Scots favour independence from United Kingdom, Ashcroft poll shows

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, MRToMRT said:

Semantics, so lets call it a notional deficit and agree it that it represents it spend versus its income (including the share of national incomes such as North Sea oil). 

 

Scotland's notional deficit is the highest of any country in the EU. In August its notional deficit was calculated at 12.6 billion pounds.

I fail to understand the concern from those south of the border over Scotland's finances. If they become independent, they will sink or swim, up to them nobody else.

After all, the English voted to leave the EU without any regard for the consequences. What happened to goose & gander?

[stuandjulie]

13 hours ago, sandyf said:

I fail to understand the concern from those south of the border over Scotland's finances. If they become independent, they will sink or swim, up to them nobody else.

After all, the English voted to leave the EU without any regard for the consequences. What happened to goose & gander?

It is not so much that, how do you split things that have been in place 300 odd years? And that is every little thing down to the smallest detail, you think Brexit was hard? wait for that one ! 

[melvinmelvin]

19 hours ago, sandyf said:

Do you really think that the GFA would have been signed if referendums were considered as "once in a lifetime" Bill

It is a turn of phrase, JC has just described the impending GE as "once in a lifetime".

Regional referendums come under different criteria to national referendums which are subject to PPERA. The UK is the only Union in the world that has referendums across member nations.

 

The UK is a Union within a Union, the UK did not have to ask the EU for permission to hold a referendum so why should Scotland have to ask Westminster?

 

dunno sandyf, my guess it that the Scots can have s many referendums as they like,

question is; what would the legal consequences of such?

 

if a ref. should show massive majority for leaving UK., fine,

the public image/marketing value of that would be HUGE

 

legal value? must be discussed with Westminster, in the morning, ie before Westminster gets <deleted> during lunch

[sandyf]

8 hours ago, stuandjulie said:

It is not so much that, how do you split things that have been in place 300 odd years? And that is every little thing down to the smallest detail, you think Brexit was hard? wait for that one ! 

That is a different argument to Westminster saying Scotland cannot determine its own future.

Nothing worthwhile in this life is ever easy.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

dunno sandyf, my guess it that the Scots can have s many referendums as they like,

The point in question, they can't do what they like.

[HauptmannUK]

I think a majority of English people would vote for an independent England. 

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

I think a majority of English people would vote for an independent England. 

I hope so - all the constituent countries in the UK have been badly served by Westminster for generations.

[Nigel Garvie]

9 hours ago, sandyf said:

  17 hours ago, stuandjulie said:

It is not so much that, how do you split things that have been in place 300 odd years? And that is every little thing down to the smallest detail, you think Brexit was hard? wait for that one ! 

 

9 hours ago, sandyf said:

That is a different argument to Westminster saying Scotland cannot determine its own future.

Nothing worthwhile in this life is ever easy.

Reminds me of the African country that moved from driving on the left to the RHS. The minister for transport was asked how they were going to manage it and he said "No problem, we are going to do it gradually"! This possibly explains the car crash nature of Brexit.

 

However many countries in a similar position to Scotland have separated. Obviously in this case it would be difficult, and it actually would have to be done slowly, which negates many of the project fear arguments we heard last time. 

[sandyf]

On 10/31/2019 at 4:47 PM, Nigel Garvie said:

However many countries in a similar position to Scotland have separated. 

The UK holds the Guinness record.

 

Before 1914, the UK exercised authority over one fifth of the world's entire population with the British Empire made up of 88 million subjects. In 1939, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand were the first to be given independence within the Commonwealth. Since then a total of 62 countries have gained independence from the United Kingdom. This is followed by France with 28, Spain with 17, The Soviet Union with 16, Portugal with 7 and the USA with 5.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-countries-to-have-gained-independence-from-the-same-country/

[CG1 Blue]

On 10/30/2019 at 2:19 AM, sandyf said:

I fail to understand the concern from those south of the border over Scotland's finances. If they become independent, they will sink or swim, up to them nobody else.

After all, the English voted to leave the EU without any regard for the consequences. What happened to goose & gander?

I assume you therefore understand why the UK (or England and Wales if you like) voted to leave the EU, despite the remain side predicting economic disaster if we left? 

I hear a lot of nationalist Scots who don't understand this, which is hypocritical in my opinion. 

[baansgr]

Are we still getting blue passports next year, I'm up for renewel in March?

[sandyf]

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I assume you therefore understand why the UK (or England and Wales if you like) voted to leave the EU, despite the remain side predicting economic disaster if we left? 

I hear a lot of nationalist Scots who don't understand this, which is hypocritical in my opinion. 

Of course I understand the various reasons why people voted the way they did, too many to go into. I used to do business with the EU when tariffs were in place and also understand how it would be a mistake to go back there.

