|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 27 Nov 11:14
Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon has said an independence referendum should take place next year.
If there was another referendum and if Scots voted to leave, it would mark the biggest shock to the United Kingdom since Irish independence a century ago — just as London grapples with the impact of Brexit.
The pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) leader said she anticipated a vote would take place "in the earlier part" of the next Scottish parliament, which begins next year.
Ms Sturgeon says she wants a new independence vote in 2021, soon after May`s parliamentary elections deliver a mandate.
Scottish people last voted against independence in 2014 — with votes falling 55-45.
The UK Government must approve the holding of another referendum but PM Boris Johnson remains opposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Sat 28 Nov 12:48
Hard to imagine U.K. government will be a able to hold out if snp clean up in May.
I expect a full scale disinformation war will start in January. Oil all gone etc...
The post below replying to me is by one of .nets finest champions of mediocrity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 28 Nov 13:54
Presumably this is about the SNP conference this weekend and NS trying to head off criticism of her leadership?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 28 Nov 14:06
Ye`ll no be able to keep the pound etc.etc.
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 28 Nov 15:04
I really hope the SNP have a reasonably clear financial case ready.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 28 Nov 17:29
Quote:
jake89, Sat 28 Nov 15:04
I really hope the SNP have a reasonably clear financial case ready.
Why don't they just say they'll use the euro?.
What, exactly is wrong with using the euro?
Stronger than the pound for many years, it is a no brainer for me.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 28 Nov 17:37
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Sat 28 Nov 17:29
Quote:
jake89, Sat 28 Nov 15:04
I really hope the SNP have a reasonably clear financial case ready.
Why don't they just say they'll use the euro?.
What, exactly is wrong with using the euro?
Stronger than the pound for many years, it is a no brainer for me.
Using the Euro means you are tied to Europe's economic policy. We need Independence so we have all the levers to drive our own economy for the benefit of all.
Adopting the Euro gives up many of those economic levers.
Ideally our own currency pegged to the pound so it will be relatively stable to start with. Then once we are in a position to drive our own economy forward we unpeg from the GBP and chart our own course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sat 28 Nov 18:09
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Sat 28 Nov 17:37
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Sat 28 Nov 17:29
Quote:
jake89, Sat 28 Nov 15:04
I really hope the SNP have a reasonably clear financial case ready.
Why don't they just say they'll use the euro?.
What, exactly is wrong with using the euro?
Stronger than the pound for many years, it is a no brainer for me.
Using the Euro means you are tied to Europe's economic policy. We need Independence so we have all the levers to drive our own economy for the benefit of all.
Adopting the Euro gives up many of those economic levers.
Ideally our own currency pegged to the pound so it will be relatively stable to start with. Then once we are in a position to drive our own economy forward we unpeg from the GBP and chart our own course.
Would you not be better with your own currently pegged to a strong currency like for instance the euro
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sat 28 Nov 18:19
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 28 Nov 13:54
Presumably this is about the SNP conference this weekend and NS trying to head off criticism of her leadership?
Another McT quote straight from Tory HQ.
All leaders come in for criticism but I don’t think there will have been many political leaders in the U.K. who have as high a popularity score as NS does. So one can only assume that the vast majority of folk in Scotland think that she does a good job.
I see The Haunted Pencil has just added another point or two on the pro Indy vote. Keep it up chaps....
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sat 28 Nov 18:57
Quote:
moviescot, Sat 28 Nov 18:09
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Sat 28 Nov 17:37
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Sat 28 Nov 17:29
Quote:
jake89, Sat 28 Nov 15:04
I really hope the SNP have a reasonably clear financial case ready.
Why don't they just say they'll use the euro?.
What, exactly is wrong with using the euro?
Stronger than the pound for many years, it is a no brainer for me.
Using the Euro means you are tied to Europe's economic policy. We need Independence so we have all the levers to drive our own economy for the benefit of all.
Adopting the Euro gives up many of those economic levers.
Ideally our own currency pegged to the pound so it will be relatively stable to start with. Then once we are in a position to drive our own economy forward we unpeg from the GBP and chart our own course.
Would you not be better with your own currently pegged to a strong currency like for instance the euro
In an ideal world yes. The reality is that our economy is much more in line with the UK'S at the moment so it makes more sense. Otherwise we could see huge price increases initially.
Being pegged to the GBP allows for a smoother transition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 28 Nov 20:11
BRITISH Airways was in trouble today for a tweet wishing ENGLAND well in the rugby international against Wales. This casual interchanging of England for Britain really makes us all value this precious Union.
Post Edited (Sat 28 Nov 23:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 28 Nov 20:58
Saw that wee eck but they deleted it the sooner we get away the better
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 29 Nov 11:27
So this thread shows that they need to be clear. The pound is not and English currency - it's a UK one. So do we still use the pound? Or are we going down the route of the Euro? That seems to work okay for Ireland.
Are we planning on applying for full EU membership?
What will happen with pensions?
What about debts?
Ignoring GERS, what is Scotland's genuine income and what would Independent Scotland spend this on? Would the income cover existing expenditure on Scottish things (ignoring UK things like defence, foreign aid etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 29 Nov 15:33
Ireland used the pound initially (I think for about 50 years) before moving to the Irish pound and then onto the euro
Where I’ve got family, right on the border, they take both monies so you can pay in pounds or euros with no exchanging and no issues.
so if you have gbp in your pocket you can pay (and get change in that) and same if you have euros. Works easy
PS agree that the GBP is just as much ours as any other nations in the uk. Perhaps someone should ask what currency England intends to use should Scotland become an independent country using the pound?
Post Edited (Sun 29 Nov 15:35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 29 Nov 16:13
I don`t remember any detailed, coherent financial information being given by the Brexiteers prior to the referendum on EU membership. That must have been the most dishonest political campaign in British history but the end justified the means apparently. However independence supporters will be expected to dot every `i` and cross every `t`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sun 29 Nov 16:54
OK – several points to address.
Using the Euro would cede control of many of the important financial levers to Europe. It would introduce friction into trade between Scotland and its biggest market. For many ordinary people they would have assets and liabilities denominated in different currencies which introduces risk.
Pegging against sterling would require substantial foreign currency reserves. How much will this cost and where will the money come from?
Many people may think NS is doing a good job – but I’m not one of them (and have argued this previously). Are there not signs of dissatisfaction with her leadership? Apparently the odds on her quitting have shortened (though whether this is just a couple of people having a punt in a thin market I don’t know). I imagine she is under great pressure, with the pandemic, the Salmond enquiry and the failure to deliver a second referendum despite claiming a mandate after 2016. In any other party, potential leadership candidates would be on manoeuvres.
The BA incident was stupid and irritating, but I don’t think it’s worth changing the constitutional set-up as a result of an idiot let loose with a twitter account. (Not that it would make much difference anyway).
Good questions, Jake – it is significant that there appears no coherent answer. Anyone care to remind us what the SNP’s current currency policy is?
rUK would continue to use sterling – why wouldn’t they?
Wee Eck – do you agree the end justifies the means and that a detailed and honest financial position should not be put to the people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sun 29 Nov 17:02
Quote :- M T
Wee Eck – do you agree the end justifies the means and that a detailed and honest financial position should not be put to the people?
Aye Mr. Tower we are used to those from your Tory`s :(
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 29 Nov 17:07
But that would be the economic forecast for what the SNP’s vision of the medium term for an independent Scotland...
I’m sure if delivered, snp would win the first Scottish general election to ensure Indy is delivered, but then the economic policy will be determined, as it is in every other democratic country, by the aspirations and manifesto of whatever government is voted in to run the country
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 29 Nov 17:42
MCT, are you happy with Boris Johnson`s leadership or that of his Brexiteer cabinet? The performance of the Westminster government never seems to come under scrutiny from you. It`s just the default position and should be continued until someone comes up with something perfect to replace it.
If Brexit has taught us one thing it is that politicians can come up with solutions to insoluble problems if they`ve got the nerve to contradict themselves and do whatever is necessary to stay in power, including breaking the law. But that only applies to one side apparently. We can expect to be love-bombed by Westminster for as long as independence is a threat but if it`s dismissed they`ll move on to something else. The bit I can never understand is why they are so reluctant to let us go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sun 29 Nov 18:05
Simples wee eck they cannot afford to lose us
It won`t be long now till we are selling them electricity and water :)
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 30 Nov 03:49
Admin: Sorry - tried to post as a Single Post and it went a bit mental. Are posts now character limited? I don`t think they ever used to be. If these is some way to compile my post into one single post, then absolutely feel free! :)
Post Edited (Mon 30 Nov 03:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 30 Nov 03:53
Some interesting points on here. Since the last referendum, I`ve been taking a few economics and economic history classes through my local University (Lund) to garner a proper understanding of how these things all function, as well as doing a bit of investing - safe to say I`m hooked!
Firstly, the strongest arguments in Economics are based on precedents, and this is where many of the British arguments on Scotland fall flat on their backside.
The countries that are most successful economically are those who inwardly invest and where the Government is interventionalist.
Most economies go on a distinctive path from Agriculture --> Low Level Production (Textiles etc) --> Mass production & Assembly (electronics circuitboards etc) --> Research, Development and technology. This is seen time and again and the capital generated, both human and monetary is vital to progressing to the next stage of economic growth.
(Side point, but on this basis I would actually argue that BJ is 100% right to fight for 100% control of fisheries in Brexit negotiations as this is key to create capital in many of Scotland`s rural areas, which in turn leads to higher level development later)
If you look at Asia for example, Taiwan and South Korea were extremely successful with their economies because the Government were extremely interventionist and focussed on the building of infrastructure and ensuring food security early on. Strength of Government/Legislature and a willingness to intervene in the economy is absolutely critical. The obvious elephant in the room here is that both started off with Authoritarian governments and democratised later. I would propose Thailand as a counter this: Thailand had a far stronger agriculture sector earlier on than either Taiwan or South Korea but political instability and failure of the Government institutions really hindered them from progressing the way they could have potentially.
Simply put, Management and a willingness to intervene are both key.
If we bring this concept back into the UK context, we can look at Scotland and England. In Scotland, I would say that there is a strong trust in Holyrood (generally speaking) amongst the Scottish populace than there is among the English populace with regards to Westminster - I genuinely think this is a fair statement. Scotland has a higher level of public spending and Scottish graduates enter the job market with far less debt than their English counterparts, which frees up more capital for them to in turn re-invest in property or to spend wherever - basically you have a greater liquidity.
Post Edited (Mon 30 Nov 03:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 30 Nov 03:54
The UK focus of taxing people less is not a good approach and instead I would suggest that the focus instead be on maintaining a certain level of disposable income for the average citizen. There has, in essence, been a demonisation of Public Spending in England and the current political set up means that this is essentially pushed on the other three nations too. I would also argue against Progressivism and be more in favour of Universalism as a means to ensure the stability of the system. That is, if you pay in you are entitled to the benefits of the system and this will over time cement confidence in said system among the populace. Here is Sweden, this is the case and even the "Centre Right" or "Alliance" parties are broadly in favour of the principles and provisions of the Welfare state and the debate is over the exact mechanisms of how to ensure it functions. This is most definitely not the case in the UK, where England is moving toward a more privatised model and there appears to be little public awareness or will to stop it while Scotland appears to want to move toward a more Scandinavian model Eventually this will cause problems for the other three nations because Westminster is the central government with regard to the economy.
Simply looking at current numbers is also not a good measure of future predictions. Small and Medium Enterprises are key to economic growth and the UK is far too focussed on big business. SMEs were a huge part of the driving force of growth in Asia and play a big role in European countries such as Germany, Sweden etc as well. At the same time, we have to remember that much of the Governments spending revenue actually comes from personal taxation and so there is a juggling act between ensuring that people are in work and creating conditions that are more favourable to the establishment of SMEs, such as tax relief in the formative years etc. SMEs contribute to a much faster growth rate and capital generation than corporations do, but a more interventionalist approach on the Government`s part is required to ensure that growth is stable. If we choose to take such a route, we must also remember that this has to be coupled with further and larger investment in education. Strength of legislation is also a key factor here and this can play a major role in confidence in the economy.
Simply put, the UK "Laissez Faire" approach is counterproductive. You have to invest money to make money.
Post Edited (Mon 30 Nov 03:55)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 30 Nov 03:55
For me, Scotland has to use its own currency (say a Scottish Pound) and I would suggest that it would be pegged to the Euro in the formative years of an Independent state and de-pegged at a time where it would strengthen. This would promote an increase in interaction with the continent, which I would predict is where the majority of our economic activity will be when we do leave the UK. Yes, this may result in a short-term hit but as anyone who has made personal investments will tell you the economy is fluid and the value of stocks and funds goes up and down daily. As we see in the UK and EU contexts, having two different organisations respectively controlling Fiscal and Monetary policy is folly. Finland is one of the richest countries around but struggles rather acutely because it does not have the levers to devalue etc because it uses the Euro. The different attitudes on public spending in Scotland and England mean that in Scotland we have Westminster wanting to pull Monetary policy in one direction, whereas we have Holyrood wanting to take fiscal policy in a different way. This is incompatible in the long term and we`re already seeing this, but the public need to stop being naiive and realise the reason for it rather than dismissing it as "Anglophobia".
As for pensions, this whole argument for me is quite folly from the legal perspective tbh. When it comes to pensions, both public and private, pensions are basically an investment where a given individual or entity owns a certain number of units in a given fund. For example, I have a private pension that was paid for using GBP but has investments in various different countries. If I own say 1000 Units within a technology fund, I will still own 1000 Units in this fund regardless of whether Sterling goes up or down - If Sterling goes down in real terms then theoretically the numerical sterling value of this investment would actually go up. In other words, I own a house in Scotland before Independence and I`ll still own it afterwards. Regardless of what happens constitutionally, the entity which manages the pension will still have notification of which individual or entity owns said units of said fund - that is guaranteed legally on various levels, both at a national level and through contractual law when an individual and/or entity enter into an agreement with another entity and/or individual. If there was any angst with regards to ownership, then various legal routes do exists to counter this and it would essentially be unprecedented that an individual would be stripped of their right of access to a pension they currently own. On the public pension front, the Scottish Government have now established the National Investment Bank and this is something that I am very keen to read further on, but it does unquestionably provide an organisation that could "evolve" to become an exchequer and also provide the basis for a separate Scottish pension fund, which I suspect was part of the intention....
Post Edited (Mon 30 Nov 03:56)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 30 Nov 03:57
If we`re talking individual public pensions, then I think we do need to look at the way in which Government is actually investing this money - this is something I need to read into a bit more in the UK context in honesty, but they should be investing in SMEs, Technology and Emerging Markets but I would doubt that Westminster are gifted with such foresight. I think we should actually encourage people to be more active in managing their personal money and this starts at the grassroots level in schools - encourage kids to invest £100 a month in funds via Prudential or Standard Life etc when they start work and teach them properly about the potential of compound interest. Would be genuinely curious to know what percentage of the Scottish population actually invest in Stocks & Shares ISAs and Private pensions - I`d bet though its tiny because the average person just doesn`t have the knowledge that these things exist. Essentially though, the pensions argument is largely baseless and was designed to stir up the old people and thus support for the Union.
With regard to EU membership, I do think we have to give proper airing to a debate on Norway-style vs. full membership but I would be in favour of free-movement of people and goods. I lean toward the Norway model, mainly because I would say that the red lines of Scottish Membership should be any enforcement of Euro currency useage and an exemption from the Common Fisheries policy, which I think is unlikely. The latter is vital in my mind for providing the capital basis for rural economic growth and paying for access to the Free Market might actually be more profitable for us in the long term. If Scotland, Norway and Iceland are in solidarity here, then this could actually be a powerful counter to the EU as I would speculate, combined, the three nations provide a massive portion of EU fish stocks. I`d definitely say we should not be so black and white when it comes to the debate over Scotland in the EU.
Moreover, history shows us that multinational states don`t work: Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union are all rather recent examples. All of these nations began to crumble as soon as they ceeded power to local governments rather than maintaining centralisation and this is exactly what we are seeing in the UK now. Frankly, there is no point in prolonging the inevitable - we should get on with it and get it done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 30 Nov 03:57
As for MT`s position, well we have seen that absolutely nothing will sway him so there is little point trying to convince him in my mind
I do agree with him on Nicola Sturgeon though: as I`ve state previously, I would rather see Joanna Cherry as First Minister. I genuinely wonder whether NS will survive the current Salmond debacle.
I would also be rather critical of the SNP and while I support the concept of an Independent Scotland, I have severe reservations about their model and their ability to deliver it. That said, I do think a core of Blackford/Swinney (Finance & Economy), Cherry (Legislature & Justice), Whiteford (Health & Social Care) and Smyth (Foreign Affairs) would be be a strong team in the formative years of an Independent State and is far stronger than anything that any of the Unionist Parties have to offer.
For me, the SNP seem unwilling to float ideas and this was much of the reason that I left the party after joining in 2014. I was also kicked out as well at Aberdeen University for telling them that Abrahamic religions were dangerous because religious leaders always try to gain political influence and impose their ideas on others, but that`s a different story...
