Scotland must be given new independence vote - Sturgeon

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Simply not true. Blair's victories did not depend on Scottish Labour seats, they were surplus to requirements, even in 2005. I'm not absolutely sure about Harold Wilson, but remember in the 1950s Scotland returned a majority of Tory seats. They certainly say that Scottish votes have never affected the outcome of UK elections since WW2. Surprised that we feel disenfranchised?

Umh, not quite so. Labour (Blair's) majority in 2005 was 66, 41 of his MPs were from Scotland. If say 35 of those seats had been won by Tory, Lib-Dem, SNP or Monster Raving Loony, then he would not have had a majority., similarly Harold Wilson in 1964: majority of 4, 43 Labour MPs from Scotland, 1964: majority of 98, 43 seats from Scotland, and 1974: a minority government (-17) with 40 MPs from Scotland, and then after the second election a majority of 3 with 41 from Scotland. So I suggest that for all the Labour governments since the 1960s, with the exception of Blair's first two terms, the Labour seats in Scotland were essential to their majority. Bear in mind also that until the establishment of the Holyrood Parliament the Scottish constituencies were significantly smaller than the English and Welsh. 

 

I'm not seeking to claim that these Labour governments were imposed upon England against their will - they were UK governments elected in a UK General Election. But the same argument holds for the Conservative governments of recent years, they are UK governments elected across the UK.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, dabhand said:

'Simply not true'?

Interesting that you were 'uncertain' about Harold Wilson.  A simple wiki search would have clearly identified that Wilson would have lost in 1964 without the Labour seats in Scotland. This also applied in February 1974, although not quite an overall win for Labour in that election. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#1964

 

'They certainly say that Scottish votes have never affected the outcome of UK elections since WW" Now that is simply not true.

 

 

 

In 1964 I was still hiding behind the settee whenever William Hartnell turned up in a phone box! ????

[JAG]

31 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

The simple fact, as made clear by election maps and the Brexit map, is that Scottish and English voters diverge significantly on how they want their government to look. We are not talking about small pockets of discontent, but the entire political outlook is different. How can this be reconciled without significant constitutional change?

That presupposes that you consider Scotland to be a different political entity to the United Kingdom. At present it is not. The only constitutional change really would be complete independence, with all that it entails. As I have said before, that does not bother me as an Englishman, but do remember it was rejected by the Scottish electorate in 2014, in a referendum whose own proponents described as a "once in a lifetime event". The chief proponent, one Alex Salmond is still very much alive. even if he has somewhat fallen from grace!

[brokenbone]

agree entirely, the scotts need to decide for them self

if they want to be part of eu

[evadgib]

Ian Blackford was banging the ol' drum on Ridge a few mins ago & I note that a clip in which the Ginger Dwarf supported the 'once in a lifetime' narrative has surfaced elsewhere.

I don't yet know what the answer is but BJ will need to neuter SNP pretty quickly before they become a bigger distraction than they already are.

[melvinmelvin]

8 hours ago, englishoak said:

 

First id like to reiterate im very much in favour of Scotland leaving the UK and going its own way, as much as im for a united Ireland. 

 

Sturgeon claims it wants and will just immediatley join the EU

 

However in practice its not that simple, first off there is imo a great number of true blue Scots, by that I mean they want TRUE INDEPENDENCE not just swapping one ruler for another, but for now lets just leave those true Scots aside and deal with what i like to call the plastic ones who just want another boss to replace the old one. Enter the EU

 

There are some major roadblocks towards just hitching itself to the EU as a vassal  

Scotland would not be able to simply apply, there is a number of criteria that must be met to even apply. Not in the least a currency with a  trading record and certain value and defecit limit. 

 

At the moment, most people seem to think that an independent Scotland should either stay in a monetary union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland or introduce its own currency.