As for independence, I was never in favour until Westminster displayed how little regard it has for the other nations during this brexit fiasco.

[FritsSikkink]

It is time that England let go of their colonial attitude and let the other countries rules themselves instead by an English dominated Westminster. They don't want to loose Scotland though as they subsidize their way of living. The Scottish debt is made up by England. Scotland pays way more into the UK then they get out of it. Scottish oil, whiskey and other Scottish products are counted as English as they leave from an English port. Biggest swindle ever.

[evadgib]

14 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

It is time that England let go of their colonial attitude and let the other countries rules themselves instead by an English dominated Westminster. They don't want to loose Scotland though as they subsidize their way of living. The Scottish debt is made up by England. Scotland pays way more into the UK then they get out of it. Scottish oil, whiskey and other Scottish products are counted as English as they leave from an English port. Biggest swindle ever.

- How many English serve in the devolved parliaments?

- Why are the English the only country in the whole of Europe (& perhaps RotW too) without their own Parliament, enabling the tail(s) to repeatedly wag the dog?

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, evadgib said:

- How many English serve in the devolved parliaments?

- Why are the English the only country in the whole of Europe (& perhaps RotW too) without their own Parliament, enabling the tail(s) to repeatedly wag the dog?

I am not sure about the Welsh National Assembly, but there are a few English born MSPs in Holyrood, but of course they represent Scottish constituencies.

 

I am not sure that the tail is wagging the dog in any way, shape or form - but I would accept that it is being an irritation to the dog, which I wholeheartedly support. More power to its... tailbone.

 

But as to your question, I think that is one you need to ask your fellow countrymen, as the ability to correct the situation lies solely within your own borders. 

[CG1 Blue]

5 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

It is time that England let go of their colonial attitude and let the other countries rules themselves instead by an English dominated Westminster. They don't want to loose Scotland though as they subsidize their way of living. The Scottish debt is made up by England. Scotland pays way more into the UK then they get out of it. Scottish oil, whiskey and other Scottish products are counted as English as they leave from an English port. Biggest swindle ever.

You seem to overlook the fact the fact that Westminster gave Scotland an in/out referendum in 2014, and Scotland voted to remain in the union. How is that a colonial attitude? 

 

As far as the economy is concerned, I don't think just talking about oil and whiskey really cuts it. Frankly I don't know how an independent Scotland will manage to bring their deficit down to a level that would allow them to join the EU. But I don't blame (the slight majority of) Scots for wanting independence. I'm a Brexiteer, so I understand the independence argument completely. 

 

 

Scotland’s notional deficit stood at £12.6bn or 7% of GDP, including North Sea oil revenues, compared with the UK’s total £23.5bn deficit, which includes Scotland’s figure. The UK deficit is equivalent to 1.1% of its GDP.

Total state spending in Scotland was £1,661 higher per person than the UK average at £75.3bn, while tax receipts were £307 less per head than the UK average, at £62.7bn. Excluding oil revenues, the deficit exceeded £14bn, equal to 22.5% of tax revenues.

Scotland’s fiscal gap had consistently been 7% higher than the UK’s over the last five years.

Scotland’s notional deficit was the highest in the EU. Cyprus had the next nearest, at 4.8%, while Romania’s was at 3% and France at 2.5%. EU membership rules require member states to have a budget deficit below 3%. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/21/scotland-2018-deficit-higher-than-uk-as-a-whole-last-year

 

 

[Odysseus123]

On 10/29/2019 at 9:40 PM, soalbundy said:

I don't blame them.

Yup,nothing worse than the English working class...

[RuamRudy]

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You seem to overlook the fact the fact that Westminster gave Scotland an in/out referendum in 2014, and Scotland voted to remain in the union. How is that a colonial attitude? 

 

As far as the economy is concerned, I don't think just talking about oil and whiskey really cuts it. Frankly I don't know how an independent Scotland will manage to bring their deficit down to a level that would allow them to join the EU. But I don't blame (the slight majority of) Scots for wanting independence. I'm a Brexiteer, so I understand the independence argument completely. 

 

 

Scotland’s notional deficit stood at £12.6bn or 7% of GDP, including North Sea oil revenues, compared with the UK’s total £23.5bn deficit, which includes Scotland’s figure. The UK deficit is equivalent to 1.1% of its GDP.

Total state spending in Scotland was £1,661 higher per person than the UK average at £75.3bn, while tax receipts were £307 less per head than the UK average, at £62.7bn. Excluding oil revenues, the deficit exceeded £14bn, equal to 22.5% of tax revenues.

Scotland’s fiscal gap had consistently been 7% higher than the UK’s over the last five years.