Education is the key thing for Scotland going forward and this is coincidentally one of the SNPs biggest failings. Successive Education secretaries should have been looking at what the likes of Estonia, Finland etc were doing to ensure literacy and numerical skills. I would also advocate a reforming of the University and College system that enables greater digitisation - this could go a long way to ensuring skills development among the more rural population. The University system should also be changed to adopt the 3Bachelor+2Master Bologna system on the continent and Universities should use either the ECTS system of a unified credit system that allows students to study various courses between different Universities in country - this is what happens in Scandinavia (for example, I study Economics with my local University, but study Japanese digitally with another University further north). That said, Skills development such as trades should also be a focus going forward. Some kids are just not academic and they must be given every opportunity to learn things like plumbing, joinery etc. From what I understand, we do need to strengthen our legislation for apprenticeships too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 30 Nov 03:58
Some people refer to education reforms made in England, but having done my own teacher training there, I would not touch that system with a barge pole. Private companies rampantly profiting from public sector management is sheer corruption in my view. Most of the "Trusts" in England are run by both Tory and Labour part donors who are skimming away a lot of public money and contributing to the illusion of "inefficiency". Again, the English seem to be blissfully unaware of this or are simply apathetic. Divergence in mentality between Scotland and England once again...
I think a banded corporation tax system for businesses and a start-up tax relief system designed to support SMEs would also go a long way, as they can account for a huge portion of economic growth. SMEs also tend to bring growth to more rural areas, which I`d argue is something that Scotland really needs. I would also argue on this basis that we need a stronger local government system (for example: Highland, Islands, Grampian etc) that can set their own SME tax rates as well as having power over local income tax. (for example, I pay 31.5% tax in Lund, most of which stays in Skåne County, but I think 12%? goes to Stockholm for national spending and redistribution) but central Government oversight has to be there to ensure that geographical areas that are struggling have sufficient support and provision of services. Perhaps another solution would be a further 1% income tax on those living in urban areas? Redistribution of monies for economic development and it might also to a degree encourage those with higher skills/salaries to consider living more rurally, which has its own economic positives. Labour are quite right to criticise the SNP for centralisation in my mind.
The SNP could eviscerate the opposition by marketing Independence in the right way, i.e. the formation of a constitutional republic that will be built by listening to the Scottish People. Within three months of a "Yes" vote, offer: (i) a vote on continuance of the Monarchy (ii) a full vs. Norway style EU association (iii) Euro vs. Scottish Pound. I would also like to see them look at the Estonian and Swiss digital voting systems, which are a great way to introduce direct democracy - basically they use their National I.D. Cards to log into a portal and vote on specific issues, local and national. This builds trust in the government and governance and is only a good thing.
SNP could also make mince meat of the Labour and Lib Dem Parties by arguing forcefully for a constitutional republic, as they largely share the same political philosophy as those parties, with Social Democratic values enshrined in a written constitution. Those two though have indicated that they will stick with the UK Union regardless of how politically incompatible it becomes with their ideology. Both parties really lack any integrity from that perspective in my mind.
While I realise this may sound egotistical or whatever, I can`t help but feel that I have thought about details of things a lot more than the SNP appear to have done and I do find that worrying. I`d struggle to be convinced that they are just holding their cards to their chest tbh...
Post Edited (Mon 30 Nov 06:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 30 Nov 08:35
Phew hurricane ....I`ll have to go and lie down now :)
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 30 Nov 12:35
I think a key thing in any independence argument is being open and transparent that there is no silver bullet. There will be things that are crap but say that up front. Don't pretend it'll be the land of milk and honey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 30 Nov 15:22
"Ideally our own currency pegged to the pound so it will be relatively stable to start with."
Agreed.
Pegging to the pound avoids any immediate stramash on the currency markets, all our earnings, mortgages, pensions, assets and debts are in GBP, and would retain the same value.
Also, despite the noises coming from the ill-informed - especially the sevco fans and Daily Mail readers - we would not be using `Englands pound`
- EVERY pound issued by Scottish banks (and NI banks) is backed by deposits/assets held in the Bank of England.
I wonder about the liquidity of the Bank of England, if all three Scottish banks were to withdraw their funds and deposit in the new Scottish Bank...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 30 Nov 15:22
double post :-/
Post Edited (Mon 30 Nov 15:22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 30 Nov 18:56
Wee bit off topic but saves another thread :-
Health and care workers in Scotland are to be given a £500 payment as a "thank you" for their work during the pandemic, Nicola Sturgeon has said.
The SNP leader announced the one-off payment to thank NHS and care staff for their "extraordinary service" in 2020.
It will be paid to all full-time NHS and adult social care staff, with a proportional share for part-time staff.
The first minister also announced that £100 grants will be given to low-income families who may struggle over winter.
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 30 Nov 19:46
Wee eck – there are many things I don’t scrutinise – plenty of other people make comments on HMG but if it makes you happy I think BJ is probably the worst PM that I can remember and his cabinet is probably the most incompetent.
Electricity production is an interesting subject – we seem to be keen on increasing demand but supply is a problem – I can’t trace particularly up to date figures on the Scottish Government website but a considerable proportion of our production is based on a combination of nuclear (which is due for decommissioning) and fossil fuels which would appear to be a problem.
Welcome back HJ. Good to know you are continuing to learn. Lots to unpack here as they say, so I’ll be more restricted in my comments.
Why is public spending higher in Scotland? (At the moment).
How would you characterize the influence of Adam Smith on the expansion of the American economy to being the largest in the world?
I note you haven’t addressed the problem of maintaining a currency peg. As for pensions, there are several issues. One is state pensions – who will pay? In 2014 the SNP agreed that an indy Scot would be responsible for funding (and essentially were going to use Oil Revenues) to do so. Many public sector pensions are unfunded, so these have to be paid for too. Many private pensions are paid (and will be paid) in sterling, yet you are suggesting goods may be sold locally in another currency. Similarly you may well own property in Scotland, but many people do so because they have a mortgage in sterling. If you suddenly start paying people in a different currency you create a problem. Soluble, certainly, but at a cost. Who bears that cost?
However it’s good that you have pooh-poohed suggestions of the new state seizing individuals’ assets (was it Kerevan who suggested that?). And I agree that SMEs are or should be the backbone of our economy, to paraphrase Napoleon. Or was it Adam Smith again? But don’t they already enjoy tax incentives?
.
You doubt Westminster is “gifted with foresight”. What would make Westminster uniquely bad in such a regard? (Careful now).
I’m all for improving financial education but how many kids could afford £100 per month investment? Presumably they will already be auto-enrolled into their company scheme?
Regarding multi-national states not working. Is Germany not a multinational state? How about Spain? Italy? France? The Netherlands? The USA? England? Scotland? If your argument is that devolving power inevitably leads to the fracturing of the state, then any attempts to strengthen local government should lead to further fracturing. On that note would you support the right of (say) Edinburgh citizens to determine their constitutional future? And to explore another point, if you felt that the Highlands or Islands were proving a drain would you kick them out?
It would be interesting to see Cherry and Smyth in the same government gi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 30 Nov 21:29
Most of our leccy comes from renewables. It's something like 45 renewable, 40 nuclear and 15 fossil. I was actually surprised it's still 15% fossil as I thought all the coal power stations were closed now. Assume maybe gas somewhere?
Not sure if this is still correct, but around a quarter of the leccy produced in Scotland was exported
And interesting point about Edinburgh. Just like how I don't agree government should be based primarily in London, I don't see why Scotland's government needs to be based primarily in Edinburgh. I wouldn't suggest they punt Vicky Quay or Holyrood, but they should look at decentralising more. Basing things somewhere like Dundee might force the government to act on the crap public transport.
I'm broadly in favour of independence but it won't be achieved without a clear plan. I say that, but it's interesting that Brexit appears to have been voted on with very little in terms of clarity. What we're seeing now is the result of that lack of clarity.
Post Edited (Mon 30 Nov 21:33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 30 Nov 22:03
I see I`ve suffered the same pruning due to excess verbiage.
I meant to ask Lux if he meant every pound note issued by the so called Scottish Banks is backed by assets held at the central bank? I think it was David Linden MP who suggested that these notes could form the basis of a Scottish currency. I assume he has been disabused of this notion. From what I can see there’s about £4.2 bn worth of Scottish and Irish notes in circulation, compared with £70 bn BoE ones – I’m not sure their withdrawal would give the BoE many sleepless nights, even if that were how liquidity were measured.
Scotland was producing an excess of electricity but a lot of that disappeared when they shut one of the power stations - was it Longannet or Port Seaton? That (excess) capacity has been largely replaced by wind-power as far as I can see, but reliance on wind means that there are days when electricity has to be imported. My points may still stand. (And the fossil fuel is almost entirely gas from the latest info that I can find)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 30 Nov 22:46
From the energy voice.
Renewable energy accounted for 90% of all the electricity used in Scotland last year, according to newly released figures.
The Scottish Government said more electricity was generated from renewable sources in 2019 than ever before – 30.5 terrawatt hours (TWh) up from 26.5 TWh in 2018.
With one year until a target of 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables, 2019 estimates found 90% came from renewable sources compared to 76.2% in 2018.
The amount of renewable energy produced is equivalent to the electricity needed to power all Scottish homes for more than three years, or the energy used to charge 6.7 billion phones for a year.
The majority of Scotland’s renewable electricity generation
continues to be converted from wind on land (22.4 TWh), despite offshore wind increasing production from 1.3 TWh to 3.3 TWh in the last year, attributed in part to the Beatrice wind farm off the Caithness coast becoming fully operational in May.
Renewable energy projects – predominantly offshore wind farms in the
Moray Firth – are being planned or are under construction, the Scottish Government said, with an estimated additional capacity of 13 GWh.
Gina Hanrahan from WWF Scotland said: “It’s great to see more and more of Scotland’s electricity demand being met from clean, cheap renewables.
“Whether we meet the 100% target this year or very soon, increased renewable electricity capacity is the most fundamental building block of a zero-carbon society.
“That’s why it’s great to see onshore wind projects able to compete once again in the electricity market.”
Cara Dalziel, policy officer at Scottish Renewables, said a 100% target in Scotland was “still within reach”, but added that “policy uncertainty in recent years has meant our industry has not been able to deploy as much renewable electricity generation capacity as predicted”.
She said: “The growth of offshore wind has happened more slowly in Scotland than in the rest of the UK and onshore wind, which makes up the majority of our green power generation capacity, was locked out of the energy market by the UK Government for four years, meaning very few new projects were built.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 1 Dec 03:38
MT: Good to have a bit of time to post on here actually - been mad the last few months. To answer your points:
Public spending is higher in Scotland because by and large, that reflects public opinion and wishes. We also have a more rural population which makes the provision of services slightly more expensive. We also have slightly higher tax as well.
With State Pensions, Scotland is entitled to either its GDP or population-based share of the UK pensions pot. Should the UK refuse to surrender this then the Scottish Government can legitimately walk away from the UK accumulated debts - Assets and Liabilities go hand in hand. As I said earlier, the Scottish Government has established the National Investment Bank, I suspect as a means of preparation to ensure that some infrastructure is in place for the formation of a Scottish Exchequer. Again, I need to read into exactly what investments the SNIB is actually making but I would be very surprised if they haven`t already put things in place for a Scottish Pension fund - the question should be how developed it is.
When it comes to pensions, it actually doesn`t particularly matter what currency the drawdowns are paid in. The value of pensions are derived from units owned in managed funds. For example, I stick my son`s savings into the Blackrock World Technology Fund through Nordea bank here in Sweden. I also have access to this fund via Standard Life in Scotland, so I can buy into this fund either in Sweden Kronor or Sterling. Regardless of which middleman I use, I will still own the same number of units in said fund and can sell them for the same real value and get the same value of cash in different currencies.
If people entering the workforce at 16,18, 21 or whatever can`t afford to save £100 per month, is that not a damning verdict on the UK`s wage growth? I`d certainly say so. Moreover its a result of the UK`s failure to inwardly invest properly, particularly in England, and they are now saddled with a service-based economy where people are underpaid and accordingly tax revenues are low and this exacerbates the problem.
Regarding foresight, what exactly did the UK government do with the Scottish Oil Revenues exactly? We both know the answer there and you are yet to produce any counter that shows the UK has invested wisely.
I checked with my Father earlier (who is a small business owner) and Corporation tax in Scotland is a flat rate at 20% and there are no start-up incentives other than patent tax.
Post Edited (Tue 01 Dec 03:39)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 1 Dec 03:39
Using a currency peg requires stockpiling of cash reserves of different currencies. The UK has stockpiles of different currencies and, again, Scotland is entitled to share of this otherwise it can legitimately walk away from liabilities, which the UK will most certainly not want. To suggest that Scotland starts from scratch is conjecture and not an argument based on any logic or precedent. Fixed exchange rates can be used as a means to ensure a fair transfer of value for mortgages between currencies. The Scottish and UK Governments can legislate to ensure that mortgages held on Scottish properties must be transferred to Scottish subsidiaries and become their responsibility. Theoretically speaking, refusal could result in the Scottish Government seizing the property but I would think logic would prevail here. You seem to suggest that the UK Government would play silly beggars?
Would you really say that Spain functions well? I think the Basques and Catalans might disagree with you quite strongly there. Scotland was in independent nation for 850 years, which at the time of Union is longer than any of the nations you mention (Scotland 843, England 927, France 987, German 1871 (Prussia 1525, HRE 1077, Italy 1848-1871, Netherlands as Burgundy in 1433) Only Bavaria has been around as long as Scotland. Whether you like it or not, Scotland has survived the test of time as a nation.
No doubt your next step would be to say that I would be repeating the mistakes of the past by favouring a regional government system in Scotland?
You seem to like trying to pick holes in arguments and paint issues as black and white, which are really anything but. Why not suggest some alternatives for an Independent Scotland?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 1 Dec 09:26
As per the link in my post
[ur]https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/scottish-and-northern-ireland-banknotes
"The seven Scottish and Northern Ireland banks must, by law, set aside assets that are worth at least the value of all of the banknotes they have in circulation"
You really think that the BoE have 4.2 billion lying around in spare cash or liquidity?
LOLOL - I guess you`re not an accountant or economist...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 1 Dec 09:28
Sure I read that Scottish power companies have to pay to put power into the national grid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 1 Dec 09:42
Actually the BoE does have cash laying around, in the shape of 100m single pound notes, locked away for the purpose of backing Scottish and Ulster notes.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 1 Dec 10:08
Maybe, but your 100m is a little short of the 4.2bn stated by MT...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 1 Dec 11:04
No I mean they hold 4.2 billion made up of 100m pound notes!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England_%C2%A3100,000,000_note
I`d link it but can`t do it anymore if using this site from a mobile browser
Post Edited (Tue 01 Dec 11:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 1 Dec 11:20
I don't know what's changed mate but you have to go old school and type the link as follows:
[Url]yourwebsiteURL[ /url]
But take out the space between the [ and / and it should work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 1 Dec 13:11
So - glorified IOU`s?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 1 Dec 15:21
Thanks moviescot and lpf for the links. Good spot to notice that the comparison appears to have changed from production to consumption.
LA - I think the argument is that it costs money to get your energy from where it is produced to where it is needed. The question then becomes who should pay for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 1 Dec 16:31
Cheers MCT I suspect the changes are to make our stats look better which in many respects is ok as it looks like our own electricity consumption is now going to be completely met by renewables over the next 12 to 14 months.
This is a great achievement (and also disproportionately improves rUKs current share of electricity produced by renewables) but we then have to decide what to do with the rest of the electricity we produce. Do we wind down the production of non renewable sources of electricity or do we cash in on them by selling the less green fuel to others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 1 Dec 16:40
I would imagine that the other sources will be wound down, but cannot be stopped completely until energy storage becomes much cheaper and more green.
- massively increasing banks of lithium batteries is not really a great green plan...
The only `green` storage I saw was using excess wind created electricity to pump water back uphill to the lochs for future water power generation...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 1 Dec 16:55
Agree - I think that's likely right but interested to see how quickly we try to do it and if we cash in a bit first. Huntingdon already has plans for decommission and Torness has been on the go for a while too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 1 Dec 17:10
Quote lux :-
The only `green` storage I saw was using excess wind created electricity to pump water back uphill to the lochs for future water power generation...
If you are up in the area lux this is worth a wee visit ...good cafe as well :)
The Cruachan Power Station (also known as the Cruachan Dam) is a pumped-storage hydroelectric power station in Argyll and Bute, Scotland. The scheme can provide 440 MW of power and has a capacity of 7.1 GWh.
The turbine hall is located inside Ben Cruachan, and the scheme takes water between Cruachan Reservoir to Loch Awe, a height difference of 396 metres (1,299 ft). It is one of only four pumped storage power stations in the UK, and is capable of providing a black start capability to the National Grid.
Construction began in 1959 to coincide with the Hunterston A nuclear power station in Ayrshire. Cruachan uses cheap off-peak electricity generated at night to pump water to the higher reservoir, which can then be released during the day to provide power as necessary. The power station is open to visitors, and around 50,000 tourists visit it each year.
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 1 Dec 18:27
Exactly what I was talking about BPP :-)
- I`ve still not seen any better options for excess energy storage, despite the massive improvements in battery technology in recent years,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 1 Dec 20:04
HJ. It is easy to get sucked in and then spend loads of time addressing all the issues. It would be a lot easier if those memos from Tory HQ were more explicit. Or if everyone just accepted what I was saying…
Where were we?
