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

elantan

And today Ruth who agrees with the rape clause is saying the Scottish government should mitigate it for the people of Scotland ... ye just cannae make this stuff up

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

That's not what Sturgeon said and you know it.

She said, " the will of the scottish people" (full stop), would determine any 2nd referendum.

Why the change?

Is it because a very small minority of the people want it?

But of course on this one issue mission the Nats care not a jot about Scotland or the people of Scotland.

Too small to ever win, big enough to propagate the lies, spin and disinformation which endangers the welfare of everyone in the UK.

As sss555s says. Just vote No then, you'll have your say just like everyone else will. Nothing to be scared of if it's only a small minority after all.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Is ok to use GERS as a potential starting point in my own view. It's the only info available after all. Though that doesn't mean that the figures within it should be taken as gospel since it contains so many estimates and extrapolations. And also doesn't take into account the final result of any negotiations between a hypothetical rUK and iScotland.

We've been over this too many times already. It's a flawed guide to how Scotland works within a UK context. Which says nothing ( as Hague states.. sorry ! ) about the economy of an independent Scotland going forward.

Look at all the doomsday predictions stretching years ahead based on GERS, then remember what Osborne/Cameron were predicting after any Brexit vote. Emergency budgets, WW3 etc etc ? Scots voters have for years gotten these sorts of economic predictions thrown at them all the time, all courtesy of GERS. The mistake the unionist side has made in my own opinion is that the case for the Union relies SO heavily now on this yearly set of accounts. Almost entirely now that Spanish veto's and EU membership aren't so much in play anymore.

Well, the struts were well kicked out from under the SNP's feet regarding oil prices in 2014.. it might be worth contemplating what will happen if critical commentators such as Richard Murphy, Hague's opposite number in debate yesterday .. start getting serious attention ( already happening or he wouldn't have been on BBC radio ) and the Growth Commission start kicking a few struts out from under GERS ?

A flawed starting point. Yes. A long term future indicator for an independent Scottish economy. No.

That's the distinction I was making between informed estimations of actual's (alongside actual's), which are signed off by the UK Statistics Authority and forecasts which are not.

GERS will be largely indicative of the Scottish economic position even after the Growth Commission are finished with it.

There will be 8.3% of the UK's debt, a ~10% Scottish deficit so taxes will rise a lot or spending will fall a lot, or somewhere between. There's no golden goose with oil, the price is low and suffers from international developments and the oil fund proposal is a joke.

sss555s

Conrad wrote: »

Yes fear of change is at the heart of the Remainer instinct, looking backwards clinging to Brussels petticoats

On this thread it is the leavers that want to cling to Brussels petticoats

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

As sss555s says. Just vote No then, you'll have your say just like everyone else will. Nothing to be scared of if it's only a small minority after all.

Why would people have to vote again?

Is it a case of just manufacturing referendum after referendum after referendum until YES wins one?

At which point people who wish to stay part of the UK will be lectured about "accepting democacy"?

I'm trying to help you guys move on here; accept 2014, embrace your enormous luck at being born British.

Maybe find another "movement" to subjugate all that negativity, hate and disatisfaction into.

Just sayin'!

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That's the distinction I was making between informed estimations of actual's (alongside actual's), which are signed off by the UK Statistics Authority and forecasts which are not.

GERS will be largely indicative of the Scottish economic position even after the Growth Commission are finished with it.

There will be 8.3% of the UK's debt, a ~10% Scottish deficit so taxes will rise a lot or spending will fall a lot, or somewhere between. There's no golden goose with oil, the price is low and suffers from international developments and the oil fund proposal is a joke.

The Growth Commission's job is to come up with a credible plan in order to reverse the position. They've already said that they don't think things are quite as dire as GERS makes out but I ain't typing GERS into Google to find it as I'll only get screeds of years old newspaper articles.

