scottish elections

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The story is moving a bit. The suggestion is that SNP may try for a referendum in 2015/2016. Their reasoning seems to be that they are sure they would lose now, but if they wait until another Conservative victory in the 2015 election (which they seem to be betting on!) then they might benefit from some anti-Tory sentiment. Polls on Scots views on independence vary a lot but all appear to show a clear majority against indpenedence, anything from low 50s% to low 70s%.

Also being talked about by SNP is a three-way referendum, where instead of being asked whether they want independence, yes or no, the Scots would be given a third option of "fiscal independence". The idea seems to be that faced with a choice of three (and an AV system of voting?) most people will plump for the middle option. I doubt many in Scotland (or anywhere else) understand what fiscal independence means, but it does sound rather cute and cuddly. In fact this would put Scotland in a position where it has a monetary union with the UK without a fiscal union, which is precisely the faultline that has caused problems for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Possibly the "fiscal independence" could exclude the issue of sovereign debt issue and be otherwise restricted - ie it could be called fiscal independence but wouldn't be. But it strikes me as a mess.

There are interesting issues in international law that I'm sure the experts will pick over. There is the idea that there should be a settled view for independence, not that a party picks the "right" moment to get the result they want. IMO to have validity SNP should go for a referendum asap, otherwise they face challenges that they are deliberately trying to pick their moment - indeed the outcome could be challenged if it were for independence, and the people of Scotland given a second vote after say five years. There are also issues in international law around a referendum question that is anything other than yes/no - I think the UN would get involved with this if it were tried.

By population Scotland is just over 8% of the UK, so as a rule of thumb Crackoff's 1/12 of the UK's debts has validity. However this has to be corrected for the debts associated with Scots-registered companies including RBS, so it would be upwards of the £400bn, around half a trillion. To get a feel for this debt it is about £100,000 per person in Scotland - or double this per wage-earner. The UK can just about support debts at this level - Scotland cannot.

I think SNP is just going to be a pain in the neck. They are going to demand more fiscal autonomy without the responsibility that goes with it (ie they are asking for subsidy) - and they won't actually demand independence because they know it is impossible. This will breed resentment in England - the idea will be that England is being bled dry to support Scotland, and the Scots should be made to have their independence whether they want it or not. The problem with this idea is that it has a degree of validity.

The nationalist genie is dangerous and shouldn't be let out of the bottle. But it is out, and we have to find a way of putting it back. In the meantime perhaps we should reinstate the suppressed verse in the national anthem:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the Queen. (When the independence issue is put to bed for another generation we probably do need a new UK anthem.)
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
The nationalist genie is dangerous and shouldn't be let out of the bottle. But it is out, and we have to find a way of putting it back. In the meantime perhaps we should reinstate the suppressed verse in the national anthem:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the Queen. (When the independence issue is put to bed for another generation we probably do need a new UK anthem.)

Interesting to see that English imperialism is alive and well.
 

123scotty

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Posts
562
Media
4
Likes
53
Points
213
Location
scotland
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
ok quote nothing to do with the snp.

John McKie
May 10, 2011

Dear sir I would like to point something out to you firstly you say england bailed out Scottish banks but I am afraid to say as a English born Professor of economics that your arguments are in fact unfounded. Firstly it is a myth English tax payers subsidies Scotland england gets billions more than Scotland gets secondly you have forgotten that england receives direct subsidies out of Scottish oil and whiskey revenues many of my learned friends take only in to account Scottish income tax and council tax as to considering how much Scotland pays to the uk but in order to know the truth you must look at the whole picture. When you take into account all of Scotland’s revenue collected by the uk inclusive of oil whiskey, income tax, Corporation tax, Vat, Council tax, Landfill Tax, National insurance etc you will actually find Scotland is paying more to the uk than it gets and in fact Scotland has never received any of there oil revenues where as england has received extra funding from Scottish Oil funds. In Fact Scottish oil funds will be worth a minimum of around 3000 Billion pounds over the next thirty years which they will never receive. Further to this English banks were also bailed out including Halifax the banking crisis was also started in england with northern rock. We must not forget that Scotland has paid her way in tax ever since it came in to the union. The problem england has is that at current we do not spend money wisely here we throw huge sums in to quangos which frankly are not needed if we got rid of these quangos we could in fact survive independence. Secondly you should consider that London receives more public expenditure in the uk than any other part of the uk. Ireland also gets more than Scotland and in terms of population it is in fact smaller. It is in fact a myth that Scotland does not pay its way in fact it has among the highest council tax rates in the uk and the highest business rates in the uk. The problem is it is a myth Scotland gets English money and is in fact more often than not the other way round as huge portions of Scottish oil whiskey and corporation tax is spent in England. in fact the treasury are already aware of the fact that Scotland pays its own way and this is demonstrated by the granting of tax raising power to Scotland in the new Scotland bill in which Scotland government will raise a third off its budget using this rate itself for its own budget using the Scottish income tax rate of 10p without having to raise income tax. This means if Scotland where to have full fiscal autonomy they would in fact be billions and billions of pounds better of even being able to manage to have half the size of the uk armed forces for only around 3-4% of its gdp. So in fact if Scotland did get independence they would in fact be better off and england would struggle as would northern Ireland without the Scottish tax coming into the treasury as usually vast sums of that tax is diverted elsewhere. I can say this both as an economist and former treasury advisor. I hope Scots continue to believe Scottish unionist scare mongering that Scotland cannot survive independence if they dont continue to believe it england will struggle to cope with the loss of Scottish tax revenue!

