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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sweden probably thought that about Norway too. Those against independence from Great Britain in the USA wondered about it as well. It'll be a shock to the system no doubt. Lots of problems but at the end of the day all you're talking about IS the shock.

Mid to long term you have no idea because the only model you have to go on is one that is based on following the current UK one. Which absolutely wouldn't happen.

STAY in the EU, not join. We're already EU citizens and to strip 5 million of that is just as complicated as stripping 65 million of their citizenship. All this talk of Scotland having to leave then rejoin is as false as it was in 2014. In order to rejoin we'd have to leave first and would take years to do either.

The SNP aren't socialist. They're Labour 20 years ago, with added independence. Labour went right, Scottish voters didn't and in actual fact have remained remarkably consistent in what they vote for in terms of policies.

Well that's not up to them now is it. They don't make the rules because they have no power to do so. And at the end of the day so does the UK as a whole so Scotland is no different there.

Sometimes you're just not consistent.

So there's the economic uncertainty with a probability leaning towards that of being much poorer than you are right now. You categorise this as 'could happen, could not', a mere possibility.

Then there's the EU membership. Here you ignore all uncertainty and boldly assert that Scotland would remain in the EU. Many people will have spoken about this idea of remaining, Tusk and members of the EU Council aren't among them. That makes this remaining idea more of a fantasy than a fact, the only indications we've had so far are that iScotland would not be considered a continuation of the UK (Hollande, Tusk) and that they would most likely be blocked from re-joining according to the Spanish (Rajoy). The lawyers can say all they want, they will find a willing audience in the Scottish nationalists but those casting the votes in the EU Council are the ones that need to say 'Yes' in order for it to happen are they not?

You say that the SNP aren't socialist, yet on their website and on other informational websites they are described as social-democrats. Unless they've suddenly changed tack and class themselves as something more fashionable these days, like civic nationalists.

And the SNP making the rules or not has no impact on how they spend the money they get does it. That's like saying your kid isn't in charge of spending their pocket money because you tell them they've got to go to bed at 8pm. They're mutually exclusive responsibilities. So they are indeed at the steering wheel overseeing a deficit spend. Whether the UK as a whole does too is irrelevant when considering the track record of the present day Scottish government. I'm not trying to compare Scotland to the whole/rest of the UK in this, I'm merely trying to point out that Scotland runs a deficit far higher than the UK as a whole and that is under SNP leadership. Where is the independent statistical evidence to suggest that operating a deficit will not be the modus operandi of any Scottish government in an independent Scotland?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Sometimes you're just not consistent.

So there's the economic uncertainty with a probability leaning towards that of being much poorer than you are right now. You categorise this as 'could happen, could not', a mere possibility.

I think that's a position that's useful to keep reinforcing in the debate for those who do not wish to see Scotland leaving the UK and can only see the negatives.

There will be no magic money tree and there will be great upheaval for a time. But Scotland also has a lot of potential positives in it's favour economically too compared with other countries who have decided to go independent within recent, sometimes very recent history.

Then there's the EU membership. Here you ignore all uncertainty and boldly assert that Scotland would remain in the EU. Many people will have spoken about this idea of remaining, Tusk and members of the EU Council aren't among them. That makes this remaining idea more of a fantasy than a fact, the only indications we've had so far are that iScotland would not be considered a continuation of the UK (Hollande, Tusk) and that they would most likely be blocked from re-joining according to the Spanish (Rajoy). The lawyers can say all they want, they will find a willing audience in the Scottish nationalists but those casting the votes in the EU Council are the ones that need to say 'Yes' in order for it to happen are they not?

A country remaining in the EU while another part leaves only needs a majority vote in the EU council. There are no individual veto's AIUI.

And at the end of the day why would the EU not want Scotland to remain within it ? Especially given the recent show of support from Scots voters. Have you any answer to that ? What on earth would the point be of going through years to make Scotland unwillingly leave, only to have to restart the process in order for Scotland to rejoin ? I hear this sort of thing all the time about veto's and other EU leaders supposedly slapping Sturgeon down. But have yet to hear why anyone explain why the EU wouldn't want Scotland to stay.

My guess if there's a Brexit that isn't to most Scots liking and once Article 50 is invoked, the EU will come out with their collective position on Scotland's status then. I seriously doubt it will be 'soooo you voted to stay ? Fab..Now p**s off'. Do you really think that ?

You say that the SNP aren't socialist, yet on their website and on other informational websites they are described as social-democrats. Unless they've suddenly changed tack and class themselves as something more fashionable these days, like civic nationalists.

