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

Conrad

We pay the EU a £28 million daily club fee.


What will Scotland's fee be?
Lets hope all those funding shortages discussed in Holyrood, don't get further squeezed.


At least if you are in the EU, you can carry on taking valuable skills away from far more vulnerable nations such as Lithuania and Romainia, who are suffering greatly from the drain. Compassion is us.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I wish you (two) would speculate what you mean ? It all sounds a little menacing to be honest. We well know how big England's population is compared to Scotland's. Just how far would May go to keep Scotland currently or forever in the union do you think ? Or would Scotland have to leave the EU alongside England/Wales etc.. and only then to be allowed a referendum ?

I don't get what you're both hinting at above ?

No running commentary - sorry.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I posted the below right after the Brexit vote and got pelters for it.:o

But imo the Scottish Govt have always intended to avoid being part of Article 50 negotiations altogether, and carry on in essence taking the UK's place. What the EU says to Scotland when Article 50 is invoked will swing things, but one thing is clear is that if Scotland is taken out of Article 50 negotiations on the basis that it's just voted for independence. Then the substance of the matter from Scotland's point of view becomes more what the terms for remaining are.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/03/14/a-brexit-could-make-it-easier-for-scotland-to-join-the-eu-as-an-independent-state/

I think the above is what the Scottish Govt has been aiming for. However, at the moment Sturgeon's going to have to exhaust every other option there is first in order ( as someone else put it in a comment somewhere ) to 'show her working' to Scottish Labour, Lib Dems and swithering voters who think there is still some chance of Scotland staying both in the UK and the EU.

The EU is going to have to have to make it look like a real possibility though. Before any referendum. Hopefully that's what Sturgeon's visit's were about. Who knows. :cool:

This is all predicated on independence being the correct choice for the people of Scotland.

The independence argument lost in 2014 in arguably more favourable circumstances, now stands to lose once again with an attempt to squeeze independence in through the back door which was forced ajar by a machiavellian SNP manifesto pledge and EU referendum campaign tactic.

http://www.snp.org/if_you_re_voting_with_independence_in_mind_this_thursday_vote_remain

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vote-remain-for-independence-urges-sturgeon-5nk0jw2km

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/209940/1-scotland-eu-sturgeon_0185/

Some on here will say: "Well they were elected into Holyrood on that manifesto", to which I will remind them that only 55% of Scots turned out to that election, and only 1m voted for the SNP in the constituency seats and less still in the regional seats out of an eligible vote of 4m.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

This should be sufficient colouring of the backdrop of the discussion on this forum.

Because we're in the position where the SNP are in power and the EU referendum vote went the way the SNP wanted it to, we attempt to discuss the benefits vs consequences of actually voting for independence since it appears quite clear that the SNP are driving towards a second independence referendum.

The available options appear to be:

1. Remain in the UK and accept the result of negotiations between the EU and the UK.

2. Become independent to remain/re-join the EU.

Breaking it down, for option 1 to happen we must have to wait until the deal between the EU and the UK has been ratified, or will be imminently ratified before the Scottish electorate will know what option 1 actually means.

For option 2, it would look very much like a leap in the dark. There's a few legalese translators saying that Scotland could inherit the UK's membership, and there are others saying that Scotland will need to re-apply. This is all conjecture, there is no definitive answer on this yet, nothing from the horses mouth (the EU), and it would seem that we would only get a definitive answer once Scotland became independent.

This creates a catch 22 situation where Scotland would need to be independent before the UK leaves the EU in order to achieve or even validate option 2, and would need to ask voters to choose between independence or the union whilst not knowing what option 1 actually is.

It might be possible to avoid such a catch 22 situation by holding the independence referendum after the UK has ratified a deal with the EU, allowing Scottish voters a clearer choice between independence and possible EU membership and the Union and the deal that is ratified with the EU. This depends on whether or not the UK's negotiations with the EU are done in a timely manner enough to allow Scotland to hold an independence referendum prior to leaving the EU. Should the UK leave the EU before Scotland had chance to have such a referendum it has been suggested by other translators of legalese that Scotland could sit in a 'holding pen' whilst it is determined which option the Scottish people would like. This would appear to me to be the most sensible option.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Exploring the economic arguments.

Pro-independence supporters say many things about the economic situation of Scotland:

1. There is no debt, it's the UK's debt.
2. There is no deficit, it's the UK's deficit.
3. Even if there was, Scotland could sell assets to pay off the debt giving Scotland a surplus.
4. Scotland currently pays for projects in the UK (generally meaning England) from which Scottish people see no benefit.
5. GERS is wrong because it uses statistical methodologies that could result in inaccuracies.
6. Trade that Scotland does form English ports is not counted as part of Scottish revenue (Whiskey Export Duty).
7. That there is a difference between a sustainable deficit and deficit.
8. That GERS has no bearing on an independent Scotland as the Scottish government would be able to raise or lower all taxation and cut or increase all spending and borrowing.
9. That an independent Scotland can create a sovereign oil fund to offset government borrowing like Norway.