Scotland’s notional deficit was the highest in the EU. Cyprus had the next nearest, at 4.8%, while Romania’s was at 3% and France at 2.5%. EU membership rules require member states to have a budget deficit below 3%. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/21/scotland-2018-deficit-higher-than-uk-as-a-whole-last-year

 

 

The Guardian article raises a very curious question - does it really seem reasonable that a country with a population of about 6 million can rack up half the deficit of a country of 65 million people? Seriously? Do you really believe that? How do you think that other countries with similar populations manage to balance the books?

 

The reality goes something like this: directly attributable revenue from Scotland is around £58 billion, and this mostly all goes to Westminster (Scotland actually raises more than this, but the impenetrable financial accounting practices of Westminster makes it impossible to quantify - VAT and exports via non Scottish ports being the prime contributors). 

 

Of that £58 billion, Westminster decides how much to 'grant' the Scottish parliament. Currently it is around £30 billion. Westminster then spends on behalf of Scotland, on things that may or may not benefit Scotland, on things that Scots may or may not want. It decides how much Scotland owes based upon its allocation of that spend. So, according to the article you quoted, Westminster spends £40 billion on Scotland, meaning we account for a gross expenditure of $70 billion? I wish I could see evidence of that being true. 

 

But again, I repeat the question I have asked several times on this thread - if Scotland was such a burden on the UK finances, and clearly we will never assist the Tories to maintain power, why are successive governments so keen to keep us shackled to the UK? 

 

Maybe Professor McCrone had an inkling; certainly successive Westminster governments saw fit to keep his report on the Scottish economy secret for over 30 years.

 

"In an interview for Holyrood Magazine on 19 May 2013, ex-Labour chancellor Denis Healey (who served in the Cabinet at the time the McCrone Report was submitted) stated: "I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism... I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it." ^[10]

[CG1 Blue]

42 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

The Guardian article raises a very curious question - does it really seem reasonable that a country with a population of about 6 million can rack up half the deficit of a country of 65 million people? Seriously? Do you really believe that? How do you think that other countries with similar populations manage to balance the books?

 

The reality goes something like this: directly attributable revenue from Scotland is around £58 billion, and this mostly all goes to Westminster (Scotland actually raises more than this, but the impenetrable financial accounting practices of Westminster makes it impossible to quantify - VAT and exports via non Scottish ports being the prime contributors). 

 

Of that £58 billion, Westminster decides how much to 'grant' the Scottish parliament. Currently it is around £30 billion. Westminster then spends on behalf of Scotland, on things that may or may not benefit Scotland, on things that Scots may or may not want. It decides how much Scotland owes based upon its allocation of that spend. So, according to the article you quoted, Westminster spends £40 billion on Scotland, meaning we account for a gross expenditure of $70 billion? I wish I could see evidence of that being true. 

 

But again, I repeat the question I have asked several times on this thread - if Scotland was such a burden on the UK finances, and clearly we will never assist the Tories to maintain power, why are successive governments so keen to keep us shackled to the UK? 

 

Maybe Professor McCrone had an inkling; certainly successive Westminster governments saw fit to keep his report on the Scottish economy secret for over 30 years.

 

"In an interview for Holyrood Magazine on 19 May 2013, ex-Labour chancellor Denis Healey (who served in the Cabinet at the time the McCrone Report was submitted) stated: "I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of [Scottish] nationalism... I think they [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil, I think they are worried stiff about it." ^[10]

I agree economic data can be presented in different ways to suit agendas. It's impossible to know who we can trust to give us unbiased facts. 

I can also understand why you don't like Westminster taking money then spending it on stuff the Scots may or may not want (same argument as EU spending UK money). 

 

I love the union, but if the Scottish people want to go it alone they should be allowed to. I'd prefer indi ref 2 to be held in a few years time though, once Brexit is done and dusted and we can all see how a post-Brexit Britain shapes up. I think emotions are running too high at the moment. 

 

[evadgib]

Sturgeon has just called for a neverendum next year ????

[soalbundy]

On 10/29/2019 at 5:49 PM, stuandjulie said:

Cash cow, how? Last I heard Scotland gets a lot more back than they contribute.

True but there is also the problem of sophisticated naval bases (especially for the nuclear submarines) and fishing rights and oil rich areas in the North sea possibly in Scottish territorial waters and the queen wouldn't like losing her holiday home.

[melvinmelvin]

22 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

True but there is also the problem of sophisticated naval bases (especially for the nuclear submarines) and fishing rights and oil rich areas in the North sea possibly in Scottish territorial waters and the queen wouldn't like losing her holiday home.

 

I'd assume that the guys in London and surroundings can issue the Queen with a passport

so that she can travel outside the empire, ie Scotland

 

 

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

You seem to overlook the fact the fact that Westminster gave Scotland an in/out referendum in 2014, and Scotland voted to remain in the union. How is that a colonial attitude? 