Maybe our perspectives are different. To me socialist parties are those like the Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity ( Tommy Sheridan ) and RISE. UK Labour under Corbyn is also tacking along this track and to an extent the Greens. The SNP share a lot of common ground with some of the above, but not so much with the economics. They're pretty much centre ground in Scotland if you place the Scottish Tories and recent Scottish Labour ( until they also started doing the ban Trident, raise taxes thing ) to the right of them.

And the SNP making the rules or not has no impact on how they spend the money they get does it. That's like saying your kid isn't in charge of spending their pocket money because you tell them they've got to go to bed at 8pm. They're mutually exclusive responsibilities. So they are indeed at the steering wheel overseeing a deficit spend. Whether the UK as a whole does too is irrelevant when considering the track record of the present day Scottish government. I'm not trying to compare Scotland to the whole/rest of the UK in this, I'm merely trying to point out that Scotland runs a deficit far higher than the UK as a whole and that is under SNP leadership. Where is the independent statistical evidence to suggest that operating a deficit will not be the modus operandi of any Scottish government in an independent Scotland?

You can't spend and act like an independent country, when you only get pocket money decided from elsewhere to spend. You're trying to make out that the Scottish Govt is fully independent in all it does financially, when it clearly isn't. They do pretty well with what they get in devolved areas. Which is why even when taking the independence question out of the equation, they still get votes and would most likely still be in Holyrood regardless ( see 2007 )

Scotland has no deficit currently. It gets a fixed budget decided elsewhere to spend each year on devolved areas, which by law has to be balanced. You shouldn't really be trying pretend otherwise. What the UK does dictates absolutely what any pretendy Scottish 'deficit' is while Scotland is within the union. Face facts.

edit

That cross-reference to Article 218(3) is vitally important. It means that an exit deal has to be approved not by unanimity in Council but by a qualified majority. To cut a long story short, Rajoy - or more likely his successor considering the weakness of his minority government in Spain - would have to find at least seven other member states to support him should he want to scupper a Brexit agreement just because it permitted Scotland to be part of the EU.

But it would be unwise of him to even try...

It will take up an enormous amount of time and the EU would not welcome Spanish obstruction motivated purely by domestic concerns, not when it is trying to deal with the problems created by Westminster's ultimate act in a long history of obstructiveness.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/8951/ian-merrilees-why-spain-has-no-veto-over-scotlands-place-eu

Full article at link.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I think that's a position that's useful to keep reinforcing in the debate for those who do not wish to see Scotland leaving the UK and can only see the negatives.

I would think you could see the problem with a "might/might not" stance when the weight of evidence, accurate or inaccurate, is against it being an economic utopia. The absence of 100% accuracy in any report is not a 100% absence of probability. Therefore is it more or less likely to be economically damaging if all of the more likely probable outcomes come to fruition?

With that in mind I would have expected some pragmatic statements from you regarding the economic viability of iScotland within the EU and rUK outside of the EU with tariffs in place between the two blocs.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

There will be no magic money tree and there will be great upheaval for a time. But Scotland also has a lot of potential positives in it's favour economically too compared with other countries who have decided to go independent within recent, sometimes very recent history.

A country remaining in the EU while another part leaves only needs a majority vote in the EU council. There are no individual veto's AIUI.

And at the end of the day why would the EU not want Scotland to remain within it ? Especially given the recent show of support from Scots voters. Have you any answer to that ? What on earth would the point be of going through years to make Scotland unwillingly leave, only to have to restart the process in order for Scotland to rejoin ? I hear this sort of thing all the time about veto's and other EU leaders supposedly slapping Sturgeon down. But have yet to hear why anyone explain why the EU wouldn't want Scotland to stay.

My guess if there's a Brexit that isn't to most Scots liking and once Article 50 is invoked, the EU will come out with their collective position on Scotland's status then. I seriously doubt it will be 'soooo you voted to stay ? Fab..Now p**s off'. Do you really think that ?

Well they wouldn't come out and say anything coarse as you pointed out.

There are conditions which need to be met by other countries joining the EU. There are hoops they have to jump through. Particularly fiscal hoops (that's where the economic parts matter too). There may be a wish for Scotland to commit to joining the Eurozone, there may be angst over freely allowing entry without making Scotland jump through any of these accession hoops that countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc... went through.