 

Very occasionally somebody suggests Scotland should adopt the euro 

It’s therefore perhaps worthwhile to examine briefly whether Scotland would actually be allowed to join. To introduce the euro, a country needs to fulfil the  convergence criteria:

 

Highlights are as follows

 

The inflation should be less than 2.5% (the exact figure varies from year to year — it’s based on the inflation figures of the EU member states). The figure for the UK is currently 2.6%, but there’s no reason to assume this would be the same for Scotland — it could be either higher or lower. I don’t think we can determine this at the moment; it’s possible Scotland will tick this box, but it’s quite likely it won’t.

 

The budget deficit should be less than 3% of GDP. In 2018 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. Assuming the UKs Oil went all to Scotlands control ( which it wouldnt anyway but lets assume is did ) it would require exceptionally high oil prices to push the deficit under 3%. This is in the current climate impossible so It’s probably safe to assume Scotland would need a few years to bring the deficit under control. 

 

The debt-to-GDP ratio should be under 60% or falling. The UK’s ratio is 90% and rising, so if Scotland inherits its populations share of the debt, this criterion will be very hard to fulfil. On the other hand, if the rest of the UK decide to keep all assets and liabilities, Scotland will have a ratio of 0%, so it’d pass this test with flying colours.

 

The country should have been a member of ERM-II (the exchange rate mechanism) for two years. This means that the country needs to have had its own currency for at least two years (using the Pound Sterling doesn’t count), and it needs to have been linked loosely to the euro. If we assume that an independent Scotland would continue to use the pound for at least five years after independence day before creating its own currency, the earliest this criterion can be fulfilled is 2026/7

 

To conclude, the main issues are likely to be the national debt (unless the UK decide to keep all of it in order to safeguard their permanent membership of the UN’s Security Council) and the need to have been a member of ERM-II for at least two years.

 

It seems unlikely Scotland would be able to introduce the euro before 2027, even if it became a political priority.

 

Of course, if Scotland decided not to introduce the euro, staying out of ERM-II is all it takes. This is what Sweden and many of the newer EU members are doing at the moment. But then it would still have to have its own currency and England would be most unlikely to allow the Pound Sterling to be used as a stepping stone just for the convenience of a nation leaving the UK and using it full time would be a no go. Plus The Bank of England would not accept or want that market exposure and problems it could potentially bring. in turn this would bring into question Scotland's autonomy without its own real currency.  

 

That the SNP are very popular is not in contest, that dosnt mean however independence is what the majority of Scots want, Sturgeon imo is not interested in Scottish independence, just realigning Scottish dependence to the EU instead of the UK.. the Trial of Alex Salmond starts in Jan .. 14 accusations of sexual misconduct... Sturgeon was his no 2 for years and it is very hard to see her not becoming seriously tarnished by the coming trial, I believe her days are going to become numbered going forwards...

 

Id very much like to see Scotland leaving the United Kingdom but honestly I just dont see it happening for mostly economic and practical reasons. I also believe most Scots arnt economically stupid and outside of true independence ( which is impractical ) will choose the UK over the EU every time they are asked. 

 

Time will tell. 

 

pretty good overview (some elements debatable though, but what isn't)

yes, time will tell, that is reasonably certain . . .

 

just wanted to add a bit re criteria to be met in order for Scotland, or any other country for that matter,

in order to apply/become a EU member state

 

there are, at least, 3 (relatively independent) sets of criteria that are relevant;

 

A

the very first step is that Scotland must be recognised as a sovereign state by the international community,

in the Treaty of treaties you will find a set of reasonably objective criteria relevant to this,

examples; borders being recognized and respected, some ability to defend her borders etc etc

 

B

having become a recognised sovereign state then there are criteria set by EU to be met,

eg being democratic, having control over this and that, the human rights package,

acceptable justice system etc etc

 

C

nowadays new EU member states cannot escape from or opt out of Euro,

a set of criteria related to state/national finances must be met in order to qualify for

taking part in the Europe "coop".

(not sure but I assume that not meeting the Euro criteria will not prevent membership

provided the prospective member works towards meeting the Euro criteria)

 

(now, while I have the floor,

 maybe I'm dumb but I cannot see independence for Scotland in the near future.