Public Spending – yes, it costs more to deliver public services. Also I think we have an older and sicker population. Public spending has been largely driven by the Barnet formula which originally recognised both the greater need and the greater cost. I suspect the motivation was primarily to provide similar benefits nationwide than necessarily to spend more money per se.
State Pension – Agreed that Assets and Liabilities tend to go hand in hand, but there is no state pension pot. I’m no accountant but a 10% share of not very much is probably not very much.
Pension payments – I think it matters a lot which currency you are paid in. Imagine you are paid in Iranian Rials or even Swiss Francs. That would present a problem. You (or your pension fund) will be incurring conversion charges if you contribute in one currency and buy or sell assets in another. Also, the value of your pension may be dependent on the benefit promise (in the case of defined benefits) and may bear little relationship to any assets actually held.
All governments make mistakes. Sometimes they get things right. My question was whether you think HMG was uniquely bad with regard to foresight. As for the oil fund – we’ve been through this before – the decision was made to spend windfall profits from a relatively minor segment of the economy (on hospitals and roads, for example) rather than put them aside “for a rainy day”. Compare with all those teenage entrants to the job market who are spending their wages on things like food and rent rather than contributing to their pension.
CT - rate is 19% I think but yes, there is no longer a reduction for small businesses. Perhaps it was a VAT concession I was thinking of.
Re a currency peg – so we need foreign exchange reserves. We may or may not have some at the Bank of England, and it’s either a large amount or a piddling amount, but how much would we need? Do you remember Black Wednesday (when the UK had to bail out of the ERM)?
Mortgages – you rule out asset seizure but appear to be suggesting compulsory redenomination. This is likely to have a negative impact on Scots’ finances.
Re Unions – Yes I am suggesting Spain is a successful modern democracy (one World Cup and three European Championships). As are most of the examples I cited. I’m not sure if you are arguing that Scotland is successful or not, but I’m going to suggest events of 1,000 years ago aren’t hugely relevant. .
Post Edited (Tue 01 Dec 20:05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 1 Dec 20:06
...continued
Arguing in general. Much as I like painting things black and white, almost all arguments are more complex. Anyone merely asserting their case (FACT!) is asking to be challenged IMO and where better to do it than on dotnet? But if your argument is threadbare at best it should be easy to pick holes in it. As to alternatives, how about Scotland being part of a United Kingdom in the European Union?
Lux – I was attempting to differentiate between the broader definition of “pounds” created by the Scottish banks and the narrower definition of “notes”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 2 Dec 06:40
MT:
To be honest, I think you don`t fully understand the points I`ve made about how pensions work in terms of units in funds. When it comes to the holding value of a private pension, then the onus is on the individual to begin investing early enough that compound interest kicks in properly, which is a term of 30-40 years. Currency of drawdown is a separate issue to ownership of units. With brokers like Standard Life, Prudential, Nordea etc, you have the option to send your drawdown payments to any account in your name worldwide. If I lived in Iran, my drawdown payments would likely be less due to the value of the currency and living costs compared to other countries such as Sweden or Japan. You`re trying to find an issue here that doesn`t exist.
RE the UK Pension Pot, you`re saying that the UK has absolutely NO pension pot? Well, again, if that is the case then I`d suggest that its another damning piece of evidence with regard to the UK`s ability to effectively manage an economy.
When it comes to the Oil fund, you can`t simply brush it aside that way. Are you suggesting that the $1Tn+ of assets in the Norwegian fund is "insignificant"? Considering that Scottish reserves were and are larger than Norwegian reserves, it would be fair to assume that a Scottish Oil fund would have exceeded the value of the Norwegian fund. With time, the value of this fund is only going to grow and it seems that the UK rather spectacularly missed the boat on this one and there is no hiding from that.
It seems like you`ve fallen into the common trap of not realising the sheer power of compound interest, which takes a good few years to materialise and gather its full momentum. That said, if you invest properly in high performing funds then you can get a growth yield of approximately 1/3 or 33% every year so you will double your money in roughly 3 years. Have a squatch at some Baillie Gifford (very interesting Edinburgh-based company incidentally) funds that are available and look at their growth rates. Nation states also have access to such mechanisms and these are what the Norwegians used. Whether the UK are uniquely bad or not is irrelevant, with an asset such as oil they should have made the effort to be uniquely innovative which they most certainly did not. This is simply a deflection tactic, which we`re seeing far too much of these days.
With mortgages, you`ve made a statement with no backing. Can you expand here?
Again, in the case of Spain, I think you`d be hard pressed to term them successful. The Catalans and the Euskadis would certainly not agree with you there and the economy has pretty substantial structural issues owing to their over-reliance on the construction sector. By and large, they forgot to shore up the domestic economic structure before creating a larger reliance on investment from elsewhere.
Post Edited (Wed 02 Dec 06:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 2 Dec 06:42
As for currency pegging, any sensible exchequer maintains both foreign cash reserves and precious metals to support their economy. If, again, you are suggesting that the UK has very little (although you seem unsure) set aside then it would seem that this is another failure of asset management on the part of the UK Government.
Playing with semantics is quite interesting tbh. I think you`d be hard-pressed to make your "threadbare" claim about any of my arguments stick. What I`m suggesting is that you be a bit more proactive in your contributions rather than reactionary.
Scotland being in the UK and EU frankly is not possible. Why even suggest this? Why not actually answer the question that was put to you and suggest some alternatives for an Independent Scotland?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 2 Dec 08:03
Maybe worth throwing into the mix that Scotland can't join the UK whilst using Sterling as the SNP have suggested. Either own currency or Euro.
We're told of the disaster of Brexit, but we need to address the disaster of independence. There needs to be a response to all the criticisms. You can't shrug your shoulders and say "ach, it'll be fine". A load of people did that with Brexit and that's a complete farce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 2 Dec 08:53
You have to commit to using the Euro but there are no timescales on when you have to change currency and you also have to meet the economic criteria for joining.
Any change to the Euro would likely be a long way off, if ever (unless it suited us to join).
Part of the reason Brexit is a shambles is that the UK point blank refused to plan for a leave vote and lost a lot of time. Although any negotiations with the UK won't be easy if there is a yes vote, the SNP have the design of how they would want things to work. They would obviously need to tweak it depending on the outcome of the negotiations with the UK and possibly EU but they are further ahead in that respect than the UK was in regard to Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 2 Dec 09:27
Jake, why not offer some solutions to "the disaster of independence" then? Offer an insight rather than simply being a cynical commentator...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 2 Dec 09:41
When you read of all these obstacles to independence you have to wonder how politicians managed to negotiate the dissolution of the USSR, or Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia, or the British Empire. Did all the constituent countries involved meet the criteria Unionists are saying Scotland must fulfil to justify being an independent country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 2 Dec 09:44
"Scotland can`t join the UK whilst using Sterling"
- I assume that you mean "join the EU"...
As LPF says, a commitment to join the Euro is required, not an immediate adoption.
"disaster of Brexit" & "disaster of independence"??
One is not completed, and the other hasn`t even had a referendum agreed yet - but both are `disasters` already?
The biggest problem with Brexit was the refusal of the losing side to accept the result of the vote, and all energies were spent in trying to circumvent/reverse/annul the referendum, and to try to force through a fudged BRINO, or to resist all the attempts.
The remainers were so determined to avoid leaving, that bugger all preparation was done.
While no doubt you will ignore this by trying to deflect the `same` on the SNP - at least they accepted the result of the Scottish referendum, whilst working towards another...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 2 Dec 10:01
I'd agree that there was a lack of preparation (I said the same in my post) but you can't attribute that squarely on remainers not accepting the result.
Brexit was undefined and as such everyone put their own spin on it and that included some supporters of leave advocating remaining in the Customs Union whilst other leave campaigners wanted to leave without a deal. There were a range of views in between those positions. When you have that much of a divergence in opinion on the side campaigning for the same thing then it was always going to be difficult. The in fighting is still going on with the Farage's of this world complaining that we're about to sell out Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 2 Dec 10:27
Agreed, not just on the refusal to accept the result...
The outrageous collusion with the EU, to try to achieve a BRINO was a big part.
As was the EU`s belief (undoubtedly reinforced by the likes of May`s attempts) that if they made it difficult enough to leave, or even to negotiate a leaving deal - we would somehow change our minds...
Leading to the current last minute panic to try to cobble together some sort of acceptable deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 2 Dec 12:18
Viewing from afar, the expectation here was that Johnson would be PM and a vocal advocate like Rees Mogg (probably with the odious Farange in tow) would lead the brexit negotiations. That would probably have led to a more certain outcome much, much faster. Instead you got May and well, the rest is history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 2 Dec 12:28
Quote:
hurricane_jimmy, Wed 2 Dec 09:27
Jake, why not offer some solutions to "the disaster of independence" then? Offer an insight rather than simply being a cynical commentator...
My comment re: "disaster of independence" isn't my opinion, it's what I expect we'll see highlighted by politicians and the media, just as we see it raised for Brexit right now.
It's not for me to offer solutions. I am in now way informed enough around economics or EU policy to even comment. However, I can give examples of questions that need answered before people will vote in enough numbers for independence.
We're probably one of the best educated nations on the planet so we naturally question things. This perhaps makes us more cautious than we should be, but the SNP can't change that. What they can do is provide some clarity.
If I go out on the street right now and say "what currency will we use?" I expect an answer rather than "well currency is an old fashioned construct and doesn't matter." Just say "we'll use the pound initially and review entering the euro". That's all I need. I don't need any bollocks. Tell me what your plan is. It doesn't need to be a 20 year timeline. Just tell me the plan.
If we're going to dump defence then just say it. Don't fanny about giving wishy-washy answers because you want to keep people working on the Clyde happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 2 Dec 14:40
Well, this has turned out to be a very interesting thread. I am grateful to Hurricane Jimmy for his detailed examination of the independence issues.
All too often, the media tends to approach these matters from a high-level perspective, failing to dig down into the detail of the core issues and how they could be addressed. HJ has done just that and I have certainly learned more from what he has written than I have from reading 100 articles on the subject in The Scotsman and BBC websites.
There is a heck of a lot to think about there, and a lot of obstacles for sure, but none is insurmountable.
There appears to be a growing inevitability about independence now. All the signposts are there - Brexit, the increasing disjointedness of political thinking in Westminster and Edinburgh, the inevitable succession of an unpopular King Charles.
An independent Scotland within the EU would present enormous opportunities.
So many companies currently based in England would seek a presence in Scotland so as to gain easier access European markets. Equally, the same would apply to European firms seeking to gain or retain a British market.
This would lead to other benefits in terms of Scottish ports, more flights, more ferry and freight services, etc. Not to mention an enormous influx of foreign money into the Scots economy.
So much of what I read about independence seems based on an economy where nothing changes. The simple truth is that everything will change. The Scottish economy will be dynamic, not static.
It is a Scottish trait to be cautious about change and rightly so. But look at our history. Think back to the industrial revolution, the creation of new technology, the establishment of new colonies overseas. The Scots have always embraced change when it has occured and in the main, they`ve prospered.
Viewing this independence debate from the other side of the world, I have to say that the answer looks blindingly obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 2 Dec 17:12
Good Post Oz
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 2 Dec 20:31
My concern is that people will be convinced against it.due to uncertainty.
Kevin Hague is a unionist blogger. He makes some very good points and points that will make people think twice. Kevin's a stats guy and a pretty good one. The one flaw with stats though is you can only work with knowns. There are a LOT of unknowns about how an independent Scotland would function and calculations based on current UK figures are not a fair comparison. The SNP can't possibly have answers to everything but they at least need to provide a rough plan that answers the common queries about the economy.
As Oz suggests, it could be we want to attract UK business to Scotland for a European base. If so, say it. It could be we say we want to reduce expenditure on defence and invest in where value can be added - in tech, in finance, in farming, in whatever.
All people hear right now is "£15bn deficit". That needs explained. What of that deficit, a lot of it due to our proportion of Westminster expense, would we look to get rid of. How would we make Scotland more efficient in terms of its expenditure, and why can't we do that as part of a union?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 2 Dec 21:58
jake89 to save yourself any more angst, stress, anxiety and uncertainty just put your X against NO ....simples
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 2 Dec 22:22
I'm fairly solidly in the yes camp. I'm thinking about people like my in-laws. They won't vote yes without answers.
To me the polls are risky and I wouldn't count chickens. The media aren't pushing their anti-independence tales at the moment and there's always that risk of people being embarrassed to admit they're no voters. I expect the bounce right now is thanks to Johnson. Negative views of him may change if he's seen to sort out COVID vaccinations.
I'd also say some of the answers on this thread outline the problem. Ask a question and get told to just vote no or to give answers rather than problems. That's not helpful and won't convince people. If we want independence we need to understand the concerns of no voters and seek to convince them.
Post Edited (Wed 02 Dec 22:24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: da_no_1
Date: Thu 3 Dec 00:26
In the spirit of our recent reconciliation.......good posts jake89.
"Some days will stay a 1000 years, some pass like the flash of a spark"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Thu 3 Dec 00:35
As far as currency goes we would need to use sterling to start but,if the bank they are starting up is there,then switch to our own currency quickly.As said before the BOE holds billions we can demand back to cover it.
Defence is hardly going to cost us as much as the force we`ll need will be small.Also a certain base,which they cannot move quickly and will need payment for our rent,will be sent back to them.I`d say defence more than covered.Also I think they might need to supply a few ships and boats as our share of the MOD.
Loads of things like pensions,any being paid have to continue,as pensions are paid for and it matters not what country you are in you get your pension.Pensions due then if the NI contributions have not reached the years then the Scottish government take over,with a payment to cover all the contributions.
It is a complicated process and no doubt our gang of UK braindead leaders will try to make it difficult but hopefully we have the brains here to control them.We do have most of the electricity supply and I`d imagine cut that off for a day and they`d come scuttling back to talk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Thu 3 Dec 08:32
Good answer jake89
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 3 Dec 13:17
I'll quit whilst I'm ahead 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 3 Dec 13:25
In terms of physical currency, I think COVID has accelerated the move towards using cards/smart devices to pay. That may make life easier in terms of currency transition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 3 Dec 13:40
HJ
I’m familiar with how pensions (both Money Purchase and Defined Benefit) operate. If you contribute in one currency, and buy assets with a different currency, that incurs a cost. The same happens on the way out. If your income is in one currency and your expenditure is in another (as would be the case for many people) this incurs a cost, and introduces currency risk (which is intrinsically unrewarded).
The National Insurance Fund is practically empty. State pensions are paid from taxation. (I’m sure we’ve covered this before). For a state in control of its own currency this works.
I expressed no opinion on the Norwegian Oil Fund. But (and I hope you agree with me here) Norway is a different country. Oil and Gas is (or was, too busy to look up the actual figures) about 20-25% of their economy. If it runs out, or the price tanks, or there is suddenly a climate crisis, that can cause a problem. (And apparently their oil is cheaper to extract. And they have a different ownership/taxation model). O&G is less of an issue for the UK – it can ride out storms more easily. Less so for Aberdeenshire (which is why Swinney begged the chancellor to offer tax-breaks to the industry). As an aside, what sort of crazed fool would punt the farm on oil being $113 per barrel? It makes me suspicious of the SNP’s arguments. Yes, we could have had an oil fund. But then we’d still be explaining to people – sorry, you have to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital because we haven’t built the new one we promised – but never mind, eh, we’ve got loads of share certificates. As I said, the choice between immediate consumption and investment is not always obvious.
I’m also familiar with the concept of compound interest. Could you point me in the direction of these Baillie Gifford funds that are getting a “growth yield” of 33% p.a.? That seems incredibly high.
Regarding mortgages and no backing – very good, I saw what you did there, even if I didn’t lol. You said: The Scottish and UK Governments can legislate to ensure that mortgages held on Scottish properties must be transferred to Scottish subsidiaries and become their responsibility. In other words you are suggestion legal compulsion. (Not sure why HMG would want to agree to that in the first place, but that is another point).
I assume you are also requiring redenomination. But that would leave (this is the same point as above) people with incomes in one currency and expenditure in another. Neither the individual nor the lender is likely to want this as it costs money, and introduces risk, which again costs money. (Banks would likely charge more to mitigate this risk).
I guess we’ll have to disagree about Spain. What countries would you regard as successful and why?.
(to be continued)
Post Edited (Thu 03 Dec 13:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 3 Dec 13:42
Part 2
And so to currency pegging. You are advocating it, not I, so I would have hoped you had thought it through (presumably in more depth than the SNP) and would have the arguments instantly at hand. I don’t need to know what foreign currency reserves the UK has, but since it isn’t trying to maintain a currency peg any more, it may not have enough. So a per capita or per GDP share wouldn’t appear to be enough either.
Thanks for your advice on being more proactive. I’ll bear that in mind when I have more time.
I already answered your question about an independent Scotland. Don’t do it. (It’s a bad idea). You may not like my answer, but I’ve answered it.
Wee eck – the argument here is not about other countries, or whether indy is possible. The argument is whether it would be better (not least financially) for Scotland and for Scots. Andrew Wilson seemed to be advocating decades of austerity in his Growth Commission Report. I’m not sure he really believes in it any more, but he’s not going to be paying the price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 3 Dec 14:03
How has it worked out for all those countries who left the Soviet Union/Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/the British Empire? Have any of them regretted becoming independent?