Then there's the French who have said the UK is the member and the UK will leave as a whole, Tusk has also said as much. Accession to the EU requires unanimous approval, which was why Turkey joining was unlikely since there are quite a few countries who don't like that idea and would need to be persuaded otherwise, this is where Spain and Rajoy would be a problem.

There doesn't appear to be enough appetite to deal with Scotland independently until Scotland is indeed independent since that would be - at least for now - against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people according to the vote in 2014. So even though Scotland as a region of the UK wanted to remain in the EU, it was in the eyes of the UK, the EU and law, a vote on the UK's membership status. The notions that Scotland can somehow retain EU membership whilst being in the UK (reverse Greenland) isn't 'on the table' anymore, which removes all permutations of the UK's membership remaining if indeed 'Brexit means brexit'.

You are (and others hoping to become independent and remain in the EU) essentially hoping that the EU will waive all of their accession rules just for Scotland since it's impossible to remain unless the UK remains as a whole. So unless these hail mary's come off and somehow Scotland remains in the EU it means re-application and new accession, which means veto's exist.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Maybe our perspectives are different. To me socialist parties are those like the Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity ( Tommy Sheridan ) and RISE. UK Labour under Corbyn is also tacking along this track and to an extent the Greens. The SNP share a lot of common ground with some of the above, but not so much with the economics. They're pretty much centre ground in Scotland if you place the Scottish Tories and recent Scottish Labour ( until they also started doing the ban Trident, raise taxes thing ) to the right of them.

You can't spend and act like an independent country, when you only get pocket money decided from elsewhere to spend. You're trying to make out that the Scottish Govt is fully independent in all it does financially, when it clearly isn't. They do pretty well with what they get in devolved areas. Which is why even when taking the independence question out of the equation, they still get votes and would most likely still be in Holyrood regardless ( see 2007 )

Scotland has no deficit currently. It gets a fixed budget decided elsewhere to spend each year on devolved areas, which by law has to be balanced. You shouldn't really be trying pretend otherwise. What the UK does dictates absolutely what any pretendy Scottish 'deficit' is while Scotland is within the union. Face facts.

edit https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/8951/ian-merrilees-why-spain-has-no-veto-over-scotlands-place-eu

Full article at link.

The only demonstrable evidence for how a Scottish economy is ran is what you have now under the devolved government. There is no evidence for what an independent Scotland would look like. I'm not trying to make out that the Scottish government is fully fiscally independent at all, I'm just pointing out that the only viable evidence for how they do operate is what they're doing at the moment, and it's not good is it?

It's been shown and probably proved conclusively that Scotland spends more per capita, low population sparsely distributed requiring higher funding for services (kind of common sense). Plus the social agenda of free prescriptions, free health, free university tuition and a myriad of other services that are paid for from the public purse. So these need to be funded if they are to remain in an iScotland scenario. Either there's hidden £billions as you suggest - of which there is no evidence - or spending will need to be cut or taxes will need to rise. Whatever happens that will affect the standard of living of a particular group of people within iScotland.

Being independent also comes with other factors, that iScotland will need to fund its own services which are currently joint-funded under the reserved expenditure. Everything will need to be done independently. This expenditure that is currently under the reserved powers still adds to the economy, it still creates jobs, so whichever way you look at it there will still be cuts in investment and jobs as a result of gaining control over reserved expenditure as these projects begin to cost more to deliver as they're not part of a greater whole. Services which currently serve the entire UK will have to be created anew in iScotland.

For example, the MoD, once iScotland gets their regiments will you disband them all to save money and make thousands jobless? Or will you maintain them as they currently are, which means no extra money, possibly costing more even? Or will there be some halfway house where you try to scrabble together some money out of the department whilst maintaining a skeleton service? Will you be patrolling Scottish territorial waters in rubber a dinghy? Will Scotland be part of NATO and be required to spend 2% of her GDP on her armed forces?

So many unanswered questions on expenditure. This is why I don't believe there is £billions to be found since services like these will need to be maintained, and 8.3% of Trident isn't going to cover it. If you factored in the lifetime cost of Trident and took 8.3% of it out and gave it back to iScotland you'd be able to fund a deficit of £9bn for just under 2 years. Then what?

What is the economic answer for iScotland to maintain your current living standards?

And what is the economic answer for iScotland in order to re-join the EU?

