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

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Definitely deficit.

Debt will be fantastically higher.

8.3% of £1trn+

Interestingly I reckon you could have some good arguments against the 8.3% of £1Trn+

Has 8.3% been spent in Scotland.

certainly there are huge infrastructure projects benefiting England i.e. HS1 & HS2 which Scotland sees no benefit from.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of how much and where the money was spent.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Now you're just pontificating.

What happened in Scotland in the centuries before oil?
A little longer than 35 years, that.
Or (as mentioned before) the Barnett formula?
Oh - since oil.

The fact is that Scotland could not become independent and become an economic success without significant and sustained cuts to our current standard of living.
Though I would love someone to show me a viable plan I can see none appearing in the near future.

I truly cannot see you'll get a viable plan until we have full autonomy.
We'd probably need to get Devo Max and some time to transfer the potential into reality before that can be achieved.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The SNP are the only party which can deliver independence and from then, true democracy can prevail for the Scottish electorate.



We don't have full control thats why.

Take Whisky as an example, a very good Industry for Scotland, but we do not set the taxation or VAT applied on that produced goods. That comes from Westminster.

Potentially, a Scottish government could set these levels which helps grow that industry and gain more taxation as a result.

Just one example of potential in an independent world.

No, I cannot agree; the SNP are the dominant force for independence for sure.
But they have shown their incompetence with power.
That is why so many refuse their policies and do not vote for them.
What devolved powers Scotland has, the SNP have dismally failed Scotland on.
See earlier posts for examples; there are lots.
Personally I would not wish to see them get more powers and fortunately it seems many agree.
You may quote whiskey or any other example; I personally would not wish the SNP to further harm what remains of Scottish potential.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I truly cannot see you'll get a viable plan until we have full autonomy.
We'd probably need to get Devo Max and some time to transfer the potential into reality before that can be achieved.

In which case independence = very unlikely.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No, I cannot agree; the SNP are the dominant force for independence for sure.
But they have shown their incompetence with power.

You cannot agree that the SNP are the only party that can deliver Independence for Scotland.

Ok then, which party in your opinion can?

1. Scottish Conservative Party
2. Scottish Labour Party
3. Scottish Green Party
4. Scottish Liberal Democrats
5. UKIP Scotland

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

That is why so many refuse their policies and do not vote for them.

As we were talking percentages before, the SNP have a much higher percentage of the vote in Scotland than the other parties have in the UK.

Theresa may would love to get the percentage of the vote that the SNP get in Scotland.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

What devolved powers Scotland has, the SNP have dismally failed Scotland on.

There are so many factors that integrate with each other that I don't think you can drip feed devolved power and expect the whole economy to be turned around.

As I said earlier, maybe Devo Max is needed, but I think the unionist parties would fear that as we would then be unhinged from the constraints we still have

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Personally I would not wish to see them get more powers and fortunately it seems many agree.

That's your prerogative, but you also state the SNP have not used their devolved powers.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You may quote whiskey or any other example; I personally would not wish the SNP to further harm what remains of Scottish potential.

But you've not provided a counter point to my example, so I would politely ask that you do.

Also I'm interested to know which party you think can deliver Scotland potential

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

In which case independence = very unlikely.

I'd agree to convince you and like minded people.

If there is continued restricted development, there may be enough not afraid of change and be bold and willing to progress

mollycat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The fact is that Scotland could not become independent and become an economic success without significant and sustained cuts to our current standard of living.

100% this ^^^^

IveSeenTheLight

mollycat wrote: »

Originally Posted by A Medium Size Jock View Post

The fact is that Scotland could not become independent and become an economic success without significant and sustained cuts to our current standard of living.

100% this ^^^^

One consideration that seems to be coming across is the risk averse caution that drives the fear of change.

I wrote above about the Whisky industry and potential for growth there, but I also recall how BrewDog has recently been valued at over £1 Billion.

The two entrpreneurs set up the business only 10 years ago out of a garage and certainly would not be where they are now with the risk averse cautious nature that so many have.

I think we need as a country to be more open to change and the rewards that come with the risks

sss555s

If you are getting your figures from GERS then it's a load of BS as I have pointed out before.

GERS was first published in 1992 under the then Conservative Party Government of Prime Minister John Major. It was published then by the Conservative's Scottish Secretary, Ian Lang. In a leaked memo from Lang to Major he stated the purpose of GERS was to "undermine" the UK government's rivals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Expenditure_and_Revenue_Scotland

That quote at the top of the GERS wiki tells you all you need to know.

Some of the things that will change are the costs of the union...

Scotland recently pays £3bn for defence when only £2bn is spent in Scotland and it is estimated it would cost £1.5bn to maintain a similar service. Scotland would also receive payment for the use of Faslane.

Westminster lumped on a £2bn "extra" oil tax a few years ago which was credited to Westminster. (it has since been reduced/ removed because it was stifling the industry.

Scotland paid £1.3bn in admin costs. Similar sized countries as Scotland are paying 50% of that figure.

Westminster charges Scotland £60m per year for the privilege. It's not much but it's a saving.

There are a whole host of costs lumped onto Scotland and a whole host of profits unaccounted for in Scotland's name. This is why I close my eyes to the deficit claims just as some close their eyes to the facts above.

IveSeenTheLight

sss555s wrote: »

In a leaked memo from Lang to Major he stated the purpose of GERS was to "undermine" the UK government's rivals.

If true, it certainly appears to be working to undermine the benefits of Scotland becoming independent