Nevertheless, it's their plan going forward that will become everyone's focus once they release their findings. Not GERS anymore. Oil won't be included thankfully, however it remains an asset no one knows where prices will go in the future. rUK will definitely have to keep an eye on their Balance of payments without it though. Bill Cash MP is so worried he's in the papers today saying that North Sea oil isn't worth anything, however the Scots won't be taking it with them (?).

Anyway it's the Growth Commission's job to take the economic argument for an independent Scotland well, well beyond what GERS offers within a UK context. And about time too.

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

Why would people have to vote again?

Is it a case of just manufacturing referendum after referendum after referendum until YES wins one?

At which point people who wish to stay part of the UK will be lectured about "accepting democacy"?

I'm trying to help you guys move on here; accept 2014, embrace your enormous luck at being born British.

Maybe find another "movement" to subjugate all that negativity, hate and disatisfaction into.

Just sayin'!

I already posted that for you.

The SNP won last year’s Holyrood election on a manifesto promise to consider a referendum if the UK voted for Brexit against Scotland’s wishes, a scenario that duly materialised. This position has since been backed by the Greens, making it the majority view of the Scottish parliament.

Holyrood therefore has a cast-iron mandate to hold a referendum before the end of the current parliamentary term. Objections that this was settled in 2014, in a vote described by the SNP as “once in a generation”, are trumped by the subsequent mandate the SNP sought and won. Voters can punish the SNP for bad faith at the next Holyrood election, if they so wish.

This is how democracy works, whether or not you like the result.

I don't know how things will work out. But the demographics of polls over the last few years and independence support would certainly indicate that the union is on a sticky wicket, even if not in the next few years. The concept of independence has become so normalised compared to 2011. I doubt it will go away anytime soon to be honest.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Growth Commission's job is to come up with a credible plan in order to reverse the position. They've already said that they don't think things are quite as dire as GERS makes out but I ain't typing GERS into Google to find it as I'll only get screeds of years old newspaper articles.

Nevertheless, it's their plan going forward that will become everyone's focus once they release their findings. Not GERS anymore. Oil won't be included thankfully, however it remains an asset no one knows where prices will go in the future. rUK will definitely have to keep an eye on their Balance of payments without it though. Bill Cash MP is so worried he's in the papers today saying that North Sea oil isn't worth anything, however the Scots won't be taking it with them (?).

Anyway it's the Growth Commission's job to take the economic argument for an independent Scotland well, well beyond what GERS offers within a UK context. And about time too.

Whatever the Growth Commission come up with will be scrutinised as much as GERS, it had better be watertight else it too will be discredited like the White Paper.

For it to be watertight I expect to see as previous white papers have set out, tax rises and/or spending cuts. Such as the one on commonweal that I read. I felt it had flaws which you appeared to agree with stating that it was a first draft - fair enough, but on the whole it appeared to be relatively reasonable iirc in that it acknowledged a debt and a large deficit.

elantan

mollycat wrote: »

Why would people have to vote again?

Is it a case of just manufacturing referendum after referendum after referendum until YES wins one?

At which point people who wish to stay part of the UK will be lectured about "accepting democacy"?

I'm trying to help you guys move on here; accept 2014, embrace your enormous luck at being born British.

Maybe find another "movement" to subjugate all that negativity, hate and disatisfaction into.

Just sayin'!

Hey an even better idea ... don't vote next time ... you've already had yer say so no need to repeat it

I'm sure the indy supporters will thank you

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Look at all the doomsday predictions stretching years ahead based on GERS, then remember what Osborne/Cameron were predicting after any Brexit vote. Emergency budgets, WW3 etc etc ?

No one knows. They may yet be proved right. With tensions again in the Middle East and rise of the Islamic State. There's a fragile state of peace. If you had been around in the Cold War era. You would have seen the Cruise Missiles being rolled out of Greenham Common on their trailers and escorted to their firing locations in the Berkshire Countryside in the dead of night. The only certainty with regards to the future is uncertainty. Hindsight was created by humans to simply to support their own assertions. Real history gets written decades later. When all the facts surface.