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

Shakethedisease

By the way I'd just like to say how lovely it is to see sss555s and beecher back posting, you've been missed. Seems like only yesterday it was 2011-2014. The glory days when there was a referendum in the offing and much to debate... oh wait...

Anyway really nice to see your usernames back on the Scottish thread here.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

But there is hope for Scotland, Unionist are in the majority and they are not daft.

Well they're not daft so we can put that to the side. But a majority, I'm really not sure anymore. And I say that as someone who approached the last independence referendum, like 45% of Scotland did with far more hope than expectation. Something's changed. I don't think it's even the Brexit vote ( though for the 170,000 EU nationals in Scotland that's probably it ).. but more that Tory conference, this relatively new Tory govt in place and the narratives than came from it.

Scottish Independence Is Now A Necessary Antidote To The Reactionary Beast Of Brexit

As someone who opposed Scottish independence in 2014, writing numerous articles and appearing in public debates to put the case for unity across the UK on the basis of class, rather than division on the basis of nationality,

I now believe that independence for Scotland is not only desirable but necessary. Not only is it necessary in the interests of people in Scotland, but even more significantly it is necessary in order to lift the banner of progressive politics out of the mud, where it currently lies, and raise it as a beacon of hope across a European continent engulfed by the ugly politics of racial and national exceptionalism to an extent not seen since the 1930s.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/scottish-independence-is-_b_12512554.html

I used to be against Scottish independence – but after Brexit, I think it's the only hope for young people like me in the UK

I campaigned for Scotland to stay in the UK and proudly ticked the 'No' box with a Union Jack wrapped around me.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-article-50-theresa-may-european-union-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-snp-indyref2-independence-a7365246.html

Oh and this idea ain't going to be imposed by anyone after the Brexit vote result.

'Super-majority' plan for independence referendum

THE former chair of the campaign that delivered the Scottish Parliament has said Westminster should impose a “super-majority” on the next independence referendum.
Nigel Smith said setting a threshold of 55 per cent for a successful Yes vote, for example, would show there was a national consensus for radical change better than a majority of 50 per cent plus one.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14809386.__39_Super_majority__39__plan_for_independence_referendum/

Definitely jitters galore out there about Scotland. Tonight even the journo's have gone mad on twitter. Scottish media is in an absolute shambolic state, and London media journos that comment on it 100 times worse. There's an implosion ahead there.

sss555s

.string. wrote: »

That is very naive.

I did not want to leave the EU as it was

I'm sure your thinking that Brexit is naive also but that is happening I'm afraid. Scotland wouldn't have looked at the possibility of another referendum at this time if that hadn't have happened.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Oh dear, I do love posts like this.

Tell us how exactly.

Should be simple, you seem so sure.

Because Westminster will do what it's always done for the last few decades when things get a bit tight. Wales, NI, North England and Scotland will bear the brunt and not be supported well enough while London and the SE will continue to flourish.

The block grant isn't set in stone and I'd be surprised if Westminster wasn't planning on tinkering with that at some point in the future.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Without going into the whole GERS debate again, and am in no way stating that Scotland might not have serious challenges. But GERS being the best we've got (I agree with that too ) doesn't make it absolutely accurate. Doesn't account for debt/asset negotiations and doesn't account for Scotland only policy choices and savings that would be made. For instance on defence and in other areas. These were comments from another forum I found really interesting and must read up a bit more on. However they highlight many problems with current UK wide v's Scotland only spending and revenues.


Would you agree ( again without going into a whole GERS back and forth thing here ) that things can get very muddy when things get broken down a bit ?

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/1422/9

Lost your imbedded article when quoting. However the WOS article info widely circulated on social media by SNP MPs , which asserts Scotland contributes 12BN to overall 136BN cost of NIP projects, which benefit England while Scotland has only 1BN spent on a single NIP project was debunked in an article on

https://www.whytepaper.wordpress.com

Apologies can't link direct to article, which is called ' Memebusting Wings Over Scotland & Infrastructure spending' . If interested you need to look throu older posts as its from 2014.

The author of this article gives a very detailed and researched answer to this question, it's a lengthy article which you may wish to read or not. And agree with or not.

But his conclusions were

There is something called National Infrastructure spending. TRUE
NIP spending does not incur Barnett consequentials. FALSE
Scotland pays 12BN of UKs 136BN contribution to NIP. FALSE
There is only 1 NIP projects in Scotland. FALSE
Scotland pays 11BN for projects we don't benefit from. FALSE

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I mean if even respected newspapers like the Times come out with massive levels of stupid like this, it's no wonder people turn elsewhere for information when they know they're being blatantly led up the garden path ( lied to ). And even worse when it's knowingly shoving false information at people who are unaware of the completely evidence free tosh they're being fed daily regarding Scotland... as fact. They even use the word 'FACTS' in the headline !

Sturgeon cannot run up or "deal with" a deficit. Fixed grant..etc etc. The only way she can deal with it is after independence ( another subscription about to be crossed off the list along with the Herald. Kenny Farquarson's mental gymnastics as he refuses to "face facts", choice between EU/UK, is getting extremely tedious ).