On the opposing side:

1. Any debt generated by the United Kingdom will be split with an independent Scotland, population figures would suggest roughly 8% of the UK national debt would be transferred to Scotland to deal with.

- The UK national debt currently stands at £1.7tn. Factoring in all unfunded liabilities the figure reaches £4.8tn.
- UK current GDP stands around £2.8tn (2013).
- Scottish GDP stand around £0.216tn (2010).

Using the figures above for total debt and unfunded liabilities (£4.8tn) the UK has a debt:GDP ratio of 171%.

Taking Scotlands share at 8%. £0.384tn : £0.216tn = 177%

Whilst the GDP numbers may not be up to date the variance will not be large enough to make any significant difference.

2. In 2015 the UK government reduced the overall UK budget deficit down to 4.4% of GDP. Largely thanks to growth in employment, reduction in welfare spending and cuts to other government departmental spending as part of the Coalition (Lib/Con) and Conservative government plans since 2010. In the same year (2015) the GERS figures indicated that Scotland had a deficit of 9.3% of GDP, more than twice that of the UK as a whole.

3. Whilst it's true that assets could be sold to pay off 8% of the £1.7tn (£136bn) or even put towards the £384bn in unfunded liabilities it's unlikely to pay the entire balance of the debt and it also can only happen once. After having sold the assets there will be no further gains from this course of action. There was once a scot.gov page (I cannot source it now) which suggested that £1.3tn of assets would be split, again using the 8% figure that would equate to £104bn. This could either be used to invest, in which case the debt and deficit remain. It could be used to pay off part of the debt in which case £32bn debt would remain. It could be used to finance the deficit which would be approximately 7 years of current expenditure with no addition to the Scottish national debt. Or used for a combination of these purposes. It is quite clear however that the assets argument is no silver bullet.

4. Scotland does indeed pay into some projects that operate within the rest of the UK. Out of a recently publicised list of 6 or 7 projects currently operating in England that independence supporters claim Scotland is paying towards only one has any basis in fact. That is the HS2 project. However they fail to mention that whilst Scotland is contributing to the cost of this project, there will be a Scottish dividend from doing so due to something called Barnett consequentials which means for every £1 spent in England, Scotland receives more to do with as they please. In the case of HS2 this translates to a dividend of £5.49bn for Scotland due to the Barnett formula. Scotland gets back 9.85% of the total cost of HS2 for providing 2% of the cost.

5. It's often stated by some who support independence that GERS is itself flawed, wrong or inaccurate and that hobby statisticians or enthusiasts have been able to pick holes in the methodologies and the figures produced by the Scottish Government statisticians. However the SNP themselves stand behind the GERS figures and previously used them as the basis for the infamous 'White Paper' on independence as well as citing them on their website here. So it would appear that the only people who claim GERS is incorrect or inaccurate are the pro-independence plebiscite. All other official sources accept GERS as the statistical authority on Scottish revenue and expenditure. If you were looking for an unbiased representation of GERS you would only need to look as far as the SNP themselves agreeing with, publicising and using GERS to advance their arguments.

6. An argument that has fallen by the wayside for independence support is that of Whiskey Export Duty. The idea that a duty/tax/charge is put on Whiskey that is exported from the United Kingdom to destinations outside of the European Union (taking it as a given that within the single market there's definitely no charge).

This has been roundly refuted and dismissed as complete rubbish.

Here was the pro-independence propaganda:


And here is the explanation:

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/meme-busting-whisky-and-the-non-existent-export-duty/

And in case you didn't want to read all of that here's the reply from HMRC:



7. The Rev. Stuart Campbell, patriarch of Wings Over Scotland, a rather notorious pro-independence blog and propaganda machine claims that there is a difference between a deficit and a sustainable deficit.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-six-key-facts-about-gers/#more-87453

"Key Fact #3" (note the quotation marks)

Towards the end of the "fact" he claims that because most countries in the world operate a budget deficit that somehow this translates into something called a "sustainable" deficit. Citing the following example:

If a sustainable deficit is (say) £10bn and your actual deficit is (say) £12bn, then the size of the “black hole” you need to address in a bad year – by generating extra income, borrowing or reducing spending – is £2bn, not £12bn.

The mathematical logic here doesn't seem to make any sense. Since an annual deficit is how much you add to your pile of debt each year, eventually you're no longer going to be able to sustain the interest payments on your debt and you default, citing the basic example that 10 years of £10bn deficit will equal £100bn debt, that doesn't strike me as sustainable at all.