 Nico. Stur. can say what she like about BJ/Cons and mandate re taking this or that in/out of EU

 with Scotland in tow.

 but, I presume that there is a limit to the number of balls that BJ/Cons desire to play at the same time.

 when both Brexit and "deals" with EU are settled then maybe, just maybe, the Cons government might

 be open to discuss the matter.)

[RuamRudy]

Latest YouGov poll shows majority of Scots now back independence.

 

Some other highlights:

- 21% of those who voted Remain in 2016 but No in the independence referendum have now shifted over to Yes.

- Nicola Sturgeon is still the most trusted politician on the country’s future

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by RuamRudy

[RuamRudy]

And some more interesting statistics:

 

Should Scotland be an independent country?

 

Under 50s:

Yes - 66%

No - 34%

 

Under 65s:

Yes - 59%

No - 4%

 

Over 65s:

Yes - 25%

No - 75%

[melvinmelvin]

how reliable are polls from yougov?  good/bad/average?

 

this 66% for under 50s is quite interesting

 

makes me wonder, how many of those are EU freaks and how many are indep. freaks?

 

[RuamRudy]

46 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

how reliable are polls from yougov?  good/bad/average?

 

this 66% for under 50s is quite interesting

 

makes me wonder, how many of those are EU freaks and how many are indep. freaks?

 

There is a slightly confusing but eventually illuminating spaghetti chart on the yougov report showing allegiance changes over the past few years. I will post it in the morning. 

[RuamRudy]

Lots of upset in the indy camp today after NS's relatively uninspiring statement on the future plans for a referendum. Looks like her jacket may be on a shoogly nail with the rank and file SNP members. Joanna Cherry is getting a lot of attention at the moment. 

[Nigel Garvie]

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Lots of upset in the indy camp today after NS's relatively uninspiring statement on the future plans for a referendum. Looks like her jacket may be on a shoogly nail with the rank and file SNP members. Joanna Cherry is getting a lot of attention at the moment. 

My niece works in Holyrood as a personal advisor. She says that the "Hotheads" that are pushing Cherry are generally viewed to have jumped the gun, and - at least partially - blown it for the time being. Nicola has been in power for some time, she is canny and shrewd, that is what it takes to remain at the top. She is a realist, and knows that we still need to build support. If Corbyn hadn't been so utterly useless we might have had a hung parliament, and a referendum could have been bargained for. As it is he will probably be secretly celebrating tonight as the Brexit he has worked so hard for comes to pass.

 

Your stats are interesting, and relate to a question that Sean o' Grady discussed in an article about rejoining the EU in the future (Independent)*. Both show the bulk of Brexit support, and Unionist support in Scotland, coming from the over 65s. The 25s to 65s are more equal, and the under 25s overwhelmingly anti Brexit and pro independence. The argument that I read said that, although the logic is more younger voters and less older voters will change the picture, people tend to get more conservative as they grow older. This may not be the case, who expected c.60% of the English working class to vote Tory this time. A more important factor though is that the boomers are exactly that, part of a boom. As we/they leave for the hereafter, they will be replaced by a much smaller number of post boomers, who have drifted to the right over the years. I probably won't see it, but I do anticipate a drift back from the current twisted populism and Neo fascist politics that has spread it's foul influence on many countries in the world.

 

*. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-rejoin-future-uk-leave-countries-a9308081.html

[RuamRudy]

This is the spaghetti chart I mentioned last night (or is it termed something else?).

 

With the latest poll results, obviously there was a transfer of allegiances but, for me, it is interesting to see where those switches occur. One of the biggest surprises to me is how many who didn't vote last time round have switched to Yes. But in general, the No camp has made few inroads in persuading defectors. 

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by RuamRudy

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

My niece works in Holyrood as a personal advisor. She says that the "Hotheads" that are pushing Cherry are generally viewed to have jumped the gun, and - at least partially - blown it for the time being. Nicola has been in power for some time, she is canny and shrewd, that is what it takes to remain at the top. She is a realist, and knows that we still need to build support. If Corbyn hadn't been so utterly useless we might have had a hung parliament, and a referendum could have been bargained for. As it is he will probably be secretly celebrating tonight as the Brexit he has worked so hard for comes to pass.

