scottish elections

[123scotty]

Today has been a very proud day for Scotland and the scottish nationalist party.
Alex salmond has won an overall victory in the elections for the scottish parliament giving him the right to go ahead with a referendum on independence. The scottish nationalists have done Scotland proud as a first time administration has done very well so far. People in Scotland are fed up with a UK make shift coalition government. And also being made out to be scroungers of Westminster. my question is could this be the end of the 300 year constitution /union?

 

[midlifebear]

Only if there is a place in the new Scottish Parliament for Craig Fergusun.

 

[lankz]

ya been on the buckie eh?.lol.... i think it was more about giving a rite kicking to labour n the con/libs.. either way i dunna think anyone could fuck it up worse than that lot in westminster eh?.....

 

[Jason]

There should be an independence referendum in Scotland to settle the matter.

International law on succession includes information on the splitting of assets and liabilities, as well as UN overview of the process. The divorce settlement would be known before Scotland voted, and means that Scotland would bear a part of the UK's debts. An economy the size of the UK can support them, but an economy the size of Scotland cannot support a proportion of them - big economies can hold more debt. However it is even worse than this for Scotland. One major liability is the debts of Edinburgh registered RBS, 100% of which would belong to the Scottish economy. A Scotland voting for independence would do so with an IMF bailout package in place and an austerity budget imposed by the IMF. As Scotland uses sterling there is no currency devaluation available to take the pain out of the process, so it would all have to be a Greek style internal devaluation. In Greece this has led to endemic law and order issues and the worry that Greece is becoming ungovernable. And floating an independent Scottish currency against this economic background is all but impossible.

It is hard to escape the view that many in England would love Scotland to push off. The pressure to call a referendum may even come from the UK parliament - which has the power to impose a referendum on Scotland. Push the issue, get a no to independence, and that's the issue solved for at least a generation. Or if Scotland really does vote for abject poverty Greek-style, that is a decision England, Wales and Northern Ireland could live with.

 

[D_Cock_Hudson]

I await the referendum with interest.

 

[lankz]

no westminster politician will force a scottish referendum as they would play right into alex salmond hands so thats a non starter.and as for abject poverty easy dunna follow anything ireland/england did/does for a start

 

[798686]

Apparently they're (SNP) talking about reviewing free prescriptions/free uni fees etc, as they're not sustainable?

Also, Westminster is believed to be looking at the formulas for how the grant to Scotland/Wales is worked out - meaning if Scotland ended up with a higher percentage of their own tax take, then the UK grant to Scotland could well be reduced proportionately.

 

[Jason]

I think it is probably a case of waiting to see if SNP call a referendum - and if they do then let the UN and IMF explain the facts of life to Scotland. Of course this is precisely why SNP will not call a referendum. Scottish independence is not possible because the Scottish economy is up to its neck in debt, and SNP know this. It isn't the UK stopping Scottish independence but the international community.

But I do think Westminster will make it clear to Salmond that if he is too much of a pain they will make him have what he is asking for - a referendum.

PS - Just seen your post Joll - yes.

 

[798686]

I think it is probably a case of waiting to see if SNP call a referendum - and if they do then let the UN and IMF explain the facts of life to Scotland. Of course this is precisely why SNP will not call a referendum. Scottish independence is not possible because the Scottish economy is up to its neck in debt, and SNP know this. It isn't the UK stopping Scottish independence but the international community.

But I do think Westminster will make it clear to Salmond that if he is too much of a pain they will make him have what he is asking for - a referendum.

PS - Just seen your post Joll - yes.

Lol!

 

[Drifterwood]

Jason. As far as I can read, what you are saying about Scotland is diametrically opposed to what you say about Greece. Scotland can't afford to leave the benefits of our Union, but Greece can leave the benefits of their Union. Even though as you say, a bigger economy can sustain higher levels of debt, which is exactly what I have been saying to you about the advantage of the bigger Euro economy.

You have no consistency. I can only presume that you are driven by UK nationalism alone, and see that the disintegration of the our Union will lead inevitably to our integration into Europe, with perhaps England resolutely staunch on their funny little ship.

 

[123scotty]

yes again rbs has a head office in Edinburgh. but rbs is almost in all but in name a nationalized bank. when rbs shares go back up in value what will happen. there are also some anomalies like bp their head office like other oil industries are in London so all corporation taxes from the north sea go to Westminster. vat again and excise duty, road tax all head south. the attitude of some english people does them no favors with the anti scottish views. here is some interesting reading // sorry its a copy paste

An Independent Scotland could be free of its £62.5 billion share of Westminster debt in less than 5 years.

In 2008 Scottish Oil that was worth £22,831 a minute, £32 million a day, £12 billion a year. It is the £1.2 Trillion to come out of the known oil and gas fields of the North Sea that are stopping the UK debt being junked, just like the Greek debt.
Read about the latest Oil and Gas Discoveries near Scotland.

Westminster wants to keep the American's sweet by spending £115 billion, when they cannot afford to renew Trident. Whilst the Trident submarines based a Faslane have now leaked untreated nuclear waste into the Gareloch over 40 times. If Faslane was a nuclear power plant it would have shut down by SEPA. Westminster also plan to close the submarine base at Plymouth and relocate all the nuclear submarines to Scotland?

