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

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

I'm not ever going to think self determination is ridiculous, and I'm not the only one.

You cannot just wish away the economic realities or the situation that Nicola and the SNP have engineered to have another stab at the dream being totally counter to what's best for the Scottish economy and people. Calling Brexit the worst case scenario is false, and the independence argument is at it's worst under the worst case scenario. It's almost as if she's an amateur politician fresh out of the student body.

antrobus

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You cannot just wish away the economic realities or the situation that Nicola and the SNP have engineered to have another stab at the dream being totally counter to what's best for the Scottish economy and people. Calling Brexit the worst case scenario is false, and the independence argument is at it's worst under the worst case scenario. It's almost as if she's an amateur politician fresh out of the student body.

That is basically the issue.

Whether or not Scotland is part of the UK or an independent nation state is entirely a matter for the Scottish people. But those who wish it to be an independent nation state have to address the economic realities, and in particular the fiscal reality of a Scotland that is currently receiving a £8bn subsidy which will stop the second it becomes independent. And since that is about 5% of GDP, and there is a notable lack of magic money trees in the Trossachs, there needs to be at least some kind of plan.

And of course, that plan has a name; it's called 'austerity'. A combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Some people might well consider that a price worth paying for the 'dream'. But the price would still have to be paid, simply wishing it away by wafflle and BS doesn't change anything.

davomcdave

antrobus wrote: »

simply wishing it away by wafflle and BS doesn't change anything.

Unfortunately you are wrong, in my opinion at least. Most of what you say I agree with just not this little bit.

If you are La Sturgeon, who despite what she says is not an idiot, you simply divide the world into two sections of time: pre and post Scexit. Pre Scexit you do what you need to do to make Scexit happen, post Scexit doesn't really matter as the only goal is Scexit.

Hell, even Michael Foot got well over a quarter of the population to vote for him.

It would be idiocy to vote Scexit but there's a lot of it about at the moment if you hadn't noticed.

TrickyTree83

davomcdave wrote: »

Unfortunately you are wrong, in my opinion at least. Most of what you say I agree with just not this little bit.

If you are La Sturgeon, who despite what she says is not an idiot, you simply divide the world into two sections of time: pre and post Scexit. Pre Scexit you do what you need to do to make Scexit happen, post Scexit doesn't really matter as the only goal is Scexit.

Hell, even Michael Foot got well over a quarter of the population to vote for him.

It would be idiocy to vote Scexit but there's a lot of it about at the moment if you hadn't noticed.

Economically antro is correct, none of the waffle changes the figures, the importance of the UK market, the insignificance of the EU single market by comparison, that Sturgeon has lied about this and that iScotland will be markedly poorer with much higher unemployment at a time when they allegedly want to get the deficit under control to re-join the EU.

I can't see any of it which makes any sense. Confuse the converted so they cannot be enlightened perhaps?

antrobus

davomcdave wrote: »

Unfortunately you are wrong, in my opinion at least....

A casual reading of this thread would demonstrate that wishing it away with waffle and BS is exactly what we get from certain pro-independence 'enthusiasts'.

davomcdave wrote: »

..If you are La Sturgeon, who despite what she says is not an idiot, you simply divide the world into two sections of time: pre and post Scexit. Pre Scexit you do what you need to do to make Scexit happen, post Scexit doesn't really matter as the only goal is Scexit.

Hell, even Michael Foot got well over a quarter of the population to vote for him.

It would be idiocy to vote Scexit but there's a lot of it about at the moment if you hadn't noticed.

There is idiocy all over this thread. I've pointed it out on multiple occasions if you hadn't noticed. There is no excuse for idiocy.:)

kabayiri

My only concern over the adoption of the status quo, from the Scottish perspective, is the assumption it will continue.

When considering the future of the UK in the EU, it is not unreasonable to try and project the future economic health of the EU, and then make some assessment as to how that impacts the UK long term.

By the same token, everyone seems to assume the willingness of rUK (read, mainly London) to continue funding a perceived deficit North of the border will remain strong.

Why should this be? If we go through another decade of grinding austerity, there might be fringe political parties pushing forward nationalism from an English or even Southern perspective.

Sturgeon/SNP may indeed stir up anti-Scottish sentiment by continually blaming everything on Westminster. It seems designed to provoke a response. You can only poke a bear through the cage with your stick so many times.!

setmefree2

Lord King: Scotland 'could be independent'

Scotland "could be an independent country" but would risk taking a hit to its public finances, the ex-governor of the Bank of England has said.
Lord King told BBC Newsnight that while questions had been raised over which currency an independent Scotland would use, he did not see "major problems".
But he said it could be a challenge to borrow on the international markets.