 

Your stats are interesting, and relate to a question that Sean o' Grady discussed in an article about rejoining the EU in the future (Independent)*. Both show the bulk of Brexit support, and Unionist support in Scotland, coming from the over 65s. The 25s to 65s are more equal, and the under 25s overwhelmingly anti Brexit and pro independence. The argument that I read said that, although the logic is more younger voters and less older voters will change the picture, people tend to get more conservative as they grow older. This may not be the case, who expected c.60% of the English working class to vote Tory this time. A more important factor though is that the boomers are exactly that, part of a boom. As we/they leave for the hereafter, they will be replaced by a much smaller number of post boomers, who have drifted to the right over the years. I probably won't see it, but I do anticipate a drift back from the current twisted populism and Neo fascist politics that has spread it's foul influence on many countries in the world.

 

*. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-rejoin-future-uk-leave-countries-a9308081.html

One of the things that I think might damage Cherry is this whole Gender Recognition issue, which she seems to have gotten herself mired in. I don't even begin to understand the issue and, mistakenly it would seem, had assumed it was a storm in a teacup. I often wonder whether there are paid agitators in the party, just trying to stir up internal discontent. 

[RuamRudy]

Edited February 1, 2020 by RuamRudy

[baboon]

35 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

All the very best to you and your fellow Scots in your quest to get back in and away from the Tory shysters. Sincerely. 

[RuamRudy]

Another BritNat myth laid to rest:

 

Independent Scotland would get 'enthusiastic' welcome from EU, says Donald Tusk

 

"An independent Scotland would receive an "enthusiastic" reception if it sought to rejoin the EU and could enjoy a bespoke re-entry process, former EU President Donald Tusk has said."

[RuamRudy]

What a fantastic article in the Express - unfortunately it seems too early for the gammons to have filled the article's comments section with their bitter hate and BritNat outrage, but I am sure it won't be long till they spew their venom and bile across the site, and we can all laugh at them once again.

 

EU’s Tusk fans flames of UK division pushing EU membership for independent Scotland By CIARAN MCGRATH

 

"DONALD Tusk has taken a potshot at UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson with the incendiary claim that there is broad support in Brussels for an independent Scotland joining the bloc - adding that he "feels very Scottish" in the wake of Brexit."

 

 

 

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

What a fantastic article in the Express - unfortunately it seems too early for the gammons to have filled the article's comments section with their bitter hate and BritNat outrage, but I am sure it won't be long till they spew their venom and bile across the site, and we can all laugh at them once again.

 

EU’s Tusk fans flames of UK division pushing EU membership for independent Scotland By CIARAN MCGRATH

 

"DONALD Tusk has taken a potshot at UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson with the incendiary claim that there is broad support in Brussels for an independent Scotland joining the bloc - adding that he "feels very Scottish" in the wake of Brexit."

 

 

 

Did you read all of Donald Tusks wording, it wasn't all roses in the garden for the SNP. Even N Sturgeon has said she doesn't think it will be this year for indy2, what has happened to her confidence?

 

Boris Johnson set to launch £5m anti-independence ad blitz for Scotland

Game on.

 

 

[englishoak]

There wont be another Indyref... Blackford looks increasingly unconvincing in his begging and rhetoric, ill wager the Tories will have far better things to do than indulge Scotland over the next few years, probably throw a few billion in bones and as usual The Scots will take the coin and shut up for a while.  The light can stay on but theres no one at home.. 

 

Btw whens Dodgy touchy feely Alex Salmonds trail coming up ? 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, englishoak said:

There wont be another Indyref... Blackford looks increasingly unconvincing in his begging and rhetoric, ill wager the Tories will have far better things to do than indulge Scotland over the next few years, probably throw a few billion in bones and as usual The Scots will take the coin and shut up for a while.  The light can stay on but theres no one at home.. 