Other than having answers to these two questions which are reliable surely you'll just be hoping for the best. Hoping the EU lets you stay/re-join without issue. Hoping that the Scottish government can run an economy and hoping that you do actually find £billions from down the back of a sofa in Holyrood.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I would think you could see the problem with a "might/might not" stance when the weight of evidence, accurate or inaccurate, is against it being an economic utopia. The absence of 100% accuracy in any report is not a 100% absence of probability. Therefore is it more or less likely to be economically damaging if all of the more likely probable outcomes come to fruition?

With that in mind I would have expected some pragmatic statements from you regarding the economic viability of iScotland within the EU and rUK outside of the EU with tariffs in place between the two blocs.

No one is expecting an economic utopia. Just a normal country that has ups and downs like any others do. I do actually think that's being pragmatic. It's the political situation that is the driving force behind Scottish independence. The economic one is either an argument for or against depending on your political views.

Well they wouldn't come out and say anything coarse as you pointed out.

There are conditions which need to be met by other countries joining the EU. There are hoops they have to jump through. Particularly fiscal hoops (that's where the economic parts matter too). There may be a wish for Scotland to commit to joining the Eurozone, there may be angst over freely allowing entry without making Scotland jump through any of these accession hoops that countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc... went through.

Then there's the French who have said the UK is the member and the UK will leave as a whole, Tusk has also said as much. Accession to the EU requires unanimous approval, which was why Turkey joining was unlikely since there are quite a few countries who don't like that idea and would need to be persuaded otherwise, this is where Spain and Rajoy would be a problem.

Scotland isn't joining or seeking accession. It's remaining in the EU while England and Wales leave. Please try and grasp this, because it changes the entire debate. There are no individual veto's in this situation.

so close on the printed page, articles 49 and 50 are poles apart in purpose and effect. Article 49 lets countries in, 50 lets them out. Article 49 has been used many times, 50 came into effect in 2009 and is about to be given its test run by the UK. But the crucial difference, which seems to have escaped the attention of señor Rajoy and his legal advisers, is that Article 49 gives him the power of veto, 50 does not.

There doesn't appear to be enough appetite to deal with Scotland independently until Scotland is indeed independent since that would be - at least for now - against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people according to the vote in 2014. So even though Scotland as a region of the UK wanted to remain in the EU, it was in the eyes of the UK, the EU and law, a vote on the UK's membership status. The notions that Scotland can somehow retain EU membership whilst being in the UK (reverse Greenland) isn't 'on the table' anymore, which removes all permutations of the UK's membership remaining if indeed 'Brexit means brexit'.

Reverse Greenland is something that Scottish Labour is suggesting and really, really hope for. Sturgeon has promised to try, but given that this doesn't look likely, is likely to force Scottish Labour and Lib Dems hand either way. It will be tough for both of them to go against that 62% to be honest. Though of course that doesn't mean that Dugdale wouldn't plump for the daftest path of action like she normally does.

You are (and others hoping to become independent and remain in the EU) essentially hoping that the EU will waive all of their accession rules just for Scotland since it's impossible to remain unless the UK remains as a whole. So unless these hail mary's come off and somehow Scotland remains in the EU it means re-application and new accession, which means veto's exist

Remain while England and Wales leave. I have no idea why you can't get over this. Article 50 by the end of the process won't include Scotland. As far as I can tell that's the plan one way or the other which all political parties in Scotland are hoping for. Scotland stays, England and Wales leave. Everyone's happy. Just the little matter of an independence referendum first of course if Reverse Greenland isn't possible. You still haven't addressed WHY and didn't answer me when I ask why the EU wouldn't want Scotland to stay ? Any ideas ?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The only demonstrable evidence for how a Scottish economy is ran is what you have now under the devolved government. There is no evidence for what an independent Scotland would look like. I'm not trying to make out that the Scottish government is fully fiscally independent at all, I'm just pointing out that the only viable evidence for how they do operate is what they're doing at the moment, and it's not good is it?

They're doing fine. Not perfect of course. But they seem to have a good handle on handling the devolved areas.

It's been shown and probably proved conclusively that Scotland spends more per capita, low population sparsely distributed requiring higher funding for services (kind of common sense). Plus the social agenda of free prescriptions, free health, free university tuition and a myriad of other services that are paid for from the public purse. So these need to be funded if they are to remain in an iScotland scenario. Either there's hidden £billions as you suggest - of which there is no evidence - or spending will need to be cut or taxes will need to rise. Whatever happens that will affect the standard of living of a particular group of people within iScotland.