Your problem is you start from the premise that independence is a bad thing and look for arguments to back that. You have absolutely no vision of how things could be different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 3 Dec 14:30
wee eck - I`m not commenting on other countries or former colonies (but a case could be made that there is regret).
I`m starting from the premise that unions are good, and testing the arguments against this particular one. I`m not convinced by them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 3 Dec 16:15
It would be a novelty if we heard the arguments why the Union is good. All the arguments from the Unionists in 2014 were against independence. I don`t remember hearing the case for the Union at all. They certainly didn`t present any financial data or projections to support it.
If a majority of the people want something to happen it`s up to the politicians to make it happen. That`s what happened with Brexit although it has taken almost four years.
Post Edited (Thu 03 Dec 17:04)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Thu 3 Dec 20:18
Surprised that the NI fund is empty, that's not the message I'm getting plus think how much their saving with the Covid cull!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 3 Dec 22:35
MT:
So we`re talking conversion costs? That very much depends on the terms and conditions stated in the original terms of the pension. My pension in Sweden is with Nordea and I can make drawdown payments in any of SEK, NOK, DKK or EUR at no extra cost. It`s up to the individual to chose their policy and check the terms and conditions. For other currencies, you can use services such as Transferwise to move funds between currencies at negligible cost. Again, you are simply trying your hardest to find issues that don`t exist.
So the UK pension put and NI funds are empty? It might "work" (which is very debatable) and its interesting that you defend this method. Is that the most prudent way to run things? We both know the answer there.
It`s rather odd that you would quite happily turn a blind eye to abject mismanagement on the part of the UK when it comes to an oil fund while simultaneously criticising the SNP predictions. Seems a bit like Double Standards to suit your own ideology to be frank. When it comes to Norway, it would seem that Nordea seem to think that Norway has "weathered" the Covid-19 storm and Oil Industry decline rather well, so you`re argument is pretty much baseless.
https://insights.nordea.com/en/economics/norwegian-economic-outlook/
Surely if Aberdeen/shire is having such problems then this shows a lack of preparedness and planning on the part of the UK Government? Or are we going to deflect and ignore here as well? Remember incidentally that the first oil rig went into the North Sea in 1969 and Holyrood reconvened in 1999, with the SNP coming in later in 2007. That would make the UK Government wholly responsible for the Scottish Economy for the first 30 years of major oil production with yes-men in power in Holyrood for a further 8 years. I`d consider 38 years ample time to plan and invest properly. Or is that completely unreasonable?
As we`ve said before, the strongest arguments in economics are based on precedents. Why are you so keen to sidestep the Norwegian precedent?
Honestly, it seems you`re struggling a wee bitty here...
As for Baillie Gifford, this link should show you their funds:
https://www.standardlife.co.uk/investments/tools/fund-performance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 3 Dec 23:05
You're forgetting one vital thing there HJ - that oil helped make a lot of rich men richer. Surely that's all that matters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 3 Dec 23:06
As for mortgages etc, as I`ve said earlier Governments that are willing to be interventionalist are the most successful economically. In the event of Scottish Independence, as Oz has previously suggested, the best option in terms of monetary policy may be that the Scottish currency is initially pegged to Sterling. I personally would prefer the Euro to reshape the economy and for the Government to use price controls and legislation to ensure that banks do not play silly beggars over mortgage pricing and interest - this is absolutely possible and, I would argue sensible. If I remember correctly, Italy froze mortgage payments during lockdown, so "radical" measures are possible. Holyrood will be the ultimate law-maker in Scotland and so can legislate this way if desired or required.
The UK will have some form of foreign cash reserves, along with precious metals as all developed economies have this. As we`ve said though, the question is: how large is this reserve? As is the case with an oil fund, these reserves will go much further for a nation of 5.5Mn than a nation of 66Mn. There will be various trade-offs in negotiations and so perhaps Scotland will negotiate a higher share of said cash reserves in exchange for, say, rental of Faslane for a period of time? This is the uncertainty and, as you`ll be aware, entering negotiations with your hand revealed is absolute folly and so demanding word for word specifics here is not constructive. Remember there is also onus on the UK not to play silly beggars and they will absolutely take a hit from the departure of Scotland.
Personally, I would consider the most economically and socially successful (i.e. effective economic management, comprehensive social policy a.k.a. human capital investment) countries in the world to be Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand in this category. I`d be tempted to put Taiwan and Finland (the Euro hinders them) into this bracket and I think Estonia should also be considered, albeit it is still developing in many senses. Uruguay is an interesting dark horse as well, especially considering the failures of the surrounding countries.
As for my question RE suggestions for an Independent Scotland, could you actually just answer it rather than deflecting and stating your ideological opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 3 Dec 23:21
HJ - that appears to be a link to Standard Life. Just name the funds with the 33% p.a. growth rate or yield and I`ll look them up myself - ta
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 3 Dec 23:39
Jake - that`s fair enough and I absolutely share your frustration about the Yes movement RE answers to questions. There is far too much in the way of posturing from the macro-perspective from both sides rather than being willing to get into the nitty gritty. Personally, I don`t rate Sturgeon`s ability in this sense and would be much happier with a leader such as Blackford or Cherrie who have that experiential knowledge of Finance and Legislation - I`d take either over Sturgeon as First Minister.
You`re absolutely right with your statements about the population and education levels - Scotland has a huge human capital potential that is quite under-utilised. The country really needs more of a chance to retain its top graduates and to have the legislative ability to develop the tech and R&D sectors further.
Oz - Glad you enjoy the posts and that you find them helpful! :) What you say about models and predictions reflecting the status quo in Scotland is absolutely correct and your statements about businesses creating subsidiaries in Scotland and using it as a bridge its very logical as well. As you say too, Scotland has a history of innovation and for me it is now time to take this to the next level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 4 Dec 03:09
Just as a sheer example of the power of compound interest:
Lets be hypothetical and the Scottish Government were to invest £1Mn into funds that had annual yields of (i)10%, (ii)20%, (iii) 30% annually then this would yield:
Time - 10% Annual Yield Fund - 20% - 30%
10 years - £2.6Mn - £6.2Mn - £13.8Mn
20 years - £6.7Mn - £38.3Mn - £190Mn
30 years - £17.4Mn - £237.4Mn - £2.62Bn
40 years - £45.3Mn - £1.47Bn - £36.1Bn
50 years - £117.4Mn - £9.1Bn - £497.9Bn
60 years - £304.5Mn - £56Bn - £6.86Tn
(assuming no further contributions to the initial investment)
This is basically allowing a £1Mn initial investment to brew away organically. You can imagine the effect if it were £10Mn, £100Mn...as the initial investment.
If Scotland invested 1Mn initially and then a further £1Mn per month in a 30% yielding fund over a period of 60 Years, then the final figure would be: £324.27Tn.
These are figures taken from a simple Compound Interest calculator, which operates using an algorithm that we all learned to compute manually in High School Maths. Pretty sure I could program one if these in Python myself if I was really of a mind to.
Fire some figures into this one though and play with it if you`re interested:
https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php
£1Mn is hee haw for a nation of £5Mn people, so a more sensible figure may well be £10Mn or £100Mn, which is a £20 or £200 cost to the Scottish populace per head, lets say £40 or £400 per taxpayer.
The question here would be, is there a fund that could cope with such a level of investment? Or would this something that a state would need to create and manage by itself? I`d assume the latter.
Tbh, I think these figures speak for themselves about the sheer power of compound interest and the positive effect of foresight.
I`d also argue that this abjectly put to bed any claims regarding the "insignificance" of investment funds.
Are we going to say that Scotland and or the UK are incapable of either sticking away £10Mn or (say because of population difference) £100Mn as an initial investment and letting it brew away? Or that either country lacks the expertise to establish and manage a national public investment fund?
To spend everything in the coffers is, frankly, idiotic and to argue against investment funds is absolute folly.
EDIT: Just to add, that exacting something like this on a national scale would require strict legislation that the investment cannot be withdrawn and also place strict conditions for any drawdown payments once the fund had matured to a certain level/time. Would we trust politicians not to do a Gordon Brown and go on a wee raid?
Post Edited (Fri 04 Dec 03:19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 7 Dec 22:52
Thanks LPF – those numbers are seriously impressive. Almost unprecedented in fact. What’s the reason – tech stocks? Companies like Tesla and Amazon? No wonder Trump got so many votes. I’ll need to check up on my own portfolio
LA - Frances Coppola claims to have debunked that article by Hencke. I haven’t read either, but I did read something he was meant to have said about life expectancy reducing since improvements were slowing. This was a bit like saying if you take your foot off the accelerator your car starts going backwards. I’m not sure I’d give him much credence.
Wee eck - to some extent the benefits are the opposite of the Indy argument. By being part of a larger group you achieve some economies of scale and spread risk. In particular we benefit from the tax revenues generated in the South East of England which enable higher per capita public spending. There are fewer barriers to trade with our biggest market. Opportunities for personal advancement are more. The defence capability is greater. This year in particular we will have benefited from the UK’s ability to borrow massive sums cheaply and from its ability to secure huge quantities of a Covid vaccine.
HJ
We’re talking both transaction costs and exchange rate risk. I can’t imagine many people have policy conditions which explicitly refer to a yet to be determined currency.
I don’t accept the failure to have a sovereign wealth fund is mismanagement. Making oil and gas revenues a key plank of your proposition is.
Nor do I accept that any economic problems that Aberdeen/shire may be suffering are entirely the fault of mismanagement at UK or Scotland level. Of course, with greater intervention, they could have been avoided – for example, they could have been forbidden to have anything to do with the industry. Or it could have been made compulsory to have a third of the jobs in Cornwall, for example. In a UK context, low oil prices are a bump rather than a crash, and are mitigated by cheaper production and transport costs.
Holyrood will be unable to enforce legislation on banks operating in England. As for currency pegging, I don’t think it will compromise any negotiating power by giving an indication of the FX reserves required or available. (The BoE may already be aware)
An interesting choice of countries, some of which might be unions. Uruguay in particular – the former scum of world football, I think Ernie Walker called them. Very low Covid figures.
I don’t understand your questions regarding an Independent Scotland – I’m not advocating one. Perhaps you could rephrase?
Do you have a link to a calculator that can divide £10m by 5m? 😉
Post Edited (Mon 07 Dec 22:55)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 7 Dec 22:58
continued
I’m not saying Investment Funds are folly. But why do businesses bother staying in business if it’s easy to make so much money on the markets? There’s no point sticking money in a rainy day fund if it’s already raining – it’s better to buy an umbrella.
(I was one word away from making that one post. Is 500 words the limit?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 8 Dec 02:35
You are very welcome MCT. I'm certainly no fund analyst but the fund appears to have been boosted significantly over the last year by tech stocks that have benefited in rapid growth due to pivots to online consumption as a result of Covid. From my wider reading, people that know far more about these things than I do appear split as to whether that growth will be sustained as people resume normal life and potentially return to their old shopping habits.
Although I agree with HJ that Scotland should have an investment fund, I think pushing the 30% growth number is a bit on the optimistic side. The Bailie Gifford funds do appear to be very well run but if you take out the last year of growth in the fund the average before isn't quite 30% and there doesn't appear to be any funds that can consistently return those levels over an extended period of time (if there is I missed them which is entirely possible).
Having a fund that grows and then has % caps on what can be withdrawn to protect it does seem like a very good idea to me though irrespective of whether 30% returns could be delivered.
Post Edited (Tue 08 Dec 02:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 8 Dec 07:30
MT:
Having checked with Transferwise this morning, the cost of moving 1000GBP to EUR is £3.75. Are you really going to stick with this argument over transaction costs? As for currency risk, the biggest shock to Sterling recently was the Brexit Vote, which was enforced by a party that Scotland did not vote for and the result was also not something that Scotland voted for. You are absolutely clutching at straws with these two arguments as they are both almost negligible issues.
Your key statement is: "Of course, with greater intervention, they could have been avoided". Good to see we agree on the necessity of state intervention. This is precisely what I`ve been arguing in the last few posts - the UK Government have no intervened enough, namely due to ideological Neo-Liberalism. As I`ve stated previously, there are so many presidents from Asia and further afield that highlight the importance of an interventionalist approach. Frankly, the fact that you wish to ignore the British failure to follow the Norwegian precedent shows that it is because it doesn`t fit your own Unionist narrative.
You`re right that the Scottish Government could not enforce legislation on banks operating in England. However, they do hold the legislative power over assets in Scotland, physical or otherwise. If English banks refuse to create Scottish subsidiaries and pass over control of Scottish assets to Scottish subsidiaries, then the Scottish Government does hold the legislative power to seize said assets. Never underestimate the power of legislation.
I asked you previously to share what you would consider a successful economic model for a sovereign Independent Scotland and so far you have thus avoided the question. Your first response was Scotland should be part of the UK in the EU, which is now impossible. Your second response was basically "I`ve been clear - its a bad idea, don`t do it". Please stop deflecting and answer the question very directly. It doesn`t matter whether you advocate one or not - you should still be able to share ideas, particularly if you`re own opinion is firmly based on good research and precendents.
Also, apologies for my mistake on the factors of 10 - a common boo-boo in scientific paper writing! ;) Always the last thing you check before submitting...
Post Edited (Tue 08 Dec 07:37)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 8 Dec 07:48
lpf - you`re right that 30% per year is a bit optimistic. Doubling your money in 3 years is optimistic and 5 years (or 20% yield) is slightly more conservative, which is why I drew up the figures with different compounding years. I would suggest that if you`re only growing 10% per annum, then the investment is not being managed to its greatest potential.
30% though is not an uncommon growth yield in different funds however and this is not limited to Baillie Gifford. Black Rock, Janus Henderson and Legg Mason also have interesting funds that grow at similar rates. The BG funds that I keep an eye on are:
American B
Emerging Markets
Global Discovery B
Japanese Small Companies B
Long Term Global Growth Investments
Pacific B
I think it was June I started on these and so far they`ve grown between 15-20% and have a history of making similar gains - obviously growth is a bit skewed this year because of the March/April plunge so growth might be excessive in the next while, but year 2 will show properly.
Post Edited (Tue 08 Dec 07:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 8 Dec 11:47
Having re-read my post HJ, I'd like to apologise. My use of the phrase "pushing the 30% number" was unfair as I don't actually think you were pushing that number (although that's exactly what I've written) and as you say you've provided a range of different scenarios. The top of the range obviouslt being the 30% number.
I'd taken MCTs question and applied that as the main focus which in fairness neither have you had centered on.
Poor choice of wording on my part so: sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 8 Dec 13:03
MCT the link to Tony Lynes article gives a better summary, France's Coppolas rantings are largely ignored!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 9 Dec 22:01
lfp - no worries at all - these things happen on a forum so nothing to apologise for really. It`s definitely a fair criticism! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 10 Dec 12:09
Cheers HJ!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 11 Dec 17:54
Its coming :)
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 11 Dec 17:55
LA – thanks – I hadn’t actually read the link – I’ve had a look now. Frances Coppola (who normally appears pretty clued up to me) seems to be happy with Tony Lynes’ article (although it is somewhat dated now) but disputes Hencke’s conclusions.
HJ – Exchange rate risk absolutely is a problem. And even if transaction costs are only 1% then this probably compounds to quite a lot over a pensioner’s lifetime. I note Tim Rideout who seems to be some sort of self-styled SNP currency expert is advocating a guarantee for pensioners.
The value of sterling against other currencies is largely irrelevant if your income and expenditure are both in sterling. Of course there are second order effects if the price of imported goods increases, for example.
Your pop about Brexit seems a bit off-topic, but I’ll make some comments.
Over a million Scots voted leave – if they had voted they other way, we probably wouldn’t have left. (That’s more than voted for the SNP in 2017 for example). Nearly 700,000 Scots voted Tory at the last election – more than voted SNP in the Euro Election – this is not an insignificant number. And of course, I don’t believe the SNP is particularly pro-EU – many people think it’s not true independence, they were against the EEC at the previous referendum, many of their supporters are against rejoining the EU and they didn’t campaign particularly hard. I suspect a lot of their lately discovered pro-Europeanism is merely a lever for differentiating ourselves from the English. And of course, had we become Indy we would have been out of the EU and I suspect suddenly in no real hurry to get back in.
I was being facetious when I suggested that the UK could have intervened and made us steer clear of the O+G revolution. Of course, perhaps your were being so too.
I’m not ignoring the Norwegian precedent. I’ve explained why I think it is (and was) not necessarily appropriate in the UK context. It’s not a particularly outlandish opinion.
If you are suggesting the SG seize my assets that sound like a good argument to move them to a safe haven. This is what inspires capital (both human and financial) flight. Which seems a real issue.
I’ll maybe give your question some thought. I don’t think it’s compulsory to answer.
A 20% p.a. return still looks quite racy to me. What return has the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund achieved over its lifetime? Are you saying you have been investing for 6 months and you are already an expert?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 14 Dec 05:44
MT -
Again, with exchange rate risk, you`re clutching at straws. The biggest shock to Sterling is Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for. Again, Transferwise allows you to move £1000 to various currencies for £3.75 is 0.375%, so even your 1% figure is rather inflated.
If you`re smart with your pension, you choose a broker and then diversify the investments so that its split between: different funds, different asset managers, different countries and different sectors. That way you grow the pension more quickly while also having more security. Even if the broker goes fut, you still have units and documentary proof of ownership in the different funds. As I said earlier, the values of units in funds are not dependent on currency values, unless the fund contains investments in hard currency - this is why you read the documents that the broker is required by law to provide you with upon investing funds.
