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

.string.

baldelectrician wrote: »

From a different angle
Unionism has dealt Scotland with an economy that is ran with a London and SE England agenda.
Westminster cannot run a UK economy with only Scottish interests first and foremost (as expected), only a Scottish Government (of whatever party in power) will run a Scottish economy solely for the benefit of Scotland.


This is the argument for independence in a nutshell


The unionist argument is that (because of Unionist failed policies) Scotland's economy is a basket case- can we have another 300 years to perfect it?
Too wee, too poor too stupid argument again.

Your first sentence is not true, just an example of whinge driven by hate.

Your second sentence is arguably also not true from the Unionist viewpoint which is that Scotland is better served within the Union and separation will bring lower standards of living to the Scots.

The third sentence may be true of the nuts that live in a nutshell.

The third sentence is not true. The Scottish economy is not a basket case within the Union because being part of the Union Scotland is supported financially and this is part of the overall economic picture. The basket scenario relates to a separated Scotland.

The fourth sentence speaks volumes of the chip on your shoulder. Grow up.

.string.

baldelectrician wrote: »

Yep
Point 5:

Borrowing will be needed (just as the UK does), the difference after independence Separation will be that ALL ONLY the monies that come from Scotland will be allocated to Scotland....

Ever willing to serve, I have corrected your sentence above for you.

Substantial borrowing may indeed be possible however, if the SNP Natland shows that it is prepared to repay its debts.

Thrugelmir

.string. wrote: »

Substantial borrowing may indeed be possible however, if the SNP Natland shows that it [STRIKE]is prepared[/STRIKE] can afford to repay its debts.

Open ended credit cards are over.

.string.

Regina_Falange wrote: »

I am a born and bred Scot who has lived in Scotland all my life however, I consider myself British. I voted against Independence as I 100% believe Great Britain is much better together. However, no matter what the SNP supporters will never, ever let Independence drop until Scotland is an independent country. Even 18 months on post September 2014 the people who voted No still proudly say they did albeit in a whisper as the backlash from SNP and An Independent Scotland supporters is a continuing nightmare.

Hand on heart, if there was a Independent referendum in Scotland tomorrow I know that our Great Britain will be will be gone in a heartbeat and an uncertain future awaits the majority of us.

What really saddens me is many of my fellow British countrymen/women seem to think that all Scots support our SNP government and it's policies and beliefs and we cannot wait for the day Scotland distances itself from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Trust me, many of us don't.

Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy your time here.

And thank you for your words on the Union. It is especially good to hear such sentiments coming from a Scot.

The discussion here can be hard to engage with, there being passionate feelings on both sides. A particular difficult is due to the SNP policy of whinging continually at "Westminster" and continually trying to drive a wedge between the Scots and the English. Being a Brit of the English type myself, I try not to react in the same way in my comments and direct them at the fantasy SNP Natland (as distinct from Scotland).

Shakethedisease

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I'm just amazed that none of 4 vocally supportive independence supporters on here can illustrate their vision for I Scotland on the basis of the 5 key points of the nations finances. Bizarre to say the least.

He's my vision on the same 5 points for the uk:

- Barnett: abolished to zero. Scotland needs to stand on its own and people of Scotland need to see for themselves the benefits they get from the rest of uk to be able to make an informed decision about what the SNP are doing for them. Reducing this spend will help the overall deficit for uk

Taken as read. I was surprised you even bothered including it in your 5 points. Of course Barnett would go !

- debt: split on a per capita basis but then Scotland and rouk responsible for paying down (or otherwise) their own shares.

Scotland will take a share. How big a share will be negotiated based on UK asset splits. It's also highly unusual for any newly independent country to take on high levels of debt from the get go. The UK Treasury has taken responsibility for all of it. What Scotland takes if she leaves is a complete unknown. Though I agree it should of course be a fair share based on debt/asset splits. It's not something that can simply be based on current debt figures with a 'there you go, take that with you label'. Scotland theoretically 'owns' 8.4% of all UK assets based on population share. Trident also would be a bit of a sticking point.

- public spending - reduced. We cannot afford all the things we currently pay for and state is overly bloated. I would abolish public sector db pensions. Privatise more and introduce charges at point of use for numerous public services... Including health.

There are more publically owned services in Scotland than in the UK. For example Scottish water is still in public hands. Scotland is moving to the left anyway now on things like public sector pensions etc. Even the MSP's have refused salary increases. Land reform and rent control bills have just been passed in Holyrood in the last week. The Scottish NHS remains in state hands and the bulk of privatisations were reversed after the SNP took over in 2007. Scottish Labour are transforming into something more resembling the old pre Blair party. But it will take time. I suspect if they do really, really badly in May and the council elections the following year. Then their days as a unionist party will be numbered.

- taxation: should be lower, particularly 40% band. Rather than taxing people choose to pay at point of use. More personal responsibility and less state dependence. I would however tax consumption more.

Governments of any flavour change taxation rates up and down all the time. I doubt a Scottish Govt would be any different in that respect. It's having the powers at hand to do so that's been the problem. Until 2017, the Scottish Govt hasn't had any.

- borrowing: all above being well the deficit should reduce, primarily on the back of lower spending.

Again an unknown. As Scotland's deficit will be an unknown until a Yes vote and negotiations have taken place.