In the 1979 devolution referendum 52% of voters said YES as did 43 to 19 Scottish MP's, The Labour Party said NO, by imposing an unheard of undemocratic 40% rule !

Scotland is the World's leading producer of wind energy, this energy will bring in more revenue and development opportunities than oil and gas.

Scotland could build 2 High Schools or 16 wind turbines or 300 stream turbines or 256 two bedroom houses with a single day's Scottish Oil revenue, if the Scot's did not give it ALL TO LONDON.

Scotland gets NO Oil Revenues - Scotland is funded only by some population taxes.

Scotland like Norway could have built up a £259 Billion sovereign wealth fund retained its manufacturing base and avoided Scotland's £62.5 billion share of the London Government UK's debt of £175 billion. Watch this video on Westminster's black hole.

 

[ReallySmall]

Let's hope people with a better grasp of politics and economics than 123Scotty make the arguments when/if a referendum takes place. You'll find ownership of the 'Scottish' oil fields is contested anyway, and on top of that they're nearly spent. Citing an opinion poll from 1979? Haha! Oh dear. It's cute but worryingly naive.

I highly doubt Scotland will leave the UK, it's a purely emotive question appealing to small minded Scottish bigots who've forgotten their traditional enemies are rival clans, not the English. Common sense will prevail - seeing as Scotland wants to keep tuition and health entirely free they'll struggle to do that when England subsidizes Scotland at an annual rate of 2,000 pounds per person and it's not even guaranteed they'd get EU membership.

There's a convincing argument for Scotland seceding, but not on the terms Salmond is making - it's fantasy unless funded by English money. A realistic vision of a separate Scotland would be far smaller in scale. Scottish voters are smart enough to know that - the recent elections were more to punish Labour and the Lib-Dems, not about voting in the SNP and triggering a referendum.

Keep dreaming Braveheart - you're as knowledgeable on this as Mel Gibson. Loud but moronic.

 

[123scotty]

that when England subsidizes Scotland at an annual rate of 2,000 pounds per person

Keep dreaming Braveheart - you're as knowledgeable on this as Mel Gibson. Loud but moronic.

i can only say back up the figures. after taxes collected from scotland paid to westminster can you show figures that can prove your point

as for dreaming well thats where allot of good ideas and goals stem from. maybe you should try it instead of being so negative.

thanks ever so much

 

[Jason]

There are international processes for working out the split of sovereign states (they have been used for example with the Czech/Slovak split and with South Sudan and presumably others). It is this process which would determine the assets and liabilities that belong to Scotland. The RBS debt is a major issue - as far as I can see the legal position is that 100% of assets and debts are held in the jurisdiction in which a company has its registered office, ie Scotland. Just as Ireland is saddled with broke international banks that have their registered office in Ireland so Scotland would be saddled by the RBS debts in their entirety. Territorial waters also go through a legal process. The companies that own the rigs, pipes, refineries may well be London registered, so there is no reason to think Scotland would see much income from these sources.

The analogy between Scotland and Greece is not a good one. Scotland is prosperous within the UK because it is within both a fiscal and monetary union with all sovereign debt issued by the UK as sovereign state - it is a union which has demonstrably worked for three centuries and is a text book example of federation. Greece is broke within the EuroZone because it is within the economic danger zone of a monetary union without a fiscal union. Greece's problems require either moving into a fiscal union with the EZ (as Scotland in the UK) or leaving entirely. For poor Greece the first won't happen and the second is disaster - but it is a disaster it has to go through to start to recover.

My views are 100% consistent.

 

[B_nyvin]

The companies that own the rigs, pipes, refineries may well be London registered, so there is no reason to think Scotland would see much income from these sources.

They're pumped directly into aberdeen though, at least the gas is, don't know about the oil for sure.. The companies that own them have various districts and are mostly international companies anyway so the point is moot.

 

[Jason]

The first sort of issue is whether Scotland would own more than its immediate territorial waters. The legal structure presently gives these to the UK not to individual nation states. This was an issue in 1922 when Ireland left the UK - with the UK keeping control of much of the seas. I suppose this is a matter that would be resolved by treaty. It is a major issue with respect to possible Atlantic oil which I'm pretty sure the UK would regard as clearly in UK waters because closer to UK territory in Northern Ireland.

Then there is how international borders are drawn at sea. The international convention is that you continue the trend line of land borders - so the SW to NE line of the Anglo-Scottish border continues out into the North Sea, putting much of the oil and gas in the English sector.

Then there is the issue of North Sea oil and gas running out - certainly this is no basis for long-term prosperity.

But the oil is a sideshow - at the moment Scotland could not support the debt that would be allocated to it and would be taking independence with an IMF bailout and austerity. Basically it won't happen because of this.

Another issue is the currency one. There is a multi-year process to joining the euro, so Scotland could not do this immediately on independence - and a country with an IMF bailout could not even start the process. Presumably Scotland would stick with sterling for a while - but with an independent fiscal policy. This is precisely what has bankrupted Greece, Ireland and Portugal. I can't argue it would bankrupt Scotland - Scotland would already be bankrupt. And the issue of an independent currency would be desperation - it would sink.