I`m curious where you plan to shift your assets? Only Azerbaijan, Georgia, UAE, Thailand and I think Armenia where you can open a bank account without being a resident. The only other thing you can really do is sit on a wad of foreign cash in your home. What country are you going to take your Physical assets to?
I`ve been investing since about 2016 since I started studying Economics, so I would say I`ve gathered a fair bit of knowledge but I don`t claim to be an expert. Are you not maybe just a bit sore because you`ve struggled here? I`d surmise that it`s the standard thing where youngsters` arguments are dismissed because age and supposed "inexperience".
I`d also say its very telling that you refuse to accept that UK mismanaged oil and could have made a Scottish wealth fund like Norway really removes any integrity from your argument, as does the acceptance of the UK having no pensions pot. Its an abject double standard and really shows that you are approaching this issue with a pre-embedded ideological standpoint (i.e. Unionism), which always makes for a very weak argument compared to one that is based on precedent.
I`d also say that it reveals a lot that you won`t make a positive suggestion with regards to an economic model for an Independent Scotland. Again, simply sitting and trying to pick holes in arguments ain`t gonna get you very far. This really reflects what your side of the aisle fails to do: Making a positive case for the Union. It`s really becoming more obvious that you don`t have an argument because one doesn`t exist.
As for the EU, personally I`d be inclined to advocate the Norway approach as a baseline and would accept freedom of movement of goods and people, while not being part of Schengen. I would argue that any further integration should be voted for by the people an a referendum and that the Scottish Government should be constitutionally bound to do so.
Post Edited (Mon 14 Dec 05:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 14 Dec 10:06
Surely it's more important for the independence movement to explain the pros and cons? From a union perspective the pros and cons are apparent as they are the status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Mon 14 Dec 12:27
I don’t think the status quo pros and cons are apparent though...
There’s an assumption that only independence is a great unknown/risk and it’s up to that movement to paint a picture of exactly what the future is going to be like to the minutia ...so it can be duly picked apart or doubt cast
I’d like the same high bar applied to the Union and for unionists to paint a picture of what it will be like and account for where we are socially and economically as a country just now given they’ve had the reigns for the least were while (and how the as-is compares to the future picture unionists are will try to paint)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 14 Dec 13:46
We could always use the GERS figures, which showed Scotland had a £15 billion deficit in 2019/20, to demonstrate how we are doing as part of the Union. But wait...those figures just show how bad an idea independence would be. Bizarre, isn`t it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 14 Dec 15:03
wee eck (and this is also a response to desparado’s point on the other thread from way back)
What GERS figures would demonstrate that the Union was working? If they showed Scotland in surplus, would people be taking to motorway bridges and waving Union Flags? (Well, no, they would be arguing for independence – that was the financial basis of their argument in 2014).
Or if the figures were exactly in balance? We could have had that with “Full Fiscal Autonomy” but people suddenly went quiet when that became a possibility and they realised the implications.
Alternatively, getting to share the wealth about and enable higher public spending seems like a good thing? Perhaps you disagree?
I’ll get back to HJ’s points later (although I’m probably just going to repeat what I’ve already said, to be honest…)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Mon 14 Dec 16:00
England building a nuclear power station to keep the lights on down South?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 14 Dec 16:47
``Alternatively, getting to share the wealth about and enable higher public spending seems like a good thing? Perhaps you disagree?``
The GERS figures don`t show that though, do they? They show that the wealth is concentrated around London and the South-East of England. Why is that? Do the people down there work harder than those in the rest of the UK? I don`t think folk in the other regions of England would agree with that.
The argument for independence isn`t just an economic one. It`s about making your own decisions and owning your own successes and your own failures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 14 Dec 17:25
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Mon 14 Dec 16:00
England building a nuclear power station to keep the lights on down South?
Good LA lets hope they move Trident from Faslane and Coulport to there as well
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 15 Dec 15:36
wee eck, the GERS figures show that public spending can be and is well in excess of tax revenues raised/assigned. This is achieved by a mixture of access to borrowing and a fiscal transfer. I think you need to go to other sources to conclude that much of the tax revenue that is shared throughout the country is generated in the SE.
Why is this? That’s a good question, and I don’t know the answer, but I would guess that it will be a combination of population, extremely wealthy individuals and businesses that are located there and a lower cost of services.
Why is so much wealth there? Again I guess it’s combination of market forces, history and geography. I don’t think they necessarily work harder than anyone else.
I think we have seen a world-wide population shift from villages to the towns, from towns to the cities, and from the small cities to the large cities (often the capitals). And it is often no co-incidence where these are located. People often relocate for economic reasons. For example, if you were running a business, I imagine it would be useful to have good and cheap access to raw materials, capital, labour and your target market. For many businesses you are more likely to find this in St Albans rather than St Austell or St Kilda. There is a “gravitational” effect that attracts people to London.
To address Oz’s point from way upthread, if you were based in Essex and seeking to export to the (rest of the) continent, it would seem cheaper to fly your goods out from Stansted or ship them out from Tilbury or truck them via Dover, rather than head up and wait for a ferry at Rosyth.
Of course, you could argue that any economic imbalance reflects badly on the UK Government and that it, alone of all the governments in the world is genetically or culturally incapable. Again, to be flippant, the Government could have discouraged those businesses or high net worth individuals from settling here, or forced them to relocate (and probably become unprofitable). We might have a more equal society, but we’d be poorer.
Certainly Indy is about other things than economics. Having the power to make our own decisions is the reason many people (excluding the SNP, largely) campaigned to reconvene the Scottish Parliament. Although I find it a bit rich when people campaign for indy on this basis, whilst simultaneously arguing that powers be transferred to Brussels or the Bank of England. But I think the economic argument is a strong one.
Absolutely we should own our own successes and our failures. But, classically, nationalism has sought to blame outsiders instead.
Finally, to answer my own question, the Norwegian Oil Fund seems to have yielded 6.1% p.a. between 1998 and 2019 according to its report. Presumably HJ will argue that it hasn’t been well managed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 15 Dec 16:12
The allocation of tax revenues and expenditure to Scotland isn`t as clear-cut as you seem to suggest. Many of the reservations about that have been debated here and elsewhere.
Of course economic activity tends to be concentrated around cities but governments can mitigate the effects of that and divert it elsewhere. The GERS figures for all the UK nations and regions suggest that this hasn`t been successful despite all the talk of devolution and the `Northern Powerhouse`. It`s getting another boost from the Tories winning so many `Red Wall` seats in the North of England but let`s see how that works out.
You`ve raised the apparent anomaly of independence from the UK and membership of the EU before. For me Westminster has far more detrimental effects on Scotland than the EU ever did. For one thing, we wouldn`t need EU permission if we wanted to leave it and we would have an equal say on matters of EU policy which certainly can`t be said for our influence on UK policy. You say nationalism blames outsiders for failures. Does that include English nationalists who drove the Brexit campaign?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 15 Dec 17:49
It's fair to say that the UK is a country designed for the benefit of London. It's easy to be successful when everything is in your favour. This isn't unique to the UK and you could argue Scotland does exactly the same with the Glasgow and Edinburgh.
GERS figures are less relevant as they look at the CURRENT situation. However, the SNP need to explain how Scotland would work going forward. Would an independent Scotland seek to drive efficiencies in Scotland's public services? For example, making better use of technology to reduce school spend, doing some spend to save in terms of social care? What would our economy focus on? Renewables were mentioned in the past but that hasn't worked in Fife!
Studies today show drug deaths have risen again. Scotland is constrained in what it can do in this area. What would an independent Scotland do?
If Scotland is going to be an economic basket case for a few years then just say so. All of this stuff needs explained in simple terms, free of jargon or any bias we'll see in newspapers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 15 Dec 18:59
Economic forecasts are notoriously unreliable. Who saw the 2008 global financial crisis or the current pandemic coming? To some extent you take things on trust and you look around the world and see how countries with similar resources have managed things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 15 Dec 19:09
True, but it's also good to have an idea of how your country would be run. One thing I think the SNP need to be clear on is that they wouldn't necessarily be running it. Just my view, but I don't think they're doing a particularly good job. Not suggesting anyone else would be any better, but they're not especially good at running the country...still better than the Tories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 15 Dec 21:48
Quote:
jake89, Tue 15 Dec 19:09
True, but it's also good to have an idea of how your country would be run. One thing I think the SNP need to be clear on is that they wouldn't necessarily be running it. Just my view, but I don't think they're doing a particularly good job. Not suggesting anyone else would be any better, but they're not especially good at running the country...still better than the Tories.
It's not upto the SNP who decides who runs the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 15 Dec 22:40
Yes, I found that a strange comment too. You can hardly expect the SNP to put forward a manifesto for independence based on another party being in charge!
A lot of critical comment seems to be anti-SNP rather than anti-independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 16 Dec 19:35
What I mean is they need to be clear it doesn't have to be them. They are essentially a vehicle to take Scotland to independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 16 Dec 21:59
wee eck. I think we’ve come a long way with GERS – for example the canards about it ignoring Whisky Export Duty and supposedly allocating VAT to company headquarters aren’t so widely circulated. Yes, there is debate to be had, but I think the arguments have moved on, largely.
I think economic forces are pretty powerful and there’s often not a lot a government can do, but tinker round the edges (unless you favour more authoritarianism). You can’t stop a recession, just mitigate it a bit. HS2 is meant to be an effort to decentralise, but whether it will do the opposite, I don’t know.
How equal would you say your say in Europe was?
Yes, my comment about nationalism blaming outsiders applies to English and British nationalists.
Thank you for your comment on the other thread.
Jake – I don’t believe the country has been designed to favour London – it has happened – not so much by accident but due to geography and history.
Some policy issues are only determined short term – elect a different government and you will get different ones. I think you need to look longer term, and at more fundamental issues.
As to the drug deaths figures, they seem to be worse than in Wales and Northern Ireland who are presumably similarly constrained. I think we need to know what the problem is before identifying a solution.
As to the economic future, Andrew Wilson’s Sustainable Growth Commission seemed to suggest that an Indy Scotland would need to cut public spending in real terms (often called austerity). I’m not sure that was too well received.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 17 Dec 21:56
And the latest poll at 58% in favour. The 17th in a row.....
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 18 Dec 05:16
I think economic forces are pretty powerful and there’s often not a lot a government can do, but tinker round the edges (unless you favour more authoritarianism).
In a global economy there definitely are forces which national economies cannot stop.
However I can think of a good few of recessions in the UK which could have been prevented with more careful thought from those who were making decisions. There were, in many cases, clear warning signs which were ignored or missed because it would have been politically inconvenient for the government of the day to correct the clear problem that was brewing.
I left the parenthesised part in because it is a bit odd, if you don`t mind my saying: you seem to be hinting, between your brackets, that anything other than a neoliberal economic path is inherently authoritarian, when the fact of the matter is that there is a huge scope for fully democratic nations to have a degree of control over how financial affairs are conducted within that nation`s borders. It is not inherently undemocratic to regulate an economy.
Post Edited (Fri 18 Dec 05:16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Fri 18 Dec 11:40
Looks like the young vote is coming through my brother just informed me his daughter and all her friends are for independence, high school students so let's hope it's the start of freedom from wasteminster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Fri 18 Dec 11:40
Looks like the young vote is coming through my brother just informed me his daughter and all her friends are for independence, high school students so let's hope it's the start of freedom from wasteminster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 18 Dec 12:25
That’s ok, they’ll just find a way for 16 years not to get a say and if the support is at 58% then they’ll add a hurdle rate of 60%
After all, we can’t have democracy ruining Westminsters perceived power both in the UK and on the global front!
Post Edited (Fri 18 Dec 12:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 18 Dec 13:43
The Westminster government was insistent that Brexit had to be done on an advisory referendum as a matter of democratic urgency.
It would therefore appear that a pecident has been set in that regard and since Holyrood has the power to call an advisory referendum and I don't see how Westminster could ignore a Yes given their behaviour over Brexit, I think that advisory will do.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
Post Edited (Fri 18 Dec 13:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 18 Dec 15:08
Was the Tory party vote for their next leader not as young as 12yrs old.
That's how we ended up with BJ!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 18 Dec 19:16
Think they are mostly his anyway L.A. :)
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 18 Dec 20:01
In a seriousness, there probably should be a rate of 60% for such a significant change. Look at the state we're in due to a 50% vote on an "advisory" poll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 18 Dec 20:59
`Let`s give the Jocks their referendum but let`s change the rules and insist on a 60%+ majority. They love being the guinea pigs. Remember the poll tax and the first devolution referendum!`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 18 Dec 21:23
Westminster can`t do much if Scotland votes to separate - what are they going to do?
Independence isn`t something you wait to be given, it`s something you take - that`s kind of the point in a lot of ways.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 19 Dec 07:18
There is a hurdle rate and it’s the only hurdle rate there can be, ie the majority of the vote - one or more votes than the other choice.
Anything else is not democratic and will be led by vested interests (also who gets to decide the height of the hurdle - no one would agree to it).
Anyway, it could be just as easily argued that the hurdle rate should be lower? After all we’ve had 300 years of union ...and if in that time it has been unable to get more than 60% to be in favour and vote No, then is that not a sign that we should try something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 24 Dec 14:08
Wotsit – fair points. Yes, regulation is important rather than having an unfettered free market, and there is a spectrum between North Korea at one end (I imagine) and a totally neo-liberal approach. I would be interested in some examples of the recessions that could have been avoided.
LPF – I’m not a big fan of Richard Murphy as you can imagine. I though he was meant to have had a bit of a kicking when he came to Holyrood. But if his points are that GERS is rubbish, why was it used as the basis for the Indy case in 2014, and why have better figures been produced before now? Andrew Wilson bases what amounts to his case on them also.
Wotsit again – there is now a precedent for the argument that there should be a second, confirmatory referendum on the results of any negotiation. This seems like common sense. You may decide you want to sell your house in principle, but you don’t normally sell it at any price.
The arguments for having a higher threshold for constitutional change are long-standing. You don’t want major upheaval to happen too often. (That’s why party constitutions (like the SNP’s apparently) have a 2/3rds threshold). You only have to look around you to see the damage that is done by having a narrow victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 24 Dec 14:21
HJ
I’ll accept Transferwise can give you better exchange rates – but they are not so good on the more obscure currencies (I can’t find the Scottish pound listed…), or if you are changing smaller amounts. Not everyone will be changing £1000 at a shot. Try exchanging £300 into Norwegian Krone and it’s pretty close to 1%.
But exchange rate risk is absolutely a risk, and a risk you are introducing (along with the friction above).
If you have a unit linked investment, your unit price will largely be determined by the value of the underlying assets. In the case of equities, many large companies derive much of their earnings overseas, so changes in exchange rates will affect share prices. Look at what happens to the FTSE 100 when sterling appreciates against the dollar and vice versa.
And let’s not forget there are millions of UK citizens whose pensions are provided through corporate vehicles, and many of them are funded defined benefit (or even unfunded defined benefit) so their involvement in key investment decisions will be minimal.
Do you mean I won’t be able to open a Swiss Bank Account? How does everyone else manage? I was going to have most of my assets in England. Are you saying this will no longer be permitted?
As for the oil fund, whilst household finances are not always analogous to national finances, I think there are some parallels here. Faced with investing in your pension, or paying for necessities like food, clothing, rent and your Pars season ticket, there is not a lot of choice. Extravagances are a different matter. There will be grey areas like cell-phones or laptops or cars – are these essential items? Again I draw the comparison – share certificates are all very well, but maybe you need a hospital or a road more right now. So I don’t think the UK having an oil fund is a no-brainer. I’m not sure why this argument should drain me of integrity.
There are fewer household parallels with a national pension fund. The UK pays state pensions principally out of tax income. The precedent here is that it works. It’s not really a “Unionist” argument, IMO. Not everything is black and white, as someone once said.
I guess your question on an Indy Scotland’s economic approach will have to remain unanswered (like many others on this thread). If that means I’m not going to get very far, I’ll just have to live with it. (I did make a case for the UK further up the thread, btw).
Anyway, as I suggested, these are basically the same answers as before. I don’t think any is particularly original or controversial to be honest.
Have a good Christmas when it comes. I hope Santa is good to you. I’ll need to get cracking with my own shopping. Are Filling Stations still open?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 26 Dec 08:23
thanks donj
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 30 Dec 14:47
"LPF – I’m not a big fan of Richard Murphy as you can imagine. I though he was meant to have had a bit of a kicking when he came to Holyrood. But if his points are that GERS is rubbish, why was it used as the basis for the Indy case in 2014, and why have better figures been produced before now? Andrew Wilson bases what amounts to his case on them also."
Sorry MCT I missed this. I honestly don't know enough about you despite our posts to each other to know what you would think of Murphy but fair enough if you don't rate him. I missed the kicking so will try and dig that out.
The reason GERS has been used is that its the only set of figures that exist. When the Unionists think they can use them to highlight Scotland are better off in the union then they will and when Nationalists think they can use them to highlight Scotland are better off out of the Union then they will.
Because both sides have and will continue to want to use them to prove their positions its highly unlikely either side will come out and say they're not accurate.
