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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The latest Scottish Social Attitudes survey shows that just 42 per cent of people want the country to leave the UK, compared with 58 per cent who want to stay.

When "don't know" and "refused" responses are included, the poll shows 39 per cent back independence.

It is the greatest support for the Union seen since before the referendum - and comes as a huge blow to the SNP leadership.

The Scottish Social Attitudes (SSA) survey, published on Thursday, is based on face-to-face interviews. It is funded by the Scottish Government and states that it provides a "reliable and robust picture of changing public attitudes over time".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/654010/Scotland-survey-42-per-cent-people-leave-UK

In the most accurate poll we have (funded by the Scottish Govt no less), support for Indy has fallen significantly since the referendum, which does rather expose the lie many Indy supporters keep telling themselves that significant numbers of No voters regret voting No.

Rather, the opposite appears to be true, with significant numbers of Yes voters changing their minds.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/654010/Scotland-survey-42-per-cent-people-leave-UK

In the most accurate poll we have (funded by the Scottish Govt no less), support for Indy has fallen significantly since the referendum, which does rather expose the lie many Indy supporters keep telling themselves that significant numbers of No voters regret voting No.

Rather, the opposite appears to be true, with significant numbers of Yes voters changing their minds.

It makes sense: as the financial case falls away so does support.

Out of interest, why the heck is the Scottish taxpayer paying good money to see how many Scots want to be independent of England? I'd rather my taxes went on educating kids and treating cancer.

elantan

It also states the Scottish government is the most trusted in the EU ... weird ain't it

Generali

elantan wrote: »

It also states the Scottish government is the most trusted in the EU ... weird ain't it

It is weird innit.

Still it seems that the Scots are starting to see the light although the statistician in me says to wait for another poll or two.

The next GERS is likely to be the big turning point: how many Scots do you think want independence and poverty? You may not believe in sums but most people do.

elantan

Do they ? Do they really ? I've still to see a poll that says they do

.string.

Mistermeaner wrote: »

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)

I'd like to add a little background to the matter of debt, one of your questions.

NATLAND'S SHARE OF THE DEBT AND ASSETS OF THE UK

Before I start this I should remind everyone that, according to the SNP, anyone who is not a paid up Member of the SNP cannot possibly know anything of detriment to the SNP and if any legal opinions are expressed they can easily be shown to be invalid by simple reference to an SNP Legal source.

The former Great Leader of the SNP, Salmond, referred to the tremendous "Windfall" which would accrue to Scotland in the event of Independence. This was the sharing out of the assets of the United Kingdom, such assets including the contents of libraries, museums, wine cellars, munition dumps, Crown jewels, the front porch of Number 10 .... well you get the idea.

This concept seems to be still in existence in the mindset of the SNP Mindset and, I suggest, is set to becomes the "New Oil", the wonder-lode which will solve all Natland's financial worries after separation .

This "New Oil" would be the super-bargaining chip which will enable (aka excuse) the ducking of taking on the share of the UK National Debt.

Sturgeon has mentioned the couplet "Assets and Debt" at least a couple of times in the last few weeks, and this has dutifully been parroted by Shakey, proof positive that it is a central part of SNP thinking for persuading people that financial risks associated with separation can be ignored by those they take as captive and gullible Scottish Voters.

The matter of what would constitute the split between Scotland and rUK of Assets was examined in an input to the Scottish Affairs Committee in March 2014 by Professor Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor of Public Law, University of Glasgow. It was a response to the claims made in the SNP "White Paper".

a summary of the findings is here

In essence it states that on separation Scotland would take up ownership of only those UK institutions, their public Buildings and contents located in Scotland which are specifically for Scottish use but not those which are used for the UK as a whole. In the UK, which is the Continuing State, the rUK would take all such assets.

Assets which have been paid for by past investments would belong to the state in which they were located.
"[SIZE=+1]Past investment and historic share are not material factors in determining how assets and liabilities should be apportioned equitably. Just as rUK taxpayers would not be compensated if UK property in Scotland became the property of an independent Scottish State, neither would Scotland’s historic contribution to UK institutions affect the fact that such institutions would simply remain those of the rUK in the event of independence. "[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]

Negotiations would indeed be complex, but not along the lines which the SNP have in mind.


I strongly recommend that the relatively short piece I have linked is read by those interested in how assets would be distributed between Natland and rUK.
[/SIZE]

Shakethedisease

Roughly translated. Scotland would leave with every single penny of debt accounted for and papped onto Scotland's accounts. But nothing much else ?

Well if that's what you think carry on I suppose. But do bear in mind that it's for rUK to negotiate what share it would 'like' Scotland to take. And everyone agrees it should be a fair amount. A newly independent Scotland would be under no obligation to accept what the Treasury would 'like'. Nor can they be forced. It will come down to negotiations.

Anyway, calm your pants. It was just an answer to a 'five point question'. There are a lot of assumptions being made and there is no referendum on the horizon right now.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Roughly translated. Scotland would leave with every single penny of debt accounted for and papped onto Scotland's accounts. But nothing much else ?

Well if that's what you think carry on I suppose. But do bear in mind that it's for rUK to negotiate what share it would 'like' Scotland to take. And everyone agrees it should be a fair amount. A newly independent Scotland would be under no obligation to accept what the Treasury would 'like'. Nor can they be forced. It will come down to negotiations.

Anyway, calm your pants. It was just an answer to a 'five point question'. There are a lot of assumptions being made and there is no referendum on the horizon right now.

I posted this on the old thread but it disappeared:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/the-old-case-for-scottish-independence-is-dead-long-live-the-new-case-for-scottish-independence/

I've been looking at the whole debt thing and under the Vienna Convention of 1983, Scotland would not have to take any debts with it except by negotiation. However, under the same convention, all movable assets would remain the property of England as the successor state (immovable ones in Scotland would remain the property of Scotland) except by negotiation. In effect that would mean that under the law, Scotland would keep the libraries but lose the books. She'd keep the military bases but lose the tanks. England would keep the embassies and overseas stuff.

The only problem? The Vienna Convention hasn't yet been ratified so isn't a part of international law yet. The opinions I can find online have suggested that it would still likely be used as it is the best (only) tool available.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

I posted this on the old thread but it disappeared:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/the-old-case-for-scottish-independence-is-dead-long-live-the-new-case-for-scottish-independence/

I've been looking at the whole debt thing and under the Vienna Convention of 1983, Scotland would not have to take any debts with it except by negotiation. However, under the same convention, all movable assets would remain the property of England as the successor state (immovable ones in Scotland would remain the property of Scotland) except by negotiation. In effect that would mean that under the law, Scotland would keep the libraries but lose the books. She'd keep the military bases but lose the tanks. England would keep the embassies and overseas stuff.

The only problem? The Vienna Convention hasn't yet been ratified so isn't a part of international law yet. The opinions I can find online have suggested that it would still likely be used as it is the best (only) tool available.

So, if negotiations got prickly, is there some final arbiter they would go to. Such as in the case of Argentine debt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_debt_restructuring#International_Court_of_Justice_case

Generali

mwpt wrote: »

So, if negotiations got prickly, is there some final arbiter they would go to. Such as in the case of Argentine debt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_debt_restructuring#International_Court_of_Justice_case

Not really I don't think as these would be negotiations between two sovereigns. I guess the UN would step in.