Unfortunately I do not have a subscription to the Times, so cannot check the whole article, but from the little I can see they are not writing about whether or not the Scottish Government is spending more than the grant, but the use they are making of it and their failure to improve the Scottish economy. See the link below for the limited part of the article to read what it says. No wonder you didn't show it all.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/face-facts-sturgeon-is-failing-to-act-on-deficit-0lxskmhzw

So I call you out on what you wrote there, Shakey, you appear to be misrepresenting what the Times article is about which is the SNP Government failing to do their day job. A bunch of fanatics it seems.

kabayiri

sss555s wrote: »

...
Because Westminster will do what it's always done for the last few decades when things get a bit tight. Wales, NI, North England and Scotland will bear the brunt and not be supported well enough while London and the SE will continue to flourish.

The block grant isn't set in stone and I'd be surprised if Westminster wasn't planning on tinkering with that at some point in the future.

It's not just the Scots that can engage in protest politics you know.

I am confident a chunk of the EU referendum vote to Leave had people who were protesting against the existing establishment as they see it. What was the mantra? 'Take back control'.

London and certain other key cities are set to grow, and they will require lots more investment. The regions will continue to struggle. A place like Fleetwood is struggling to fill classrooms, whilst London schools get £1800 per pupil more than West Sussex.

With a continued focus on national deficit reduction, it might be a right old bunfight as to where the money gets spent.

Maybe Labour could have represented their traditional regional heartlands, but they are a busted flush beset with infighting right now.

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

I'm sure your thinking that Brexit is naive also but that is happening I'm afraid. Scotland wouldn't have looked at the possibility of another referendum at this time if that hadn't have happened. You day Westminster has always done it, let's see the evidence and then I'll counter.




Because Westminster will do what it's always done for the last few decades when things get a bit tight. Wales, NI, North England and Scotland will bear the brunt and not be supported well enough while London and the SE will continue to flourish.

The block grant isn't set in stone and I'd be surprised if Westminster wasn't planning on tinkering with that at some point in the future.

Right. So thus Scotland that bears the brunt also - as you pointed out - has very good GVA figures. Can you prove what you say? Can you prove that Scotland will bear the brunt?

If the block grant was reduced, it would only be resolving the current imbalance in UK public expenditure, no?

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Right. So thus Scotland that bears the brunt also - as you pointed out - has very good GVA figures. Can you prove what you say? Can you prove that Scotland will bear the brunt?

Recent history is proof enough. Can you prove that Westminster will change tact and North England, Wales, NI and Scotland won't bear the brunt?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If the block grant was reduced, it would only be resolving the current imbalance in UK public expenditure, no?

:rotfl: Are you seriously on here every day preaching to Scots to vote against independence while saying you think the block grant is unfair and should be cut?

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Without going into the whole GERS debate again, and am in no way stating that Scotland might not have serious challenges. But GERS being the best we've got (I agree with that too ) doesn't make it absolutely accurate. Doesn't account for debt/asset negotiations and doesn't account for Scotland only policy choices and savings that would be made. For instance on defence and in other areas. These were comments from another forum I found really interesting and must read up a bit more on. However they highlight many problems with current UK wide v's Scotland only spending and revenues.

Would you agree ( again without going into a whole GERS back and forth thing here ) that things can get very muddy when things get broken down a bit ?

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/03/1422/9

No.

GERS tells you that an independent Scotland is not fiscally sustainable without significant tax increases and/or spending cuts.

You need to wake up and face the facts. (And stop waffling.:)) It's not an argument against independence. It tells you that there is a price to pay for independence. And it won't be cheap.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Lost your imbedded article when quoting. However the WOS article info widely circulated on social media by SNP MPs , which asserts Scotland contributes 12BN to overall 136BN cost of NIP projects, which benefit England while Scotland has only 1BN spent on a single NIP project was debunked in an article on

www.whytepaper.wordpress.com

Apologies can't link direct to article, which is called ' Memebusting Wings Over Scotland & Infrastructure spending' . If interested you need to look throu older posts as its from 2014.

The author of this article gives a very detailed and researched answer to this question, it's a lengthy article which you may wish to read or not. And agree with or not.

But his conclusions were

There is something called National Infrastructure spending. TRUE
NIP spending does not incur Barnett consequentials. FALSE
Scotland pays 12BN of UKs 136BN contribution to NIP. FALSE
There is only 1 NIP projects in Scotland. FALSE
Scotland pays 11BN for projects we don't benefit from. FALSE

It wasn't a Wings article mcskinflint. It was a comment on a thread on Reddit a few days ago.

I would've thought that the fact Scotland wouldn't be contributing to the NIP at all would be a saving in itself. Remembering of course that 40% of Scotland's spending is decided on Scotland's behalf. The author of the whytepaper blog is as biased as Wings is in the other direction. But as I said earlier, back and forth on GERS here is soul destroying. The very fact that there's so much doubt and differing interpretations of it speaks volumes. And again, that's not to deny an iScotland wouldn't face serious challenges.