I'd flip the question on its head though and ask why is Murphy wrong in what he says about the quality of the data?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 30 Dec 16:20
There's got to be some amusement though by either side using the GERS figures. When they're used positively it shows the status quo (the union) is working and when it's being used to show massive deficits it shows the union isn't working.
This is where it shows that existing figures are useless. What you need is a blank sheet with expected expenditure and then a plan to finance that expenditure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 3 Jan 19:44
I see Boris Johnson has now extended the definition of `once in a generation` to 41 years because that was the gap between the referendums on UK membership of the EU! And Tony Blair seems to be suggesting there shouldn`t be another referendum on Scottish independence until a capable opposition to the SNP is established - which should be the Labour Party of course!
No doubt they both consider themselves to be democrats.
Post Edited (Sun 03 Jan 20:11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 3 Jan 21:08
Quote:
wee eck, Sun 3 Jan 19:44
I see Boris Johnson has now extended the definition of `once in a generation` to 41 years because that was the gap between the referendums on UK membership of the EU! And Tony Blair seems to be suggesting there shouldn`t be another referendum on Scottish independence until a capable opposition to the SNP is established - which should be the Labour Party of course!
No doubt they both consider themselves to be democrats.
SNP need to go the court action route if they do the right thing and make the May election a plebiscite vote for a referendum and win it outright.
It is the only other way they can get international recognition for Indyref 2.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 3 Jan 21:13
The EU referendum was non-binding - exactly the sort of referendum which the SG is entitled to hold for itself.
If Westmister is insistent upon non-engagement with the process then more fool them.
The idea that Westminster has any say whatsoever in Scotland`s continued membership of our voluntary union of nations is quite frankly ridiculous, even by their standards, given that Westminster didn`t even consider asking Brussels` permission to leave the EU. The same standards apply here.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 4 Jan 12:23
If Scotland went down the route of a non-binding vote and it ended up being for independence, you can guarantee Westminster would throw a hissy fit.
Any vote needs to be properly handled with the facts and figures on the table. An independent provider of statistics and information should be provided. No reliance on believing any nonsense spouted by either side of the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 4 Jan 12:31
It`s a pity they didn`t follow that principle with the EU referendum but I`m sure they`ll come up with different rules if there is a Scottish independence referendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 4 Jan 12:42
The difference is that it would be for the EU to throw the hissy fit. Speaks volumes that they didn't really care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 4 Jan 13:07
"Speaks volumes that they didn`t really care."
Or accepted that it was for the people of the UK to decide?
- or of course, that they were totally convinced that:
1. UK wouldn`t have the balls to vote leave
2. UK would subsequently bottle it and never actually leave...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 5 Jan 17:22
Happy New Year all
Hi LPF – my point was more that I thought my views on indy were pretty clear (maybe they’re not??) and as Professor Murphy appears to be the darling of the indy camp, it was likely that I wasn’t going to be a fan.
I don’t know very much about him, so any opinion would tend to be at one stage removed and based on those of others.
Those I have some regard for don’t seem to rate him. Many whose opinions I tend not to share think he’s great.
I believe he was an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn for a while, then he was got rid off. Not sure how to treat that, to be honest. (I’m reminded of a character in the novel “Catch-22” – Major Major, I think – who liked to classify things as either a “black-eye” or a “feather in his cap”. On one occasion he wasn’t sure how to treat something, so he marked it down in both columns.) I feel a little like that with his Corbyn experience.
I do note that although he is a Professor, he doesn’t seem to be salaried by anyone. Also, he is keen on being called professor; I’m always a bit wary of people who seem overly keen on using their titles (be it Doctor, Professor, or Lord or whatever); it’s as if they need the title for self-validation. Sir Alan – sorry, Lord - Sugar may be an example.
IMO he (Murphy) appears to be a professional controversialist – his speciality sems to be taking an unorthodox line. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that approach, but don’t expect me to buy anything from him.
All of that is a bit like playing the man, not the ball, so lets have a look at what he says in the article linked to. He seemed to have 7 arguments, which I paraphrase.
1. “It’s a Unionist exercise. The short name “says it all”.” Really? Is that his best argument? If the same numbers were branded GRES he’d be fine with them? Anyway, it’s the SG that produces them, via the Civil Service
2. “They are based on UK data.” Not sure precisely what his point is. How does that necessarily make them materially less accurate?
3. “They’re not produced with Indy in mind and hence almost irrelevant?” Then show me relevant figures (without using GERS as your basis)
4. “They include some spending iScotland would not incur”. True, but not very much. And there would be additional spending that an iScotland would incur. Of course, he mentions “Trident” which seems to have become a nationalist shibboleth (and hence a bit of a red flag). How much would defence cost? GERS allocates defence costs on a per capita basis. In reality, outwith NATO, a per square mile or a per mile of coastline allocation could be considered. But given policy is to join NATO which seeks a commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence, there is little saving here (other than due to a smaller relative economy).
...1/2
Post Edited (Tue 05 Jan 17:22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 5 Jan 17:23
continued
5. “Mischarging”. There may be a point here but I’m not sure what it is. He argues that certain expenditure spent outwith Scotland is charged to Scotland. True – costs of embassies abroad or foreign aid will fall into this category. But there will be others – is a small amount of HS2 charged? But presumably the benefits that accrue will accrue in terms of Scottish wages and Scottish profits, which will filter through to the numbers. And presumably the opposite will apply – there will be expenditure within Scotland that is charged to England or Wales. What is the net effect?
6. “Imports and Exports – apparently no one has a clue.” I thought there were other data available so that this information could be estimated. I think his argument was that all UK businesses needed to update their record-keeping (presumably at great expense) so that this information could be gathered.
7. “Tax – difficulties of allocation” - this seems to be a similar point to 6 – again estimates are made – it doesn’t mean they will be inaccurate.
You say they’re the only set of figures and as they are used by both sides, no-one will say they aren’t accurate, but isn’t this precisely what Professor Murphy is saying?
Donj – I’m not sure if that link is in response to something I said, but I’m not sure of the relevance.
Jake – I would argue the other way round – a large deficit shows that the union works and we can enjoy far higher levels of public spending than would otherwise be the case. (It seems a little odd that people would favour an enforced reduction in public spending)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 5 Jan 21:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 6 Jan 00:36
An alternative view on the likes of HS2 is that Scotland is given its share but this project will negatively impact on Scotland in that it makes Glasgow, for example, a less desirable location than Manchester.
However, my actual belief is that the whole thing will negatively impact on the Midlands and North of England by continuing a brain drain to down the plug hole that is London. We can't keep putting all our eggs in one basket. The same applies in Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Sun 24 Jan 19:27
No country I know that has gained it`s Independence, whether in recent years from Russia or the former Yugoslavia, put economic or currency issues up there as reasons to halt. It was about democracy and confidence in just doing it.
Scotland has without doubt more going for her than any of these states. Of course the same scare stories will be trolled out and even more venomously, it`s happening already.
And that will tell us all how much Scotland contributes to the uk and why they are so desperate not to let us go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 Jan 14:06
Douglas Ross has said about the SNP`s plan to hold an advisory referendum without the sanction of Westminster - `I would take no part in that. And I would hope anyone - not just unionist supporters - but people who support democracy, should not take part in these wildcat, unofficial referendums. So, yes, I would make that plea to Scottish Labour, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and anyone who believes in democracy in Scotland.`
What should people in Scotland who believe in democracy do then, Douglas? Wait until Boris Johnson says we can have a referendum? I see Johnson`s coming to Scotland this week. That should give independence a boost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 14:23
"What should people in Scotland who believe in democracy do then, Douglas? "
How about respecting the 2014 result wee eck?
I presume that, if YES had won, you would see it as democratic for the outcome to be respected.
I also presume that had YES won, you would not expect your new-found independence to be in jeopardy already after 7 years.
Why not do the decent thing and treat the 2014 referendum result with the same reverence as you would have done had you won it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 Jan 14:39
If the UK had stayed in the EU I might have felt differently. What`s the point of being in a Union with another country which wants to go in a completely different direction from your own country and can always outvote yours on constitutional matters? What`s democratic about that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 25 Jan 14:55
The advisory referendum that the SNP is offering is exactly the same method which the UK used to leave the EU.
Which they did, by the way, without the permission of the EU because it`s not "wildcat" or "unofficial" for a member of a union of equals to choose to withdraw from the union.
Another vote is required because of the massive change in the nature of Scotland`s relationship with the UK since the UK chose, as was its right, to withdraw from the EU.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 25 Jan 15:07
Absolutely.
A referendum is like a peace treaty or an MOT certificate: only legally valid for the day it is signed and stamped. When the circumstances change- and constitutionally they clearly have as regards Scotland`s position within Europe- then the referendum loses its authority.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 15:24
With respect, the disregard for the 2014 result began in 2014, long before the term Brexit was invented.
Furthermore - those who voted for independence at the time were more than happy to gamble with EU membership with no certainty of being admitted in the short term.
So you`re happy to see us out of both unions, for what could be a significant length of time given our budget deficit being a long way from meeting EU criteria? For all you loathe WM, you must be fairly financially secure for restricted trade to both the UK and Europe to be of little concern.
Lastly, with the impending border and trade restrictions to pretty much everywhere added into the mix, what services would you cut and what taxes would you raise to fill this undeniable financial void? Bear in mind the oil is a gonner ( we`re " at war with climate change" remember) and most countries have their own wind.
It`s a favorite phrase of nationalists when they say that Boris himself is the best recruiter for the SNP. It`s a convenient deflection from the lack of any semblance of an economic plan or the ability to flesh out what you actually mean by "hope" when the phrase "hope over fear" is trotted out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 15:29
Sammer - so how long does this "MOT certificate" last if there is another referendum and it returns a YES vote?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 Jan 15:35
The independence side did provide an economic plan in 2014 for the unionist side to pick holes in. The unionist side provided no plan at all as I recall, just like the `leave` side in the EU referendum. Maybe there`s a lesson there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 15:50
But the plan proved to be well off the mark. Our unique selling point, oil, is rapidly becoming obsolete, unprofitable and at odds with a world environmental vision. And nobody needs to buy wind from us.
Post Edited (Mon 25 Jan 15:52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:06
It`s a mystery how other small independent countries flourish on their own isn`t it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:16
so how long does this "MOT certificate" last if there is another referendum and it returns a YES vote?
I suppose until a party whose main policy is rejoining the union starts to dominate the independent parliament in the way that separatist ones have with Holyrood, and there is majority support for a vote to rejoin.
Have one every year if you like - as long as there is parliamentary support for it.
Oh, and Scotland wasn`t voting on EU membership in 2014 - that was a muddying tactic by Better Together which has come back to bite them on the bum.
Post Edited (Mon 25 Jan 16:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:25
"Oh, and Scotland wasn`t voting on EU membership in 2014 "
Could you remind nationalists of that? Apparently it was the no1 reason for voting NO. Infact, if you listen to some, it was the only reason for voting NO.
Ironic, since those bleating " we were promised that a No vote.................." actually ignored it entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:36
Realpolitik indicates that any treaty can become obsolete at any time. The word ‘generational’ is meaningless. The Molotov/Ribbentrop deal lasted less than two years, to no one`s great surprise. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 didn’t even last that long. Besides, I doubt if many UK citizens would heed constitutional advice from a PM who tried to illegally prorogue parliament last year.
The constitutional change effected by Brexit undermines the result of the 2014 referendum as clearly shown by the Scottish vote to remain in the EU. That is a circle that cannot be squared, and the Scottish majority to stay within the EU was far more convincing than the Brexit Leave vote itself.
Any independence treaty agreed by Holyrood and Westminster would be subject to the same realpolitik, so that pandemic, nuclear war or invasion might lead to the countries reforming a union. ‘Generational’ doesn’t come into it.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: CAPar
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:48
I'm in no way a politics expert but putting aside the arguments of 2014, respecting the result, the EU argument etc, surely if the SNP run their campaign on the basis that a vote for them is tantamount to a vote for Independence, and then win a majority, the democratic will of the people will be to have another referendum?
If they don't win a majority, then their mandate has been rejected, and it's game over for the time being.
It's hardly democratic to say we voted no in 2014 and that's the end of it otherwise why bother having general elections every 4 or 5 years. Just have one and live with the result forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:49
Could you remind nationalists of that? Apparently it was the no1 reason for voting NO. Infact, if you listen to some, it was the only reason for voting NO.
The Yes side would have been delighted if the EU had been left out of what was supposed to be a clear question, but the No side saw an opportunity to score a quick win and ran with it.
Unionists are currently dealing with the blowback from that very deliberate policy decision and if your Trumpian denialist tactic towards this is adopted as the No campaign policy then I`ll be looking forward to my tartan passport in no time!!
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:51
"The word ‘generational’ is meaningless."
Well you`ve confirmed one thing. I was duped in 2014. By Sturgeon who repeated that word many times.
I went to the polls believing that the result would be binding for a good 30 years, regardless of who won. I was actually resigned to ending up on the losing side.
Thanks for clearing that up, although you know in your heart of hearts that if YES had won, your opinion on what a "generation" was would be significantly different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 16:54
"It`s hardly democratic to say we voted no in 2014 and that`s the end of it otherwise why bother having general elections every 4 or 5 years. Just have one and live with the result forever."
So we can jump in and out of the UK every 5 years??
You want Brexit style negotiations every 5 years??
We can break the UK up and then reform it again on a 5 year cycle?
What you really mean is - we can have the option of leaving every 5 years and then we can live with the result forever if we win. If you`re being honest with yourself.
Post Edited (Mon 25 Jan 17:00)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: CAPar
Date: Mon 25 Jan 17:01
Quote:
1985Par, Mon 25 Jan 16:54
So we can jump in and out of the UK every 5 years??
You want Brexit style negotiations every 5 years??
Hardly. It was illustrating a point, possibly poorly. But if the majority of the country now want to gain Independence, that shouldn't be allowed because we had a vote in 2014?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: CAPar
Date: Mon 25 Jan 17:03
Quote:
1985Par, Mon 25 Jan 16:54
"It`s hardly democratic to say we voted no in 2014 and that`s the end of it otherwise why bother having general elections every 4 or 5 years. Just have one and live with the result forever."
So we can jump in and out of the UK every 5 years??
You want Brexit style negotiations every 5 years??
We can break the UK up and then reform it again on a 5 year cycle?
What you really mean is - we can have the option of leaving every 5 years and then we can live with the result forever if we win. If you`re being honest with yourself.
Eh, no. I don't want the option of leaving every 5 years. The simple point I'm attempting to make is that there have been many polls now that show a majority in favour of Independence.
If that translates into an SNP (plus maybe Green) majority, then the democratic will of the majority of Scotland is for a 2nd referendum. If that referendum happens, which it should, and the majority then vote for Independence, that then should also happen. Things change, opinions change, people change. Just because there was a No vote 7 years ago, that doesn't now mean that we should be denied another vote if the majority of Scotland votes SNP in May, and by doing so, endorses a referendum.
If there is a 2nd referendum soon and No wins again, I think that pretty much nails the fact it won't happen during my lifetime. Doubt it can come back from 2 No votes in a relatively short period of time.
If Independence is achieved then a Unionist party in 5, 10, 25, 50yrs comes to the table, campaigns and wins on a referendum to re-join the union, then as much of a inconvenience as it might be, then yeah, you hold a referendum to re-join. Maybe too simplistic but there you go
Post Edited (Mon 25 Jan 17:46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 25 Jan 20:34
How many countries that have gained independence from the UK and empire have rejoined?
In fact how many countries in the world who have gained independence from any of the former colonialist countries have rejoined that country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Mon 25 Jan 20:46
"How many countries that have gained independence from the UK and empire have rejoined?
In fact how many countries in the world who have gained independence from any of the former colonialist countries have rejoined that country?"
i don`t know. How many of these countries were offered their independence and rejected it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Mon 25 Jan 21:35
I am in favour of Scottish independence, but I think people are reading far too much into the polls.
In 2014, the polls leading up to the vote had No leading by around 4%. They went on to win by nearly 11%. Current polls have Yes leading by around 7%. With the same swing on polling day this could be a dead heat.
I know polls and swings don`t always go the same way, but it just shows how fragile the lead could be. I wouldn`t pin my political legacy and the future of my country on a potential dead heat.
My other issue is that we might have reached peak Yes, with a hideous Tory government in Westminster and Brexit still relatively fresh. Another few months down the line and people might be numb to it all and vote No or abstain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 26 Jan 17:38
Quote:
1985Par, Mon 25 Jan 20:46
"How many countries that have gained independence from the UK and empire have rejoined?
In fact how many countries in the world who have gained independence from any of the former colonialist countries have rejoined that country?"
i don`t know. How many of these countries were offered their independence and rejected it?
I don't know how many were offered it and rejected it. I can't find any....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 26 Jan 19:35
How many were directly connected to the rest of the UK though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 26 Jan 20:29
I don`t know how many were offered it and rejected it. I can`t find any....
Malta. They voted in a referendum to be annexed into the UK after WWII and would have been if it wasn`t for the UK losing the global influence that made a strategic, but expensive, fifth nation worthwhile. They were basically forced to become independent against their will.
Also Gibraltar, Falklands, and Northern Ireland.
Of these three (four if you count Scotland) only The Falklands have not been politically isolated from the UK since Brexit: Northern Ireland and Gibraltar have just gained new borders with the UK and Scotland has a clear majority in favour of independence.
