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

cells

elantan wrote: »

Ah ok then, hope you don't mind but I will add that reply next to the belief in Santa clause and the tooth fairy

I am serious. I don't see the Scots as foreigners they are part of the family and I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to the people there. Unfortunately it appears some Scots don't feel the same way towards the English but even in spite of that I don't want anything bad for the Scots.

The possibility of negative tax arbitrage is also an issue.

Johnsmith2016

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess all countries have ups, downs and challenges independent ( as let's face it most are ) or not. Perhaps the thing you should be asking is who is best placed to deal with these challenges. 307 Years in the UK has apparently left Scotland a complete basket case. There is an argument to be made that staying in the UK will only serve to ensure Scotland remains a *basket case. Only by leaving will there be opportunities, once the immediate shock of breaking away has been gotten over, to change Scotland's basket case status.

You and others seem to be stuck on and endless loop at the 'immediate shock' stage and cannot see past it.

*am paraphrasing others.

Is it not case closed now? SNP based their whole argument on oil (depleting resource) at $130 a barrel in 2014, we hit lows of $32 leaving scotland a 15B deficit . Luckily they were still part of uk, otherwise they would of been effectively bankcrupt. I would of thought this would of been enough to conclusivley end this debate for/against for good, surely comes a point where the blinding obvious takes president?

Although SNP are now effectively obsolete on their goal, you have to chuckle that they want to try again and want independance, but want to remain part of EU - so no real independance just changing your masters really. Seems they want their cake and to eat it - want all the benefits we sort out for them, but dont want to contribute in return, want all the oil, whiskey revenue to themselves etc but want UK to protect them, bail them out, provide funding, free prescriptions and university and all the other subsidies we provide but want to offer as little as nothing in return. Seems silly to me. Id say less if it hadnt already been proven that the plan is a total disaster.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Scotland becomes independent and you stop getting that £7 billion subsidy, no matter what mechanism you deploy. The mutual negotiations which would come into play after a Yes vote would be based on that little fact

Of course it would stop. It's entirely the point of independence. But it wouldn't be absolutely instant anymore than a Brexit would mean instant changes with the EU. Two years isn't it they're talking about ?

A Scotland that votes to leave the UK doesn't want any subsidies. 45% of voters already don't want any Barnett money. But that doesn't mean with a Yes vote things will change overnight. All will be dependent on mutual negotiations and a set date for changeover.

I think perhaps you're on to a total loser if you think that an independent Scotland is going to be a recipient of UK foreign aid.

You are funny.:):)

You are havering, badly. A Yes vote means Scotland doesn't want any foreign aid :)

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Don't you understand anything?

HMRC will have no need to reorganise itself. Beyond perhaps, putting into effect the existing plans for the relocation of that Cumbernauld operation somewhere warmer. The business of collecting tax from UK resident individuals and corporations will continue as before.

It's Scotland that will have the problem of organising and legislating for the new SRC. You will need one. Nation states do need to fund themselves.
Nah, we want to get rid of all those wind turbines.

HMRC will have to reorganise itself. As will every single joint entity and institution that the UK currently shares. They've already cut the tax jobs. It should be no hardship reinstating them within the new up and running Revenue Scotland. As well as the new Scotland specific welfare operations planned for 2017 when the new powers arrive.

Unless there's a Brexit of course.

Shakethedisease

Johnsmith2016 wrote: »

Is it not case closed now?

Obviously not.

SNP based their whole argument on oil (depleting resource) at $130 a barrel in 2014, we hit lows of $32 leaving scotland a 15B deficit . Luckily they were still part of uk, otherwise they would of been effectively bankcrupt. I would of thought this would of been enough to conclusivley end this debate for/against for good, surely comes a point where the blinding obvious takes president?

Obviously not.

Although SNP are now effectively obsolete on their goal,

Are they, aye ?

you have to chuckle that they want to try again and want independance, but want to remain part of EU - so no real independance just changing your masters really. Seems they want their cake and to eat it - want all the benefits we sort out for them, but dont want to contribute in return, want all the oil, whiskey revenue to themselves etc but want UK to protect them, bail them out, provide funding, free prescriptions and university and all the other subsidies we provide but want to offer as little as nothing in return. Seems silly to me. Id say less if it hadnt already been proven that the plan is a total disaster.

Wonderful insight with a real finger on the pulse of millions of Scottish people with deep analysis of their innermost thoughts and motivations. So glad you posted to let us all know how it is in Scotland these days.

Such a shame most Scottish voters don't agree with you. Even worse they might go further and provide the SNP with another large swathe of votes in a week or so's time. Maybe even enough for another majority giving them carte blanche to persue independence once again.

harz99

Shakethedisease wrote: »

A Scotland that votes to leave the UK doesn't want any subsidies. 45% of voters already don't want any Barnett money.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Such a shame most Scottish voters don't agree with you.

No, it was 37.8% of voters that voted Yes in the referendum, voters being the eligible electorate. That figure does not equate to "most Scottish voters".

Johnsmith2016

Shake the disease - Go on, give it another go - ill give you 2 years before your either bankcrupt or crawling back wanting your subside .... You do realise it would stop dont you? Lol
The irony being how long would you last without barnet money? We already throw money over adrians wall disproportionatly in your favour.
You would be the equiliant of bulgaria or similar. Some just dont know whats good for them. I take it you would want foreign aid as well lol. Oh and if it kicks off we will protect you for free ... Or perhaps we start charging.

Shakethedisease

harz99 wrote: »

No, it was 37.8% of voters that voted Yes in the referendum, voters being the eligible electorate. That figure does not equate to "most Scottish voters".

45% to 55% of people that voted in the referendum voted Yes/No. Most voters in Scotland according to the polls ( I make no prediction ) intend to vote SNP on 5th May. Just like Most voters in Scotland voted SNP last May ( which is an actual fact ).

Therefore when I said

Such a shame most Scottish voters don't agree with you. Even worse they might go further and provide the SNP with another large swathe of votes in a week or so's time.

regarding the SNP in a Scottish General Election. I really do mean most voters in Scotland as in more than any other party. It's kind of what a 'majority' is all about isn't it ?

Shakethedisease

Johnsmith2016 wrote: »

Shake the disease - Go on, give it another go - ill give you 2 years before your either bankcrupt or crawling back wanting your subside .... You do realise it would stop dont you? Lol
The irony being how long would you last without barnet money? We already throw money over adrians wall disproportionatly in your favour.
You would be the equiliant of bulgaria or similar. Some just dont know whats good for them. I take it you would want foreign aid as well lol. Oh and if it kicks off we will protect you for free ... Or perhaps we start charging.

I'm sure you're a very nice person. But I'm not sure really where to start with the above. We've been debating it all for years here now.

I disagree with your analysis, that's about it really. But so glad to see that everyone has finally gotten over the 'Westminster will never allow another vote' thing. That did irk a bit I have to say.. glad that it's all taken as read that as soon as Sturgeon says so, we'll all be rushing to the polls again. :cool: <--- that's irony.

Johnsmith2016

Fair enough - vote at your peril .. Perhaps?