Being independent also comes with other factors, that iScotland will need to fund its own services which are currently joint-funded under the reserved expenditure. Everything will need to be done independently. This expenditure that is currently under the reserved powers still adds to the economy, it still creates jobs, so whichever way you look at it there will still be cuts in investment and jobs as a result of gaining control over reserved expenditure as these projects begin to cost more to deliver as they're not part of a greater whole. Services which currently serve the entire UK will have to be created anew in iScotland.

For example, the MoD, once iScotland gets their regiments will you disband them all to save money and make thousands jobless? Or will you maintain them as they currently are, which means no extra money, possibly costing more even? Or will there be some halfway house where you try to scrabble together some money out of the department whilst maintaining a skeleton service? Will you be patrolling Scottish territorial waters in rubber a dinghy? Will Scotland be part of NATO and be required to spend 2% of her GDP on her armed forces?

So many unanswered questions on expenditure. This is why I don't believe there is £billions to be found since services like these will need to be maintained, and 8.3% of Trident isn't going to cover it. If you factored in the lifetime cost of Trident and took 8.3% of it out and gave it back to iScotland you'd be able to fund a deficit of £9bn for just under 2 years. Then what?

What is the economic answer for iScotland to maintain your current living standards?

And what is the economic answer for iScotland in order to re-join the EU?

Other than having answers to these two questions which are reliable surely you'll just be hoping for the best. Hoping the EU lets you stay/re-join without issue. Hoping that the Scottish government can run an economy and hoping that you do actually find £billions from down the back of a sofa in Holyrood.

I only have two short answers for you.

1 )

Why is Scotland only country in history that must micro-manage post-indy expectations? Others simply argued that indpendence better than dependence

2 )

The Unionist argument: Very Easy - Brexit UK agreeing trade deals with 100+ countries. Very Hard - Indy Scotland agreeing 1 deal with rUK.

You're asking for micro management of an economy before it even exists. I'm usure if anyone would ever be able to answer you definitively on any of the above to be honest.

Mistermeaner

Answer it in a macro way then. Barnett disappeasrs tomorrow - do you cut spending or increase taxes ?

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Answer it in a macro way then. Barnett disappeasrs tomorrow - do you cut spending or increase taxes ?

Who knows.

http://www.jamcuthbert.co.uk/new_page_4.htm

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9RObbv_eTgHdkdnTlBPOS1MS1U/view

8.4% of England and Wales GDP disappears tomorrow on top of a Brexit. What do you do ?

Mistermeaner

Cut spending

Shakethedisease

Who knew ? Thanks. :beer:

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No one is expecting an economic utopia. Just a normal country that has ups and downs like any others do. I do actually think that's being pragmatic. It's the political situation that is the driving force behind Scottish independence. The economic one is either an argument for or against depending on your political views.



Scotland isn't joining or seeking accession. It's remaining in the EU while England and Wales leave. Please try and grasp this, because it changes the entire debate. There are no individual veto's in this situation.




Reverse Greenland is something that Scottish Labour is suggesting and really, really hope for. Sturgeon has promised to try, but given that this doesn't look likely, is likely to force Scottish Labour and Lib Dems hand either way. It will be tough for both of them to go against that 62% to be honest. Though of course that doesn't mean that Dugdale wouldn't plump for the daftest path of action like she normally does.



Remain while England and Wales leave. I have no idea why you can't get over this. Article 50 by the end of the process won't include Scotland. As far as I can tell that's the plan one way or the other which all political parties in Scotland are hoping for. Scotland stays, England and Wales leave. Everyone's happy. Just the little matter of an independence referendum first of course if Reverse Greenland isn't possible. You still haven't addressed WHY and didn't answer me when I ask why the EU wouldn't want Scotland to stay ? Any ideas ?

Ok we seem to be stuck on this article 50 issue.

So let's try to clarify a few things.

England and Wales are not leaving the EU, neither are they leaving the union.

The UK is the EU member, always has been.

For Scotland to remain in the EU Scotland would need to be independent and the EU would need to accept Scotland as Scotland and not just part of the UK. This is in the interests of the EU also because they will not want Scotland to inherit the deal the UK has which was long fought for. And not in the best interests of the EU.

They owe Scotland nothing.

It's not that I can't get my head around England and Wales leaving, it's the fact that it's the UK leaving. In law, it's the UK, in the EU it's the UK, and in the UK it's the UK. There is no place on earth where this idea of England and Wales leaving the EU exists except in the minds of those with a vested interest in that outcome.

The EU may well want Scotland to join, but what makes you believe it'll be on Scottish terms? What do you have that the EU so desperately needs that you'll get in straight away without checks and balances and without a vote on the matter?