How many were directly connected to the rest of the UK though?
Ireland? Physically at least, for now.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Wed 3 Feb 08:12
Something that is never discussed. Will there be a customs border between Scotland and England. How will that affect the economy. In fact, how will a border affect people just travelling back and forth to work or visiting family?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 3 Feb 08:43
Short answer would be yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Wed 3 Feb 10:24
" How will that affect the economy?"
Disastrously if you believe these economists.
https://www.ft.com/content/bbf2a097-37ff-42ea-8b22-c5662f0ae4be
"Frictionless trade with UK and EU impossible"
"Independence from the UK would cost Scotland’s economy up to three times as much in lost trade as Brexit will, according to analysis by the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance."
Pointless even trying to make an economic case for independence. Which is why they never do.
Post Edited (Wed 03 Feb 10:28)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 3 Feb 11:15
There wasn`t an economic case made for Brexit but that didn`t stop it happening. Of course that was all about `taking back control`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Wed 3 Feb 17:05
i imagine it will be the same as it is between N. Ireland and Ireland
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 4 Feb 11:51
DBP, can I ask why you think it would be the same as between Northern Ireland and the Republic? That was a special case because of the Good Friday Agreement and the history of conflict in the region. Do other nations that border non EU nations have arrangements like Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Thu 4 Feb 12:29
Because there is a common travel area in place between the countries of the UK, ROI and surrounding islands
A lot of NI issues was about physical infrastructure construction required for checking goods
Also a NI and ROI has set the precedence that could easily be applied again for situations like this
Post Edited (Thu 04 Feb 12:32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 4 Feb 16:28
So the borders of the EU single market would be open to the rUK?
Actually just in case I have got the wrong end of the stick you are talking about the border between a EU Scotland and non EU England?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Thu 4 Feb 17:33
Yeah, I’m sure it would be the realms of possibility to mimic the border between nonEU Northern Ireland and EU ROI
neither EU ROI or a potential EU Scotland are on euro mainland or in the Shengen area, so movement of people to mainland euro land won’t be possible anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 4 Feb 18:43
What I'm interested in is how much Scotland-England trade is Scottish trade going via England to another destination?
I would assume with any independence that there would be a period to work out trade agreements and potential joining of the EU. If joining the EU, Scotland's trade agreements would presumably be whatever the rest of the UK agrees with the EU?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Thu 4 Feb 19:29
Quote:
jake89, Thu 4 Feb 18:43
What I'm interested in is how much Scotland-England trade is Scottish trade going via England to another destination?
I would assume with any independence that there would be a period to work out trade agreements and potential joining of the EU. If joining the EU, Scotland's trade agreements would presumably be whatever the rest of the UK agrees with the EU?
I was very interested to read something last week about trade between the rest of the UK and Scotland in comparison to Scotland's trade with the EU.
While to Unionists are absolutely correct that we trade more with rUK than the EU a breakdown of those things showed the vast majority of trade between Scotland and rUK was in financial services and the service industry.
Actual physical goods that leave Scotland were over 70% going to the EU.
Things that are not a physical thing can easily be done cross border but being out of the EU is a serious disadvantage to Scotland.
Can't remember off the top of my head where I read it but will try to find it later and post a link to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 4 Feb 21:36
Thanks SIF.
I'm finding it a bit depressing at the moment seeing the likes of JRM crowing about the British army helping Scotland. Isn't that what they should be doing in the first place? Isn't that what we pay for?! He's also now saying how great Joanna Cherry is and calling Nicola Sturgeon "moanalot" or something similarly pathetic.
Said on here before that I'm no great fan of the SNP, but people like JRM should be lined up and shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 4 Feb 22:40
Offt. Steady Jake.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 4 Feb 23:16
Maybe murder is too far, but he's an odious man. Most of the main Tories seem to be the same, unfortunately.
Holyrood doesn't appear much better these days. We're in the middle of a global pandemic and people are using misinformation for petty point scoring. It's pathetic that these people have been elected to represent us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Thu 4 Feb 23:45
I can't find where I saw that article. A friend said he also saw it and thinks it was from a Fraser of Allander report but I can't find it searching for that either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 5 Feb 00:03
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Thu 4 Feb 23:45
I can't find where I saw that article. A friend said he also saw it and thinks it was from a Fraser of Allander report but I can't find it searching for that either.
2018 exports Scotland
International
Manufacturing 55% - £18.7bn
Services 36% - £12.2bn
Others 9% - £3.0bn
UK
Manufacturing 22% - £11.3bn
Services 58% - £29.6bn
Others 20% - £10.2bn
This is the most up to date I could find. Services to UK make up a huge portion but as you say these can be transacted regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 5 Feb 00:22
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Wed 3 Feb 10:24
" How will that affect the economy?"
Disastrously if you believe these economists.
https://www.ft.com/content/bbf2a097-37ff-42ea-8b22-c5662f0ae4be
"Frictionless trade with UK and EU impossible"
"Independence from the UK would cost Scotland’s economy up to three times as much in lost trade as Brexit will, according to analysis by the London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance."
Pointless even trying to make an economic case for independence. Which is why they never do.
Post Edited (Wed 03 Feb 10:28)
What’s it like to be such a negative b****** when it comes to your own country’s ability to stand on its own two feet like every other small independent country in the world.....jeez oh
Richard Murphy and others have rubbished the lse report. Why? Because it is unadulterated nonsense....
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Fri 5 Feb 10:41
True colours, desperado. True colours. Complete denial of the economic facts with a verbal insult thrown in for good measure.
Not denying that Scotland could stand on "it`s own two feet". Just believe it can prosper more within the UK, as did the majority of Scots when we had a vote on it.
But once the insults start flying about it`s probably time to step away. The argument is lost, i was always told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 5 Feb 12:02
The SNP are rubbishing the LSE report on Indy co written by Thomas Sampson.
In 2016 SNP laud LSE report on Brexit co written by- three guesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 5 Feb 12:13
What did their report on Brexit say? Did it have any effect on the referendum vote?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Fri 5 Feb 12:40
I guess that it highlighted an economic impact that the SNP were happy to refer to seeing that they did.
Point two, it would have contributed to the debate, of which economic impact was certainly a big issue. I would imagine it would have found more favour with the remain side than leavers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Fri 5 Feb 13:36
"But once the insults start flying about it`s probably time to step away. The argument is lost, i was always told."
We`ve been trying to step away from the insults for years.
The current `bonus` is, if many of the numpty little englanders get their way - and rebuild Hadrian`s wall - we would get Newcastle as it`s above the wall...
Mogg is probably one of the SNP`s best recruiting agents, with nonsense like that...
He`s complaining that Scotland had benefitted by £8.6bn from UK taxpayers?
1. Scottish taxpayers are UK taxpayers too, he`s playing like the UK tax take is only rUK and they are giving charity!
2. The money is funded, not by taxpayers, but by the alleged £400bn debt increase - which incidentally, we will be `allocated` 8% of, right?
(8% of 400bn = 32bn, I see a rather large 23.4bn shortfall in there somewhere...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 5 Feb 13:58
With reference to economic reports we are rarely told who is funding the `think tank` making the forecasts and who has commissioned the particular report. The fact it is attached to the LSE suggests this one is an academic forum and therefore politically neutral but is it?
Economic forecasting is notoriously unreliable and this one seemed to be saying the economic effects of Brexit would not be fully apparent for 10-15 years and the effects of Scottish independence would take even longer to be clear so you would have to question their reliability. It was also quite limited in its scope too, looking only at trade and ignoring aspects like inward investment, migration, taxation etc.
I can`t say I remember their report on Brexit but it must have had limited effect on voters as the majority voted to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 19 Feb 18:40
From Aunty :-
Boris Johnson`s main adviser on keeping the UK together has departed, saying his position was made "untenable" by others within Downing Street.
Oliver Lewis, an ally of the prime minister`s former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, was a key part of the campaign for the UK to leave the EU.
His departure comes as the Scottish National Party is calling for another referendum on independence.
Mr Lewis was confirmed in his role just two weeks ago.
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 19 Feb 19:35
Have you noticed the proliferation of Union Flags in evidence since the Tories got spooked by the polls for Scottish independence? I just watched an interview with Foreign Office minister James Cleverly. It appeared to be from his library at home but there was a Union Flag strategically draped behind his left shoulder. Every home should have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 19 Feb 23:11
I don`t think that has anything to do with Scottish independence but more to do with post brexit jingoism. The tories aren`t spooked by the polls because unlike a general election they get to decide the timing of any future independence referendum.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 20 Feb 10:03
You`re probably right about post-Brexit jingoism but there`s plenty evidence the Tories have been `spooked` by the polls re Scottish independence. The Internal Markets legislation, setting up the unit with the objective of keeping the Union together, moving civil servants to Scotland, etc. All quite cynical after completely ignoring Scotland during the Brexit negotiations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: shrek par
Date: Sat 20 Feb 13:25
Nobody wants to be the government that lost the union. Especially Boris as he's already looking at his legacy and how he will be written up in history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 20 Feb 14:21
Which I why he won`t sanction a referendum. That will increase support for the snp but will also go down well with conservatives south of the border as well as cement the unionist vote north of the border around the Tory party.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 20 Feb 14:44
I thought a sizeable part of the Tory vote in England said they weren`t bothered if Scotland left the UK? They were more interested in the UK leaving the EU.
I`m still waiting to hear a convincing argument for Scotland staying in the Union. If it`s some sort of vanity project which would cause a Tory PM to lose face if independence happened on his watch I don`t think that will win many votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 20 Feb 23:37
I'd expect their may be a degree of losing face.
The chap who quit did so because of Carrie Symonds rather than because of Scottish independence. It sounds like she's ruffling feathers. Perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly. Who knows? All I know is that it's an embarrassment that there even needs to be an anti-Scottish independence unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Fri 12 Mar 17:30
When you look at the age profile of people who support Independence it rises dramatically the younger people are. So, if that stays it`s inevitable Scotland will become Independent. That also means that the older people - with less time left in Scotland - have been blocking the younger people, who have more time left in Scotland, from their political goal. Time for the youngsters to get to work on the parents and grandparents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 12 Mar 17:38
Actually one of the latest polls shows a swing towards young people supporting the status quo.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 12 Mar 22:35
The love-in begins :-
`The Cabinet Office is to move at least 500 civil servant jobs to Glasgow by 2024 to work at a new secondary headquarters, the BBC understands.
An internal letter at Michael Gove`s department said it would "strengthen its commitment to Scotland".
The jobs include senior roles and ministers would be expected to spend "some time" in Scotland.
It comes amid ongoing efforts by the UK government to bolster support for the union.
The Financial Times reported one official as saying the move would "bring the engine room of the UK government to Scotland".`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sat 13 Mar 14:17
They are moving Westminster to Holyrood for a fortnight says the Mogg!
That'll go down well, and in other news Ruth the mooth says independence is finished !🤔🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Sat 13 Mar 14:28
Is next year still this year or is it next year?
And LA, if that temporary flit takes place they will need to quadruple the bar staff.
Post Edited (Sat 13 Mar 14:37)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sat 13 Mar 14:38
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 12 Mar 17:38
Actually one of the latest polls shows a swing towards young people supporting the status quo.
No such thing as the Status Quo. Unless you count diluting Holyrood powers without the consent of the Scottish People as the “ Status Quo “
There was No Status Quo after the referendum in 2014 and there sure as heck won’t be one if we don’t vote in an SNP majority in May.
Scotland will be finished and a glorified North British county council is the future that awaits us with Union Jacks emblazoned the length and breadth of the country and the most right wing U.K. Gov in living memory calling the shots.
Be afraid....be very afraid.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aXUizxV2VD0&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0R_ClvdKDjjJSTZtVcSCsPzk-BSRBBUzJxCMEweO57a-gki1AlJjabkY8
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sat 13 Mar 19:41
Although I fully support independence, I might be happy with a more federal approach where Scotland is fully fiscally independent. We would just pay our per head of costs for defence. We would be able to borrow and completely run everything else with no Westminster input.
Then we would see if the SG can actually run our affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sat 13 Mar 20:33
It won’t happen though as it is all or nothing for WM. They would just see federalism or full fiscal autonomy as a stepping stone to full independence down the road. They are not even in favour of devolution. They want to centralise powers and will give nowt away.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 13 Mar 20:53
But even a federal scenario would still mean we can’t make our own decisions and due to voting numbers, would be directed by one partner who has the much larger voting block.
A federal system would still see our future direction. Eg brexit, chosen for us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 13 Mar 21:00
So you won`t want anything to do with the EU and it`s qualified majority voting system then.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sat 13 Mar 21:07
There’s probably others but what I’m giving is one example where every single region of my country voted against something, but the whole country was outvoted by a few English regions voting the other way.
I wonder what others policies will we vote for and not get to see?
Post Edited (Sat 13 Mar 21:07)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 16 Mar 09:38
I saw Gove being interviewed on STV last night. He was waxing lyrical that the priority in Scotland in the next few years should be the recovery from Covid and the economy and not the SNP`s obsession with constitutional matters. When it was pointed out that Westminster had been obsessed with the constitutional matter of Brexit for six or seven years he said he was only interested in what was happening now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Malcolm Canmore
Date: Tue 16 Mar 21:56
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 16 Mar 09:38
I saw Gove being interviewed on STV last night. He was waxing lyrical that the priority in Scotland in the next few years should be the recovery from Covid and the economy and not the SNP`s obsession with constitutional matters. When it was pointed out that Westminster had been obsessed with the constitutional matter of Brexit for six or seven years he said he was only interested in what was happening now!
Westminster was”obsessed” with Brexit because the nation voted for it and required Parliament to act. SNP’s obsession is of their own making.
My dog eats meat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 16 Mar 22:11
The Brexit referendum was called to clear up a little local difficulty in the Tory party but the whole of the UK had to get involved in it. I realise there are different rules for Westminster though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 16 Mar 23:15
Quote:
Malcolm Canmore, Tue 16 Mar 21:56
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 16 Mar 09:38
I saw Gove being interviewed on STV last night. He was waxing lyrical that the priority in Scotland in the next few years should be the recovery from Covid and the economy and not the SNP`s obsession with constitutional matters. When it was pointed out that Westminster had been obsessed with the constitutional matter of Brexit for six or seven years he said he was only interested in what was happening now!
Westminster was”obsessed” with Brexit because the nation voted for it and required Parliament to act. SNP’s obsession is of their own making.
Not quite true. The EU referendum bill clearly states the Government did NOT require to act on the result of the vote. Essentially, it was a glorified opinion poll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Wed 17 Mar 21:42
It’s not actually the SNP’s own making... they would have no platform or mandate and this wouldn’t be even being discussed if they weren’t doing so well in every single election we’ve had since!
Post Edited (Wed 17 Mar 21:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 24 Mar 18:38
I`ve always found it odd when you see so many Stars and Stripes on display in the USA - even in private gardens and on private houses. Unfortunately in the UK the Union Flag is now identified with right-wing politics so I`m not sure it will be as popular as they seem to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 24 Mar 18:54
These will look fantastic on the Government buildings in Belfast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Wed 24 Mar 19:52
Quote:
jake89, Wed 24 Mar 18:54
These will look fantastic on the Government buildings in Belfast.
Northern Ireland don't come under this law for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Wed 24 Mar 20:11
Pretty sure I remember them using this tactic in 2014 as well. Desperate stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 24 Mar 21:37
NHS staff in Scotland, excluding doctors, are being offered an annual increase of at least 4%, backdated to December. Over to you, Boris.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Thu 25 Mar 00:05
I think they might find forcing the Butchers Apron down our throats has the opposite effect to what they are hoping for
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Thu 25 Mar 10:01
We can thank the Germans for the Union Jack being hoisted on St Andrew’s Hoose at all. It’s only once a year, on Remembrance Day.
As for Butcher’s apron, is that something to with a certain battle where Scots sodjers killed men in kilts? And the poncey loser scuttled off disguised as a lassie?
Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 10:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 25 Mar 11:01
Will the Union Flag supersede the Saltire or will both flags be flown together?
I see the DUP are already complaining that the guidance doesn`t apply to NI.
ETA - Some Labour-controlled councils in England aren`t happy with this `edict` from a Tory government as most councils fly it already and they say the Tories are acting as if they owned the flag.
Post Edited (Thu 25 Mar 16:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Mon 5 Apr 17:07
Gordon Brown sticking his nose in again!🤥🤥😡
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 5 Apr 17:30
A long read, but interesting!
A good read L A .... myself and many others have never doubted that we would flourish on our own
To any doubters out there ask yourself why oh why is Westminster so desperate to deny Scotland independence
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 6 Apr 09:37
I`ve been waiting for an answer to that question for years, Bpp. I think it must be that those altruistic Tories just want to save us from ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 6 Apr 11:02
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 06 Apr 09:37
I`ve been waiting for an answer to that question for years, Bpp. I think it must be that those altruistic Tories just want to save us from ourselves.
Can’t lay that one at ‘just’ the Tory party - Labour has had their turn too
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 6 Apr 12:11
Independence probably wasn`t seen as a real possibility until 2014 and the Tories have controlled Westminster since then. What`s your theory as to why they are so reluctant to let Scotland go, Lux?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 6 Apr 12:29
We decided all by ourselves not to leave. Did you miss that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 6 Apr 12:33
If Supermajority is achieved then independence negotiations should start on the first day of the new Parliamentary term...……..well according to AS anyway.