Yes Scotland must have its independence if that is what people want. With that independence comes poverty, and people must accept this - the sort of poverty we are seeing in most of Eastern Europe, Ireland, Portugal and Greece. The legacy of the Gordon Brown years (Labour governments that Scotland voted for) is that Scotland is saddled with astonomic debt.

 

[123scotty]

They're pumped directly into aberdeen though, at least the gas is, don't know about the oil for sure.. The companies that own them have various districts and are mostly international companies anyway so the point is moot.

oil pipeline starts at cruden bay just outside aberdeen then by land to the bp complex at grangemouth.

 

[Jason]

I've been thinking a bit about this thread. The right to national self-determination is an absolute one, and if the people of Scotland clearly want this then of course it must happen. I do think it should be a clear majority over a period of time for such a massive change - say polls showing 55%+ for some years and a referendum which gains 55%+. In the end it is a decision which once made cannot be undone.

I'm pretty certain that after sober refletion the people of Scotland will vote no:
* The economic case will be explained not by the SNP but by the IMF, and will be shown to be so bad that the idea is a non-starter.
* A part of a sovereign state that becomes independent must re-apply to join the EU, and needs consensus from all EU nations. Spain has said that she would veto - presumably reflecting concerns in Spain around regions breaking away. Possibly Italy and even Germany would think in the same way. The EU is about union not division and is presently putting its weight behind keeping Belgium intact (not prompting the fractious Belgian politicians to allow the Flemings a regional assembly so Belgium can at last have a government).
* It is far from clear that the people of Scotland want the additional powers Scotland would have as a sovereign state. Scotland would have its own foreign policy, defence policy and army, and a right to issue its own debt to balance its budget (but at much higher rates than the UK). I don't think people in Scotland actually want these powers. What do the people of Scotland really want that they do not now have?
* The USA will have a view on Scottish independence - just as they have a view on Quebec independence.

I've also thought that it is about time the constitutional framework of the UK is revised, and maybe a Scottish independence referendum should prompt that. The perfect solution IMO would be to grant Scotland complete control of domestic policy along with fiscal policy (within pegged parameters) while Scotland remains on sterling, possibly even on a floating peg. Scotland has its own judiciary. The armed forces might be more clearly divided (if this is an issue within Scotland).

There is a pressing need to resolve the West Lothian Question. Now of course an independent Scotland would solve that at one go - and give an in-built Tory majority for the UK. Alternatively I think we need some revamped and empowered Council of the Isles as a more flexibe framework for the four home nations, and including the Isle of Man and Channel Islands (and probably Gibraltar). I think there is little doubt that Ireland, like it or not, will need further UK support to get out of their financial mess (yes I know they won't like it), and a revised concept of a Council of the Isles might be the umbrella to do this. The key would have to be to find a structure where all parts of the Isles feel they have ownership.

Maybe we should all see the debate around an independence referendum in Scotland as a great opportunity to come up with something better than what we have now. I would go as far as to say I don't truly understand what "independence" means in this context - geography means that Scotland will always have to deal with England, and always have the overwhelming majority of its exports either with England or through England. If Scotland wants independence, fine lets use this word, but it has to be modified so that the debts are not split (bankrupting Scotland) and so that Spain and others don't kick Scotland out of the EU. The people of Scotland deserve their prosperity (and should not believe the fibs the SNP is telling), prosperity which they are not going to get if they take "independence" to its logical maximum. And for that matter England deserves not to have a bankrupt state on its border which (like Greece is doing) becomes "ungovernable". How would England cope with the flood of migrants? Border controls at Berwick and Carlisle? (And for that matter what happens to Berwick? - is it England or Scotland?) We've just seen border controls reintroduced between Italy and Spain, and we already have police checks between Great Britain and the whole island of Ireland.

I hear Shetland want their independence. This sounds like a joke, but it isn't. Shetland has a lot of oil and does not identify as part of Scotland. Shetland may demand to stay with the UK or go it alone (like the Faroes).

 

[Jason]

Couple of polls out on support in Scotland for Scottish independence: one gives 28% and one 35%.

 

[B_crackoff]

It's hard to imagine how Scotland would survive outside of the EU.

It's not hard to imagine that if they could join the EU - The UK would still be subsidizing them.

A Scotland outside of the EU would face border controls to England, which in turn would have a knock on effect to tourism, 90% of which came through England. All those governmental institutions & multinationals that relocated within the UK would also in the main, return to the South.

At least England could get rid of Gordon Brown, & all of the other Scots who've voted on issues that they never had a democratic mandate to have a voice upon, & hopefully all those Scots lobbyists & media types who abound in London. If they're non-EU nationals, they'd have zero right of abode, or work in the UK.

Oh, BTW, I think that Scotland's share of all banking, governmental, & pension liabilities would be about 1/12 of the UK's total (£4.8TN), which is about £400BN.

That's not a good economic head start for a region that already overspends its budget by 40%/annum!