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to understand this, but the good Reverend appears only too happy to tell you otherwise. Would you trust someone who thinks you can borrow more than you earn in a sustainable fashion? I don't think I would. For me this is just one example of why Wings Over Scotland is only read by the converted and not by the neutral. The articles are to pro-independence supporters as heroine is to addicts.

8. Clearly GERS does have a bearing on whether or not an independent Scotland will be better off or not since it indicates how much tax revenue Scotland currently generates and how much Scotland currently spends. As I wrote earlier GERS is used by the SNP, economists (although I loathe their predictions), the Scottish government, the UK government, mainstream media, and many others. So whilst it may not be an accurate reflection of what Scotland might look like after independence, it is a reflection of what Scotland would look like at or during independence. There will be a transition phase that Scotland would go through where spending and taxation will largely remain the same despite the ability to pull any fiscal levers they wish.

9. The pro-independence campaign has said for quite some time now that they too should have a sovereign oil fund, in the same way Norway does.

There was an analysis done on the effectiveness of an oil fund for Scotland in the wake of independence. Far from it being as useful tool, it appears it would be a drain on Scottish resource requiring spending cuts of 13% or onshore tax rises of 18% in order for the fund to be established. After 20 years of paying into such a fund it would equate to less than 10% of the size of Norway's oil fund.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236579/scotland_analysis_macroeconomic_and_fiscal_performance.pdf

So, 18% onshore tax increase or 13% spending decrease, for 20 years, to get 10% of Noway's oil fund.

I think you'll agree that this doesn't seem like a sensible proposition either and that this probably also belongs in the 'myth' tray.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

TrickyTree83

I've left a lot out of that.

I got bored.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I wish you (two) would speculate what you mean ? It all sounds a little menacing to be honest. We well know how big England's population is compared to Scotland's. Just how far would May go to keep Scotland currently or forever in the union do you think ? Or would Scotland have to leave the EU alongside England/Wales etc.. and only then to be allowed a referendum ?

I don't get what you're both hinting at above ?

Was my point "I wish there was an English parliament" a little too obscure do you think?

Okay, I'll try to be a bit more transparent ..

- devolution is broken, and this applies to Wales ; NI ; Scotland equally.

Without an English assembly there will *always* be the potential accusation that Westminster is acting by proxy on behalf of the English.

I want a system where each region fights it's corner for a share of the overall pie. If the NE comes up with some great business initiative which grows their economy then they should get more. This will encourage competition.

Let's face it. When Scotland is fully independent you will become just another competitor. So you might as well get used to it now.

Regards PM May. She will be judged on the delivery of Brexit. Little else. She can upset Sturgeon as much as she wants, as far as I am concerned.

mollycat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I've left a lot out of that.

I got bored.

No worries

Another great nail in the coffi.....er, I mean another great post.

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

...
Facts don't care about your feelings.
...

I think you've found the next big T-shirt slogan


(All I could come up with was "Better Together or Bitter Forever")

TrickyTree83

kabayiri wrote: »

I think you've found the next big T-shirt slogan


(All I could come up with was "Better Together or Bitter Forever")

Yours is equally as good. Bitter forever would probably describe the feelings half of Scotland and the rest of the UK would feel towards the other half of Scotland (approximately of course). They're doing a great job at this division stuff.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

*noise*

Facts don't care about your feelings.

You only have estimates and opinions. FACT!

kabayiri wrote: »

Was my point "I wish there was an English parliament" a little too obscure do you think?

Okay, I'll try to be a bit more transparent ..

- devolution is broken, and this applies to Wales ; NI ; Scotland equally.

Without an English assembly there will *always* be the potential accusation that Westminster is acting by proxy on behalf of the English.

I want a system where each region fights it's corner for a share of the overall pie. If the NE comes up with some great business initiative which grows their economy then they should get more. This will encourage competition.

Let's face it. When Scotland is fully independent you will become just another competitor. So you might as well get used to it now.

Regards PM May. She will be judged on the delivery of Brexit. Little else. She can upset Sturgeon as much as she wants, as far as I am concerned.

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

You only have estimates and opinions. FACT!

Whilst it will obviously be approximate, since it's impossible to be 100% accurate, it's within reasonable tolerance for this discussion.

Not much of it is opinion, and that which is I think I put across in a reasonable manner, particularly the information around what happens between Scotland and the EU and the timing of any referendum. Oh and that of the honesty/legitimacy of statements that come from people who think deficit is sustainable and Whiskey Export Duty is a real thing.

Why don't you respond properly instead of getting all angry and throwing your toys out of the pram?

I apologise if I hurt you previously when you were wrong about Scottish trade statistics. It wasn't my intention, it's just that facts don't care about your feelings.