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

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There was a documentary called Wasted Windfall on Channel 4 some years ago that went into this. It modelled how much the government could have made out of a sovereign wealth fund and what it could have been spent on.

I can't find it now but this article summarises it:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-%E2%80%93-failure-invest-britain%E2%80%99s-future

Basicaly Thatcher squandered it on tax cuts for the rich.

They are wrong that failure to create an endowment was down to a lack of vision though, it was an ideological decision. The Right of the Tory Party would rather give state assets to the private sector for nothing than have them earn money in public hands.

The damage that woman did to the country will continue for decades.

fortunately, once scotland has achieved independence they will be free to set up a sovereign fund.
I bet not a single scot would vote for that option though

Leanne1812

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Successive Governments have run budget deficits for decades. Without oil revenues would we be enjoying the standard of schools, transport, hospitals, universities etc that we have today in 2016. That's the question you must ask yourself.

Have you ever been been to Norway. Nothing like the UK. A very different place to work and live.

Another thought as an illustration. The UK finally repaid it's loan from the USA to help rebuild after WW2 in 2006. Taking a single point in isolation is very easy. The reality is far more complex.

I'm not saying oil revenues & other lucrative income streams have not benefitted the uk greatly but have our revenues really been used in the most sensible ways? Has money been squandered on vanity projects, unnecessary conflict and general waste? That's a question we should be asking.

If you could choose a 'model' economy to emulate would it be ours or more like Norways?

Thrugelmir

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Has money been squandered on vanity projects, unnecessary conflict and general waste? That's a question we should be asking.

Yes the public sector is in many regards grossly inefficient and unproductive. This forms part of the current austerity drive. With departmental budgets being squeezed , procurement bring rationalised, excessive assets being disposed of and the overall structure being overhauled. A task that will take years. With many twists and turns along the way. Dismantling empires is never easy.

CLAPTON

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'm not saying oil revenues & other lucrative income streams have not benefitted the uk greatly but have our revenues really been used in the most sensible ways? Has money been squandered on vanity projects, unnecessary conflict and general waste? That's a question we should be asking.

If you could choose a 'model' economy to emulate would it be ours or more like Norways?

many people would choose to be a small population with a large oil revenue : its not a choice most people get : it is not a 'model' you could copy.
do you not look at scotland today and ask those very same questions

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

many people would choose to be a small population with a large oil revenue : its not a choice most people get : it is not a 'model' you could copy.
do you not look at scotland today and ask those very same questions

I expect they'll also ask what was so bad about being in the UK that they can't now copy the Norwegian model. Something went wrong in the London control room, decades ago, when they obtained riches that they then squandered.

The union's main claim on Scotland is that they'll help them to avoid being a failed state (which for example, Scandinavia is doing a good job of avoiding right now).

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I expect they'll also ask what was so bad about being in the UK that they can't now copy the Norwegian model. Something went wrong in the London control room, decades ago, when they obtained riches that they then squandered.

The union's main claim on Scotland is that they'll help them to avoid being a failed state (which for example, Scandinavia is doing a good job of avoiding right now).

I don't understand what you would have wanted for the last 30 years.
Presumably massive less public spending and higher taxes and more public savings (a sovereign wealth fund). I have to say I partly agree with you and all your scots supporters.
However, I get no impresseions that the iscots are pressing for massive cuts in public spending or even massive increases in taxes.
How much would you like iscotland to 'invest ' in a sovereign fund each years?

TrickyTree83

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand what you would have wanted for the last 30 years.
Presumably massive less public spending and higher taxes and more public savings (a sovereign wealth fund). I have to say I partly agree with you and all your scots supporters.
However, I get no impresseions that the iscots are pressing for massive cuts in public spending or even massive increases in taxes.
How much would you like iscotland to 'invest ' in a sovereign fund each years?

Whispers of hope and feelings. Apparently hey can do a, b and c, then x, y and z and everything in between if they get reserved powers without raising taxes and forcing out high earners and business and without reducing services. Something that hasn't been achieved the world over. Makes me wonder why we don't let the Scots run the entire country if they've got all the answers.


:rotfl:

Tromking

zagubov wrote: »

I expect they'll also ask what was so bad about being in the UK that they can't now copy the Norwegian model. Something went wrong in the London control room, decades ago, when they obtained riches that they then squandered.

The union's main claim on Scotland is that they'll help them to avoid being a failed state (which for example, Scandinavia is doing a good job of avoiding right now).

Sadly, I think most of the cash from the oil bonanza was spent abrogating the cost of the UK`s transformation to its current post industrial state. Scotland can't simply absolve itself from the Union`s past and say we're Scandanavian now.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Whispers of hope and feelings. Apparently hey can do a, b and c, then x, y and z and everything in between if they get reserved powers without raising taxes and forcing out high earners and business and without reducing services. Something that hasn't been achieved the world over. Makes me wonder why we don't let the Scots run the entire country if they've got all the answers.


:rotfl:

I was reading a discussion elsewhere over the UK - iScotland trade issue after independence. Where someone made the point that the UK was really hoping to get a good deal regarding tarriffs etc from the EU. Then went on to point out that anyone saying iScotland within the EU would be absolutely stuffed re any future UK trade ... is in fact resigning themselves to the fact that the EU will give the UK an absolutely terrible deal.

QED anyone using that argument against independence ( pretty much everyone ) crowing over iScotland getting a crap deal from the UK. Is in fact saying that the rUK would be getting a crap deal from the EU which in turn would affect iScotland/rUK trade.

Good deal for rUK with the EU, means good trade deal between iScotland/rUK. Is this right ?

What are your thoughts on this Tricky. I'd be interested as you've been one of the loudest pushing this issue on here.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was reading a discussion elsewhere over the UK - iScotland trade issue after independence. Where someone made the point that the UK was really hoping to get a good deal regarding tarriffs etc from the EU. Then went on to point out that anyone saying iScotland within the EU would be absolutely stuffed re any future UK trade ... is in fact resigning themselves to the fact that the EU will give the UK an absolutely terrible deal.

QED anyone using that argument against independence ( pretty much everyone ) crowing over iScotland getting a crap deal from the UK. Is in fact saying that the rUK would be getting a crap deal from the EU which in turn would affect iScotland/rUK trade.

Good deal for rUK with the EU, means good trade deal between iScotland/rUK. Is this right ?

What are your thoughts on this Tricky. I'd be interested as you've been one of the loudest pushing this issue on here.

Resigning themselves?

Not really, just recognising that no trade deal with the EU is bad for the UK, at least in my opinion, since I want trade with all.

So if the UK gets a good deal from the EU there's no need for another indy ref since Nicola and the people of Scotland get what they want. If the UK doesn't get a good deal from the EU then Scotland will want an indy ref to re-join/remain in the EU. You won't get another indy ref unless the UK gets a bad deal and still leaves because the situation will not have 'materially changed'.

We went over this many times, I don't know why you've now listened to some random person rather than myself and your own self over the course of many posts and weeks. Very odd.

I thought we'd both come to the same conclusion regarding indy2 being a consequence of full-fat brexit if it comes to pass, and in the full-fat brexit scenario rUK and iScotland trade would undoubtedly suffer. Both would suffer. The topic of this thread however is not about the rUK but about iScotland, which is why I don't want to get bogged down in details about how 'it'll hurt the UK too!', it's a very valid and poignant issue for an independent Scotland under current circumstances that really needs to be addressed by those urging an independent Scotland within the EU.