Yours truly

Professor MCKie
English Economist
 

B_nyvin

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Posts
399
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
103
Age
39
Location
Pensacola FL
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I'd see the "Frugal Scots" becoming quite a successful country on their own. The have a great banking sector and natural resources. In fact I could even see them working up towards being a second Norway.
 

123scotty

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Posts
562
Media
4
Likes
53
Points
213
Location
scotland
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
[It's not hard to imagine that if they could join the EU - The UK would still be subsidizing them.]

see note above

[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.]

Get rid of brown? Thought he had gone long time ago. didn't seem to mind him when the economy was running ok.
yes 100% scottish m.p should have no right to be lobbyists or interfere in the internal affairs of England
you go on about gordon brown well who gave us thatcher ?

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

who's budget ?
....
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I'd see the "Frugal Scots" becoming quite a successful country on their own. The have a great banking sector and natural resources. In fact I could even see them working up towards being a second Norway.

That stereotype's long been dead.

Gordon Brown - tosser - quadrupled the national debt, sold off the gold, & had to borrow loads in the good times.

Alistair Darling - tosser- managed AFTER the election to commit the UK into bailing out other EU countries to the tune of £17BN so far.

Alex Salmond - tosser - called short sellers spivs, for shorting an entirely bankrupt bank:wink: - RBS - while his chief economic adviser was coining it in - & let's not forget "the arc of prosperity" hubris.

These have been the most powerful Scottish politicians in a century - & none have a clue about money - it's all about wish fulfillment

ok quote nothing to do with the snp.

May 10, 2011

Dear sir(snip) see above post
Professor MCKie
English Economist

Is this even a real person? £3,000 billion - laughable! Here's a link that it could have come from.

Scottish independence? Yes, but only on these terms | England calling

Note how the original article details fully the costs of independence

And hey ho, here is the Scotland Office's official figures

Powered by Google Docs

I for one find it odd that the SNP intends to retain British passports, as well as producing Scottish ones!
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
In the end the information on the true financial position of Scotland will not come from dubious sources such as Professor McKie (at what university and in which country is he a professor?) but from the UN and the IMF. Succession of a territory from a sovereign state requires international involvement.

Some of the calculations done by the UN and IMF will be abstruse and complicated - but a lot of the broad brush stuff is very simple. The starting point (as above in this thread) is that Scotland will get a share of the UK's debts proportional to its population, in the region of £400bn. This will be increased to take account of debts which are specific to Scotland or decreased if they are specific to other parts of the UK. The final figure will be upwards of £400bn, say half a trillion pounds. The Scottish economy could not support this debt (it is about 10x what it could support) - it would be instantly bankrupt, instantly receiving IMF bailout. This is why SNP will not call a yes/no referendum - they know that the IMF prior to the referendum would make public statements about Scotland's insolvency and the austerity that the people of Scotland would face, while the UN may well pass a resolution to the effect that the UK must not ratify a "yes" result. What SNP might do is set up a three-way referendum with the option of "fiscal autonomy" within the UK. Here the problem is with the detail, but it may well be that the UK would feel obliged to veto this option as it may add up to Scottish fiscal irresponsibility bailed out by the UK.