Lord King, who headed the Bank of England between 2003 and 2013, said there are plenty of small countries the same size as Scotland.
"It has... the people, it has a capital city, a history and culture, it could be an independent country. The question is, does it want to be given the consequences of it?" he said.
"And if the oil price remains low and if they lose the money which is transferred from the rest of the UK to Scotland, then they would have to make that up in their own budget, but that's a consequence of deciding to be financially independent, you end up paying for yourself.
"And it would be a challenge to borrow on the international market if Scotland decided to run a large budget deficit. I think that would be expensive, the interest rate would go up."
Ahead of the 2014 referendum, ratings agency Fitch warned that plans for an independent Scotland to continue use of the pound without shared fiscal and banking union with the UK could risk "high volatility and market turbulence".
Lord King said: "I myself don't think there are any major problems in terms of currency, that was the thing project fear focussed on last time, but there is an issue about public finances."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39330702

kabayiri

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39330702

So the answer is to put Merv in charge, clearly

Move over Nicola. Oh, and take your family with you whilst you're at it.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

My only concern over the adoption of the status quo, from the Scottish perspective, is the assumption it will continue.

When considering the future of the UK in the EU, it is not unreasonable to try and project the future economic health of the EU, and then make some assessment as to how that impacts the UK long term.

By the same token, everyone seems to assume the willingness of rUK (read, mainly London) to continue funding a perceived deficit North of the border will remain strong.

Why should this be? If we go through another decade of grinding austerity, there might be fringe political parties pushing forward nationalism from an English or even Southern perspective.

Sturgeon/SNP may indeed stir up anti-Scottish sentiment by continually blaming everything on Westminster. It seems designed to provoke a response. You can only poke a bear through the cage with your stick so many times.!

I doubt very much there will be a disaster for the UK; pragmatically one would expect some lessening of trade/advantages with the EU coupled with increased trade/advantages from the ability to work other deals elsewhere in the world. There will be no disaster, I'm positive about that. Whether that is true for Scotland as well will depend on whether Scots choose to remain or depart.

However, from what I can see, the odds are growing against the SNP getting their way both because, in spite of what they claim, there is support in Scotland for the Union plus there is a growing realisation that the smooth transition to the EU is just bluster and thus a period in the wilderness would await a separated Scotland.

On your last paragraph, I think the SNP have already got up peoples' noses here in the South. Aside from some loose language here and there, it is the SNP rather than Scotland that is getting the ridicule. However should the SNP win their day, I reckon that public sentiment in the rUK will switch rapidly to associating all of Scotland with the SNP. I know that's unfair but I think it is the natural consequence of all the vapid unpleasantness that the SNP have displayed.

If the Scots ever do choose to separate the first thing they should do would be to get rid of the SNP as their governing party so that they are not the ones doing the negotiation with the rUK. They would get no favours from the rUK government in any separation negotiation. or any good will from the public at large who are likely to adopt a retaliatory myopic self-interest as so nauseatingly displayed by the SNP.

Mind you, Scottish immigrants who remain British will be welcome to do the skilled jobs available in the rUK and escape the recession and loss of jobs in Scotland. They are all invited.

In that context it is worth pointing out that the request for a new Referendum simply has to be denied; it is a mischievous request which is more about devious politics and damaging the Brexit negotiations than anything else.

Any Referendum has to be after the Brexit negotiations are over and signed off and the life-after-Brexit can be explained in detail by both the SNP Government and the UK Government - the two sides of the matter - to give the Scots an informed choice.

Consider what May faces; a parallel referendum on Scottish Separation will damage the Brexit negotiation enormously and the potential is there, should the Referendum result in Scottish separation, of the whole deal unravelling for that reason alone because the UK will cease to exit in the form in which Brexit was negotiated.

So that prevents May from agreeing to any referendum before the negotiations are complete and everything is signed off.

So May will continue, doing what she has said she will do, of finding a deal which is good for all of us including Scotland, her hand being strengthened by the fact that the UK is a slightly larger country than the rUK. That will be absolutely fine for the Scots if it is confirmed in any referendum, that they wish to say in the Union. If it is not fine with the Scots should the Scots vote to leave, then one gets into the territory about what the rUK then thinks about the SNP and those that vote for them. To put it bluntly - who will care? So the reaction to the false claim from the SNP, that having a Referendum before Brexit will enable Scotland to "remain in the EU", is not in the interests of the rUK whichever way you look at it. Since the SNP claim about "remaining in the EU" is just pie-in-the-sky anyway, it is also in Scottish voters' interest to delay any referendum until it is really known what they are voting for.

IMHO of course!

mollycat

Spot on .string as usual!

Heartening to hear the above from you