Shakethedisease

HornetSaver wrote: »

Agree with pretty much all of your response to be honest.

Though I'd quibble with this bit:



So surely the trick is to do it early?

Factually you're right, Leave EU are in the same situation now as Yes Scotland were from, say, the Salmond-Darling debates onwards. By putting the downsides out there late on, floating voters would be terrified by the revelation that a vote to change would involve... change. As ridiculous as that last sentence reads, I'm not attempting to be sarcastic, that really is the psychology involved in the immediate run-up to a referendum.

But Leave are in that situation now because, as with Yes in Summer 2014, it's now too close to the referendum for them to put something like that out there. If the fact that there would be transitional hurdles had been put out there in a frank but understated way in 2014-15 (or by the SNP in 2012-13) surely it would be an irrelevance in swaying last minute voters towards remain (or No)? Those who would not accept the risks of upheaval at any cost already having made their minds up to vote remain early on (rather than showing up as undecideds despite unconsciously always being committed to voting for the more cautious option), whereas the last minute floating voters would be swayed by last minute twists and turns. EDIT Which in the case of the Scottish referendum, would most likely have favoured Yes.

Have the referendum early, or get the bad news out of the way early ? No chance on an early referendum, it would've been lost based on the polling. And there was all that mucking about for ages questioning if the Scottish Govt could even hold one, what question, 2 questions or 3 including devo max etc etc.

As for detailing challenges. Unfortunately the Scottish press has always been quite hostile to the SNP ( The Daily Record is known as the 'Daily Labour', and it's no coincidence it was that newspaper which scooped 'the Vow' ). Most especially also since the SNP scraped through in Holyrood by just one seat in 2007. Salmond coming out in 2011 with something along the lines of 'ok, so voting Yes might mean more taxes'.. would've still be just as much of a disaster. It would've been played on loop until September 2014.

The SNP have gotten used to winning elections by being relentlessly positive about everything. I suppose they felt there was no need to change the formula as it's served them well. But by the last year of the campaign, the grassroots Yes campaign had taken on a relentlessly positive life of it's own anyway.

Alas for the Leave/Remain campaigns in the EU referendum, there is little chance of a repeat of any grassroots campaign taking root. The polling has been all over the place, and very tight. Cameron was right to get it over with asap before it causes too much damage to his party ( though given IDS resignation last night who knows ). Both sides, unlike the Scottish referendum are relying on negative campaigning. From what I've read it seems when both sides resort to relentless negative campaigning. It's the MOST negative side that usually wins. :eek:

Mistermeaner

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Taken as read. I was surprised you even bothered including it in your 5 points. Of course Barnett would go !

Scotland will take a share. How big a share will be negotiated based on UK asset splits. It's also highly unusual for any newly independent country to take on high levels of debt from the get go. The UK Treasury has taken responsibility for all of it. What Scotland takes if she leaves is a complete unknown. Though I agree it should of course be a fair share based on debt/asset splits. It's not something that can simply be based on current debt figures with a 'there you go, take that with you label'. Scotland theoretically 'owns' 8.4% of all UK assets based on population share. Trident also would be a bit of a sticking point.

There are more publically owned services in Scotland than in the UK. For example Scottish water is still in public hands. Scotland is moving to the left anyway now on things like public sector pensions etc. Even the MSP's have refused salary increases. Land reform and rent control bills have just been passed in Holyrood in the last week. The Scottish NHS remains in state hands and the bulk of privatisations were reversed after the SNP took over in 2007. Scottish Labour are transforming into something more resembling the old pre Blair party. But it will take time. I suspect if they do really, really badly in May and the council elections the following year. Then their days as a unionist party will be numbered.

Governments of any flavour change taxation rates up and down all the time. I doubt a Scottish Govt would be any different in that respect. It's having the powers at hand to do so that's been the problem. Until 2017, the Scottish Govt hasn't had any.

Again an unknown. As Scotland's deficit will be an unknown until a Yes vote and negotiations have taken place.

Nearly.... I think you answered the first 2 but not the last 3.... Its your vision for how things will be different / better I'm interested in. I hear you think Barnett gone and a 'fair' share of debt but I wasnt clear on your view re expenditure and tax (final point on borrowings is kind of a function of the first 4)

HornetSaver

Shakethedisease wrote: »

From what I've read it seems when both sides resort to relentless negative campaigning. It's the MOST negative side that usually wins. :eek:

Oh I'd agree with that.

Then again, it's easier to be perceived as being negative when you're worried about the risk of change, than when you're criticising the way things are now and wishing they were different. The status quo option will therefore usually be the more negative campaign, all other things being equal.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Meanwhile - In Scotland....

elantan

I imagine it's cause at this stage in the game there is no real alternative to them, Labour are just dying Kezia decided in her wisdom to say Scotland is just a word yesterday, her BBC interview was a tragedy to behold

Ruth is slowly showing her true colours ( not sure if she will fully reveal herself before the GE tbh) her tory blood runs true

Libdems... Rennie is just a joke, add that to the whole Carmichael issue, your left with Greens ( I don't mind them so much ) rise ... don't reckon they will last long tbh .. ssp .. can't stop infighting ( kinda like labour and rise)

And that's yer whack ... I really hope a good viable alternative comes out but just now it's SNP and that's it ... I would vote SNP 1 and Green 2 if I were to vote