In 2014 David Cameron pleaded with the Scots to remain in the UK telling them that they would have more say at the EU table, whilst secretly planning to stab them in the back with the referendum bill.

You are quite right, not colonial attitude just contempt for Scotland.

[Kwasaki]

On 8/5/2019 at 5:43 PM, snoop1130 said:

The United Kingdom as whole voted 52-48 to leave the EU in a 2016 referendum:

Excluding those who said they did not know or would not vote, this amounted to 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.

 

Now that look familiar. ????

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

In 2014 David Cameron pleaded with the Scots to remain in the UK telling them that they would have more say at the EU table, whilst secretly planning to stab them in the back with the referendum bill.

You are quite right, not colonial attitude just contempt for Scotland.

Cameron was correct until the 2016 result was in.

Re contempt; How are the English yet to be polled within the union on anything when everyone else (Welsh and NI as well as the Jocks) have each had 2 cracks of the independence whip?

Edited November 3, 2019 by evadgib

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

In 2014 David Cameron pleaded with the Scots to remain in the UK telling them that they would have more say at the EU table, whilst secretly planning to stab them in the back with the referendum bill.

You are quite right, not colonial attitude just contempt for Scotland.

In fact, some of the worthless platitudes used were, "Don't leave us, lead us." and "a union of equals." 

The only remarkable thing is that some Scots actually believed this garbage - and still refuse to accept the fact that our country is forced to follow the path decided by the country next door . 

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, soalbundy said:

On 10/29/2019 at 2:49 PM, stuandjulie said:

Cash cow, how? Last I heard Scotland gets a lot more back than they contribute.

True but there is also the problem of sophisticated naval bases (especially for the nuclear submarines) and fishing rights and oil rich areas in the North sea possibly in Scottish territorial waters and the queen wouldn't like losing her holiday home.

True in that Scotland spends more than it generates - as does England, Wales, NI and almost every country in the world. It is the size of the deficit that is debatable.

[CG1 Blue]

12 hours ago, sandyf said:

In 2014 David Cameron pleaded with the Scots to remain in the UK telling them that they would have more say at the EU table, whilst secretly planning to stab them in the back with the referendum bill.

You are quite right, not colonial attitude just contempt for Scotland.

I'm not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think you can say he was secretly planning an EU referendum back in 2014. It was the rising threat coming from UKIP in the 2015 election that forced his hand. Cameron desperately wanted the UK to remain in the EU, and still does. 

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 6:29 PM, CG1 Blue said:

You seem to overlook the fact the fact that Westminster gave Scotland an in/out referendum in 2014, and Scotland voted to remain in the union. How is that a colonial attitude? 

 

As far as the economy is concerned, I don't think just talking about oil and whiskey really cuts it. Frankly I don't know how an independent Scotland will manage to bring their deficit down to a level that would allow them to join the EU. But I don't blame (the slight majority of) Scots for wanting independence. I'm a Brexiteer, so I understand the independence argument completely. 

 

 

Scotland’s notional deficit stood at £12.6bn or 7% of GDP, including North Sea oil revenues, compared with the UK’s total £23.5bn deficit, which includes Scotland’s figure. The UK deficit is equivalent to 1.1% of its GDP.

Total state spending in Scotland was £1,661 higher per person than the UK average at £75.3bn, while tax receipts were £307 less per head than the UK average, at £62.7bn. Excluding oil revenues, the deficit exceeded £14bn, equal to 22.5% of tax revenues.

Scotland’s fiscal gap had consistently been 7% higher than the UK’s over the last five years.

Scotland’s notional deficit was the highest in the EU. Cyprus had the next nearest, at 4.8%, while Romania’s was at 3% and France at 2.5%. EU membership rules require member states to have a budget deficit below 3%. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/21/scotland-2018-deficit-higher-than-uk-as-a-whole-last-year

 

 

Financial story is English nonsense:

 

https://www.reservebank.scot/scotlands-economy

[CG1 Blue]

48 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Financial story is English nonsense:

 

https://www.reservebank.scot/scotlands-economy

That's just an opinion from the Scottish Reserve Bank. In that article they claim:

 

"An independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK," says The Financial Times

 

It wasn't the FT who said this, it was one of their columnists Mure Dickie, a pro independence Scot. 

 

This just shows as I said earlier, people will use data to suit their own agenda. Scotland may well thrive as an independent nation - who knows. But I suspect the Scots who want independence don't have the economy high on the list of reasons for wanting it. The same way that most Brexiteers are not frightened off by the dire economic predictions from Remainers. I suspect it's more about not wanting to take orders from outside parties, and about being in control of their own their own destiny. 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by CG1 Blue