Things could get interesting soon...…….
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 6 Apr 12:47
Negotiations will only ever take place in the unlikely event of a legal referendum, and the even more remote event of Natnuts winning it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 6 Apr 12:56
Scotland doesn't need proper sign off for an advisory vote on though a proper vote would hold more weight, just like the brexit vote...oh, wait...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 6 Apr 14:11
A pretendy parliament holding a pretendy referendum - for which schools and community halls can`t be hijacked for, ballot counters cant be forced to participate in and returning officers would not touch with a barge pole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 6 Apr 14:38
If its a pretendy parliament then I take it you won`t be voting next month then?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 6 Apr 14:53
An advisory vote would be just as "pretendy" as the one that saw us leave the EU!
As for being a "pretendy" government, that's a matter of opinion. As I'll always say, I'm not an SNP fan, but I see stronger leadership from the Scottish Government than Westminster, especially with Johnson in charge. Even his address to the nation yesterday was woeful with him having to read notes on a pad meaning random pauses and flicking over sheets of paper. Of course, all followed up by a "man of the people" jape about getting a pint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 6 Apr 15:04
I share your criticisms of the SNP and Pro-Yes side Jake - for me there seems to be a sheer lack of gumption and comprehensive inventive thought. And you know what my thoughts are on the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 6 Apr 15:14
Was it really 2014 that we had that referendum? It seems like a generation ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 6 Apr 15:37
wee eck - this is how I responded to a similar question from you last year. Does this help answer your question?
1 – Security of the northern border (as far as England is concerned). You don’t want hassle with your neighbours. Reach peace. You don’t want the FM of an Indy Scotland cosying up to the Kremlin (but that would never happen…)
2 – It’s part of being a Union. You look after your own through thick and thin. Perhaps we should bin the Falklands. Or Gibraltar. Or Northern Ireland. Maybe an indy Scotland would bin the Hebrides. Or Dundee. Or the old people and the infirm – are they not a drain on society? Is this not a similar argument? It’s difficult to think of an example where this has happened.
3 – There may be economies of scale, or future benefits. Better being part of a bigger country with bigger and different attributes than a smaller one. And there might be times in the future when they more than pay their way again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 6 Apr 15:55
Bin Holyrood, the ugliest building in Edinburgh (no the lovely Palace, the eyesore over the road that resembles an Ayia Napa doss house)
Total waste of old brewery space occupied by waste of spacers that couldn`t organise a p*** up in one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 6 Apr 16:11
"If its a pretendy parliament then I take it you won`t be voting next month then?"
Its an assembly. Just because Salmond changed a few signs and letter heads doesn`t change that. Just as pasting gaelic signs all over the place doesnt make us a duo lingo nation.
A proper Parliament is responsible for all revenue and expenditure, foreign policy, defence, transport, infrastructure, trade and many other issues that thankfully this shower of inept eejits haven`t got their grubby mitts on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 6 Apr 16:12
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Tue 6 Apr 15:37
wee eck - this is how I responded to a similar question from you last year. Does this help answer your question?
1 – Security of the northern border (as far as England is concerned). You don’t want hassle with your neighbours. Reach peace. You don’t want the FM of an Indy Scotland cosying up to the Kremlin (but that would never happen…)
2 – It’s part of being a Union. You look after your own through thick and thin. Perhaps we should bin the Falklands. Or Gibraltar. Or Northern Ireland. Maybe an indy Scotland would bin the Hebrides. Or Dundee. Or the old people and the infirm – are they not a drain on society? Is this not a similar argument? It’s difficult to think of an example where this has happened.
3 – There may be economies of scale, or future benefits. Better being part of a bigger country with bigger and different attributes than a smaller one. And there might be times in the future when they more than pay their way again.
Oh the joy of keeping trident and the subs in Rosyth. London dealing directly with the Scottish councils, reducing the Barnett formula, keeping one of the lowest pensions in Europe. Removing the other nations from the EU because they're smaller than you.
Selling out the NHS.
Along with the fact Scotland and most likely Wales are going in a totally different direction politically than England and NI.
What your saying is we're to poor, to wee and to stupid to go on our own.
You must actually think we ARE all the above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 6 Apr 16:28
Good answer, Tenruh. I particularly liked `You look after your own through thick and thin.` It obviously only applies when you are in agreement with `the boss` as was shown during the Brexit negotiations. McC T`s point 3 sounds like an argument for staying in the EU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 6 Apr 16:31
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 6 Apr 16:28
Good answer, Tenruh. I particularly liked `You look after your own through thick and thin.` It obviously only applies when you are in agreement with `the boss` as was shown during the Brexit negotiations. McC T`s point 3 sounds like an argument for staying in the EU.
It sounded like "LONDON CALLING"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 6 Apr 22:17
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Tue 6 Apr 16:11
"If its a pretendy parliament then I take it you won`t be voting next month then?"
Its an assembly. Just because Salmond changed a few signs and letter heads doesn`t change that. Just as pasting gaelic signs all over the place doesnt make us a duo lingo nation.
A proper Parliament is responsible for all revenue and expenditure, foreign policy, defence, transport, infrastructure, trade and many other issues that thankfully this shower of inept eejits haven`t got their grubby mitts on.
And the inept eejits that do currently have their grubby hands on all of the above currently sit in WM. Unless of course you don’t count shovelling billions of pounds into your mates bank accounts as not being grubby or idiotic. Well of course it’s not, it’s deliberate. Tories enriching Tories. A pub landlord who happens to be Hancock’s mate gets millions in a PPE contract with no experience what so ever in that field , unless you count buying a few barrels of John Smiths. And lo and behold he buys a big fancy house and a Bentley for his Mrs a few weeks later, no that’s not grubby, of course not it’s just very British.They are crooks the lot of them and if you actually support that shower and would rather have them making decisions for the people in Scotland then I am afraid you have a screw loose.
McT ‘s Post. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that drivel.
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 6 Apr 22:47
Parboiled sounds like exactly the type of person that the UK Government rely on. A forelock tugger with no imagination and nothing between his ears except hatred
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Wed 7 Apr 03:43
Quote:
Parboiled, Tue 6 Apr 16:11
"If its a pretendy parliament then I take it you won`t be voting next month then?"
Its an assembly. Just because Salmond changed a few signs and letter heads doesn`t change that. Just as pasting gaelic signs all over the place doesnt make us a duo lingo nation.
A proper Parliament is responsible for all revenue and expenditure, foreign policy, defence, transport, infrastructure, trade and many other issues that thankfully this shower of inept eejits haven`t got their grubby mitts on.
You don't sound like a bitter little man in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 7 Apr 09:07
I’m not bitter, I live in the UK, was born in and will die in it, and love every bit of it . Well, most of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 7 Apr 10:12
Quote:
Parboiled, Wed 07 Apr 09:07
...and will die in it...
Might be needing to get a shift on then, time is looking to be getting shorter :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 7 Apr 11:46
We haven`t heard from `Mario` for a while..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 7 Apr 11:52
"nothing between his ears except hatred"
Nature abhors a vacuum chum, cause that`s what`s between yours ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 7 Apr 12:12
So, political leaflets through the door this morning. Now, for complete transparency, I am typically a Green voter so have an obvious bias.
Labour - Big focus on recovery. Details what they want to do and why.
Tories - We don't want a referendum, a referendum is bad, no referendum, only we can stop a referendum as Labour won't fight against one.
I'm sorry, but how can anyone vote Tory with that sort of information? So they have one policy - not to do something. What are their plans for economic growth? What about health, response to COVID, improving education and reducing poverty?
It'll be interesting to see what the SNP, Lib Dem and Greens ones say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 7 Apr 12:33
Quote:
jake89, Wed 7 Apr 12:12
So, political leaflets through the door this morning. Now, for complete transparency, I am typically a Green voter so have an obvious bias.
Labour - Big focus on recovery. Details what they want to do and why.
Tories - We don't want a referendum, a referendum is bad, no referendum, only we can stop a referendum as Labour won't fight against one.
I'm sorry, but how can anyone vote Tory with that sort of information? So they have one policy - not to do something. What are their plans for economic growth? What about health, response to COVID, improving education and reducing poverty?
It'll be interesting to see what the SNP, Lib Dem and Greens ones say.
Hi jake , is this the Greens West Fife pamphlet where they don't mention independence or their successes in Parliament with the recent bills threatening women and civil liberties? If so could you put it up on the site for Hurricane_jimmy to see ..Cheers
Post Edited (Wed 07 Apr 12:34)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 7 Apr 12:52
I've not had a Greens leaflet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 7 Apr 13:27
Quote:
jake89, Wed 7 Apr 12:52
I've not had a Greens leaflet.
Ah sorry I read the post that you had them all but hadn't read the Green one yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 7 Apr 13:54
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 7 Apr 11:46
We haven`t heard from `Mario` for a while..
Yip bang on Eck. I was wondering what happened to that bitter, twisted, angry British Nationalist, anti Scottish tw*t, well I wasn`t really but I know now.
He has been reborn. Into a bitter, twisted, angry, British Nationalist, anti Scottish tw*t, however I think PB is a few years older, and has been fermenting his hatred of Scotland and all things Scottish a little bit longer.
I mean anyone who advocates the dismantling of their own parliament is really advocating the dismantling of Scotland, their own country.
Words fail me as to how any one who is a proud Scot would support that...……..Look what brain washing done to the normal citizens of Germany in the 1930`s, so its no surprise really that there are uber , right wing, xenophobic, Brit nats walking among us ,considering the amount of negative anti Scottish , pro UK propaganda we are subjected to.
Most sensible, well balanced, educated people rise above it though and have aspirations for their country, belief that their fellow citizens can do a better job than the current bunch of expensively educated idiots and corrupt cants that inhabit the green benches.
Some never will though...…….its too late, they have been "catched " and are overflowing with c...r...I...n...g..e
What an opportunity we missed in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 7 Apr 14:06
No worries. I was actually wondering if they'd do one given it's a waste of paper!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Wed 7 Apr 15:13
You need to calm doon Despers.
If you’re not careful you could end up in the Death Star being bombed by pigeon droppings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 8 Apr 15:50
Wee eck asked a question (essentially, why does rUK want to keep Scotland in the UK), to which I suggested an answer.
(If that isn’t the exact question, I’d be happy to try to answer it in a different form).
TBH the responses are a little depressing, if not distressing.
Defence, Trident, the nuclear deterrent, pension provision and so on are all different issues and could (usefully, perhaps) be debated.
What your saying is we`re to poor, to wee and to stupid to go on our own.
Wasn’t it John Swinney who said that? Perhaps you’re not aware of the irony of your formulation of the quote.
Post Edited (Thu 08 Apr 22:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Thu 8 Apr 17:37
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 7 Apr 11:46
We haven`t heard from `Mario` for a while..
Didn't he get black carded?
I know he's the roaster who followed a female SNP activist around videotaping her as she was out leafleting. Trying to intimidate her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wulliepar57
Date: Thu 8 Apr 20:21
Who knows what will happen , Alex salmond is dead cert on putting a spanner in the works , I have plenty aspirations for Scotland as I am a Proud Scotsman ,
I would like to see the proof of where we are getting all the money from to be self sufficient in the transitional period if it happens , not just promises as I have heard enough of these in my lifetime and at the end of the day Politicians will always look after themselves and it is the People who work that will have to pickup the pieces , words do not put food in people`s bellies or pay their rent/mortgage etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 8 Apr 21:30
If there is a shortfall which there may well be as things fall into place we'll borrow it in the same way every other country does.
A lot of the way the discussion is phrased around affordability in the media seems to gloss over the fact that the UK can't afford its spending without borrowing either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 8 Apr 23:14
lpf - isn`t the point that not every country can borrow the same amount over the same period at the same rate as every other country? There are practical limits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Thu 8 Apr 23:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 9 Apr 13:20
Big J – if you are suggesting borrowing is too high, then are you in favour of cuts to public service to reduce the debt burden? (Essentially as recommended by the Scottish Growth Commission).
And if the UK’s debt is too high relative to GDP, then Scotland’s per capita share would be even worse, surely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Fri 9 Apr 13:40
That'll be their next argument- you will need to take your share of the debt we have run up on projects like HS2.
We have already had the lies and threats like a bullied wife trying to leave her abusive relationship. They will stop at nothing to keep us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 9 Apr 14:32
red-star - don`t we get Barnett consequentials from HS2 spend?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 9 Apr 14:58
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Fri 9 Apr 13:20
Big J – if you are suggesting borrowing is too high, then are you in favour of cuts to public service to reduce the debt burden? (Essentially as recommended by the Scottish Growth Commission).
And if the UK’s debt is too high relative to GDP, then Scotland’s per capita share would be even worse, surely?
Would it be? Up until recently Scotland had been accruing debt slower than rUK but was still paying a population share % of UK debt from GERS figures despite not having accrued what would equate to the population share % of UK debt.
What level is Scotland at now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 9 Apr 15:07
McC T, do you see any disadvantages from Scotland being part of the Union? You seem to accept without question that `bigger is better` despite the fact there are plenty nations smaller than Scotland which prosper on their own. Did you think that leaving the EU was a price worth paying for being part of the Union? If Scotland had been an independent country there would have been no demand for a referendum on leaving the EU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 9 Apr 15:13
lpf - I was allocating debt on a per capita basis, and assuming that Scottish GDP per capita is less than UK, which should make our Debt/GDP ratio higher.
To allocate debt on other bases (such as who incurred what spending and why) would mean going back to 1707 and is quite complicated.
During the boom North Sea O&G years Scotland may have been accruing debt more slowly - don`t think that is the case any more.
Post Edited (Fri 09 Apr 15:32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 9 Apr 15:31
wee eck - you posted whilst I was responding to lpf.
Nothing is perfect - of course there are advantages to being smaller, sometimes. There are advantages to being out of the EU, sometimes. (For example, the vaccine roll out seems to have been faster than had we been subject to EU constraints).
And of course other nations prosper, but they have different histories and geographies, and may have prospered more in other circumstances.
If Scotland had been an independent country we would have been out of the EU. I`m far from convinced we would have been clamouring to get back in as I`ve said before.
To recap:
Scots never used to be particularly bothered by the EU - I don`t think more than 40% could ever be bothered to vote in any election;
More than 1m voted for the UK to leave (the alternative proposition of an indy Scotland in the EU was not tested).
There are considerable hurdles to be overcome to rejoin - if push came to shove I don`t think there would be the appetite.
Nicola Sturgeon is such a committed European that she joined a party that was opposed to membership.
Is it a price worth paying? It`s a price I`d rather not have paid. But I think the alternative is much worse (and to be honest, the people who would pay would be the people who can least afford it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Fri 9 Apr 15:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 9 Apr 16:33
All that stuff about Scotland and the EU is rewriting history. The fact is we were in the EU at the time of the referendum and there was no significant body of opinion in Scotland arguing for a change. We`re now out of it because our `equal partner` in the Union voted to leave. The argument seems to be if it`s considered right for the UK then it`s right for Scotland.
I`ve said it before - the Union is just a ruse for the Tories to control a part of the UK where they`ve never had a majority for over 60 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 9 Apr 17:23
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 9 Apr 16:33
All that stuff about Scotland and the EU is rewriting history. The fact is we were in the EU at the time of the referendum and there was no significant body of opinion in Scotland arguing for a change. We`re now out of it because our `equal partner` in the Union voted to leave. The argument seems to be if it`s considered right for the UK then it`s right for Scotland.
I`ve said it before - the Union is just a ruse for the Tories to control a part of the UK where they`ve never had a majority for over 60 years.
It's all about the money when they're trying to hold on to us.
And it will be all about the money when we go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Mon 12 Apr 21:08
So Westminster taking Holyrood to the Supreme Court over a law that was passed unanimously regarding children's rights?
This will be interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Thu 15 Apr 16:35
Quote:
Tenruh, Wed 7 Apr 12:33
Quote:
jake89, Wed 7 Apr 12:12
So, political leaflets through the door this morning. Now, for complete transparency, I am typically a Green voter so have an obvious bias.
Labour - Big focus on recovery. Details what they want to do and why.
Tories - We don't want a referendum, a referendum is bad, no referendum, only we can stop a referendum as Labour won't fight against one.
I'm sorry, but how can anyone vote Tory with that sort of information? So they have one policy - not to do something. What are their plans for economic growth? What about health, response to COVID, improving education and reducing poverty?
It'll be interesting to see what the SNP, Lib Dem and Greens ones say.
Hi jake , is this the Greens West Fife pamphlet where they don't mention independence or their successes in Parliament with the recent bills threatening women and civil liberties? If so could you put it up on the site for Hurricane_jimmy to see ..Cheers
Green leaflet arrived. On the first page it says:
This is our chance to tackle the climate emergency, to build a fairer Scotland after the pandemic, and to SECURE OUR FUTURE AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY.
The caps is for emphasis and isn't on the actual leaflet.
It also has a quote from the Daily Record stating "...cement a pro-independence majority at Holyrood".
I'd say that's being clear on their stance, but obviously the main space is given over to key issues they want to tackle around jobs, investment, public services and (obviously) the environment.
Post Edited (Thu 15 Apr 16:35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
