, humiliated and relegated to minor power status by the Darien failure. Scots had their national independence sold to a rampantly expansionist emerging colonial superpower, to pay for their rulers debts. Mainly because it saved that power the effort of having to invade them like happened to everyone else.

This was the least worst option for Scotland, and saved it from the blood bath that was inflicted on Ireland, and actually everywhere.

Now England's time of being a superpower is long gone, the world has changed. It's just history. The country you live in doesn't have to inform who you are or your self esteem.

Clearly as we can see here and on the Brexit thread, some people will never accept that, but it is true all the same.

Shakethedisease

westernpromise wrote: »

You do not understand the Wikipedia article you have cited. It lists countries previously ruled by the United Kingdom, not countries that were members of the United Kingdom. There are four. The definition of one changed in 1922 when what is now Eire departed from the Irish component.

I suspected that you did not understand what you were saying, and you have demonstrated as much. You don't understand the difference between national and international waters. You don't understand the international treaties governing mineral finds in international waters. And now it transpires that you don't in fact understand what the UK is.

So let's take the one instance that exists of a country that was a part of the UK but that no longer is, i.e. the Republic of Ireland. What treaties were rendered null and void by this change in the composition of the UK? What treaties were set aside and had to be renegotiated because the definition of the UK - but not its existence - had changed?

I count zero. Go ahead and entertain us with your count.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is. Apart from trying to claim that Westminster will hold on to oil fields in another country when Scotland goes independent.

List your precedents for that and get back to me. Scotland goes, so does her oil fields and revenues from Westminster control. Regardless of how much or how little they are 'worth' anymore, Westminster won't have anything to do with them ( unless it's to buy oil ).

Shakethedisease

Arklight wrote: »

Is that what you actually believe? Why?

Irrespective of the notions of Scottish MPs getting on the train to London or not, I am interested in why you think the act of union was in any way voluntary.

The general Nat strain of grievance is that England colonised Scotland, which has been fighting for its independence ever since (if moaning ceaselessly while repeatedly voting to stay anyway, counts as fighting). You appear to view it as an amicable joining of equals.

Scotland wasn't equal to England. It was a small broke country, humiliated and relegated to minor power status by the Darien failure. Scots had their national independence sold to a rampantly expansionist emerging colonial superpower, to pay for their rulers debts. Mainly because it saved that power the effort of having to invade them like happened to everyone else.

This was the least worst option for Scotland, and saved it from the blood bath that was inflicted on Ireland, and actually everywhere.

Now England's time of being a superpower is long gone, the world has changed. It's just history. The country you live in doesn't have to inform who you are or your self esteem.

Clearly as we can see here and on the Brexit thread, some people will never accept that, but it is true all the same.

My goodness, that's some rewriting of history going on there. I don't even know where to start.. Usual Darien tropes ( check ), small ( check ), poor ( check ), not equal to England ( check ).

None of it matters now, even if your history telling is really, really bad. I can't be bothered even correcting you as it's been covered on threads like these 100's of times already.

Brexit and the Tories have finally broken the UK's political system along with the Union with Scotland and possibly NI as well. It's nothing to do with Darien, or being too small or poor.. and everything to do with getting politicians and political decisions foisted on us which we hardly ever vote for. Many Scots residents and voters have had more than enough.

Holyrood might not be perfect, and neither might be the political parties.. but at least Scotland will get what it votes for. There's been a brief lull while 3 of the parties in Scotland have gone all unionist and combine tactical efforts at all levels to 'keep the SNP out'. But that's receeding now in the face of Brexit and the real possibility of someone like Boris or Hunt taking over making future policies for Scotland *shudders* and hollowing out Holyrood with power grabs.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Holyrood might not be perfect, and neither might be the political parties.. but at least Scotland will get what it votes for. There's been a brief lull while 3 of the parties in Scotland have gone all unionist and combine tactical efforts at all levels to 'keep the SNP out'. But that's receeding now in the face of Brexit and the real possibility of someone like Boris or Hunt taking over making future policies for Scotland *shudders* and hollowing out Holyrood with power grabs.

I and others have repeatedly said that stonking great electoral success for the SNP outside of an independence referendum does not translate into an independent Scotland. Although when the SNP aim is push a narrative that Scotland is somehow step by step moving inexorably toward independence, I can see why you want to propagate that myth.
When most Scots vote on independence, its not your Tory bogey-men they're worrying about, its about the massive risk involved in stepping away from the security of being able to pool the risks and rewards with 60 million other Brits. Lest we forget also the huge amount of Scots who cherish their British heritage and for whom the thought of separation from their kith and kin is an anathema to them.
Scottish independence is as distant as its always been.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

I and others have repeatedly said that stonking great electoral success for the SNP outside of an independence referendum does not translate into an independent Scotland. Although when the SNP aim is push a narrative that Scotland is somehow step by step moving inexorably toward independence, I can see why you want to propagate that myth.
When most Scots vote on independence, its not your Tory bogey-men they're worrying about, its about the massive risk involved in stepping away from the security of being able to pool the risks and rewards with 60 million other Brits. Lest we forget also the huge amount of Scots who cherish their British heritage and for whom the thought of separation from their kith and kin is an anathema to them.
Scottish independence is as distant as its always been.

Do me a favour and perhaps next time you reply about my being so called 'repeatedly' told something.. maybe actually read my posts ? I've spent several over the last few weeks talking about in-fighting and splits going on within both the SNP and the whole indy movement.

The SNP is losing support. Not because they're a party of independence, but and this is what you have to take in but because they aren't pushing Scottish independence hard enough or fast enough at the moment. Therefore support for independence is now a marked distance ahead of the SNP as a political party. Nicola has had a wake up call over the last week or so over being too anti-Brexit rather then pro-Indy. It remains to be seen if she takes heed.

Sooo no. Your first few sentences on my conflating SNP electoral success and independence is wrong. You simply haven't read any of my posts and I'm afraid it shows.

The Tories are killing off the Union all by themselves. With Brexit on the horizon there's no safe status quo anymore. Secondly they're trying to mess with devolution and thirdly their next leader will be telling of the direction a future UK is heading. Anyone from the right wing/Brexit/No deal clique and Scots voters will be stampeding to the ballot boxs to put X's in the Yes box. Because in that case the UK is heading to a bad place both economically AND politically.

Scotland didn't vote either for Tories nor for Brexit... and can cherish their British heritage as a past regretful thing just after voting Yes in order to avoid the future abject horrors of a Tory Brexit with Boris Johnson in charge.

mayonnaise

Tromking wrote: »

...its about the massive risk involved in stepping away from the security of being able to pool the risks and rewards with 60 million other Brits.

The irony of a Brexiteer pontificating about the massive risk of stepping away from a larger Union.

paparossco

elantan wrote: »

got my Tory leaflet through today ... Ruth seems a tad obsessed with Nicola and the SNP

I noticed they never mentioned their main candidate (in my area) is a Baroness either. Would that not go down well in Red Clydeside?

Arklight

mayonnaise wrote: »

The irony of a Brexiteer pontificating about the massive risk of stepping away from a larger Union.

Amazing isn't it!