 

Btw whens Dodgy touchy feely Alex Salmonds trail coming up ? 

There are plenty of us agitating, and, let's be honest, our PM and the fetid, corrupt government he leads are a veritable feast for those of us helping the doubters to see that 300 years in the union has been 300 years too long.  

 

The game is well and truly up for the union with the under 65s, with almost 60% of those under that age supporting independence. How much longer does Johnson want to wait, because him, his detested Brexit an his continued arrogance against Scotland are hardly endearing him to the country. His only backers are dying off daily and they are not being replaced.

[englishoak]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

There are plenty of us agitating, and, let's be honest, our PM and the fetid, corrupt government he leads are a veritable feast for those of us helping the doubters to see that 300 years in the union has been 300 years too long.  

 

The game is well and truly up for the union with the under 65s, with almost 60% of those under that age supporting independence. How much longer does Johnson want to wait, because him, his detested Brexit an his continued arrogance against Scotland are hardly endearing him to the country. His only backers are dying off daily and they are not being replaced.

 

Your in an echo chamber that isnt a big one tbh at most maybe 2 million might belong to it. Scotland dosnt even have the population of London and lets be realistic there is nothing it can do without the go ahead from Westminster and thats not going to happen anytime soon, you can seeth and make claims and insults about the Tories all you like but Boris has  been returned with the biggest mandate and majority since 1979.  Clearly the overwhelming majority, approx x10 the number who voted for the SNP up there. England voters dictate the UKs direction not Scotland, always have, always will. The Scots were asked and chose to stay knowing that full well the UK is run by Englands voters and its silly to pretend otherwise. Your actually saying the Scottish people were just plain too dumb to make the choice you personally wanted when we both know they arnt and it was done as openly and fair as could be expected... theres no good argument for another apart from the screeching of the SNP, to most in England it looks just like remaoners sour grapes all over again. It wont wash in a post Brexit world mate, not at all.   England once again 100% runs this Island now, not the EU, not the reaminers, not N Ireland and certainly not Scotland.  

 

You know my feelings on England being free of you lot but its just not going to happen having had and blown your chance so recently. Boris has zero need or  reason to give another one now and its not even smart to do so, especially during the next few years .. The Gov isnt weak anymore mate its as strong as it could be and a strong gov isnt going to give a ref to a few million screeching Scots and risk the break up of the Union when the UK is off forging a new path and negotiating as the UK with other nations. Scotland will be kept on a leash as Westminster wishes, as it always has and there is nothing the SNP, you or any plastic Scottish government can do about it. Scotland is toothless and dependent on the coffers of England or another, the SNP knows it, you know it, I know it, the EU isnt going to get involved and dosnt want or need another mouth to feed, especially the state its in atm and the gaping hole in its finances our exit brings....  Scotland has zero but more debt to offer the EU..

 

As Scotland becomes worse and worse off by the incompetent management of the SNP the people there will begin to wake up and turn away... They dont deserve the mismanagement or the debt its run up and continues to and I dont think will put up with it for much longer. When the rest of the UK begins to leave it further and further behind the SNP will be forced to calm down and shut up for the money or lose support.  The rest of the UK  will forge new deals and partnerships with other countries and business that will be too nervous of going anywhere near Scotland while it shouts about borders with England  and leaving ... its damaging its own investment opportunities and prosperity by doing this and imo is stupid beyond belief for doing so but thats the SNP for you.... all mouth for what it wants and no thought for the people but benefits funded by England, more debt and less investment. England might throw it some scraps but only if the SNP do as its told and shuts up for a few terms.... I expect the catfish and blackadder will do what all before have done and thats take the English coin while muttering defiance. 

 

Union isnt going anywhere in at least his first term and if it goes well not the next, mores the pity.

 

Just enjoy life in LOS and forget about it for at least 5 years, probably more. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by englishoak

[Logosone]

We in the EU would love to welcome a great nation like Scotland.

 

The people of Scotland have shown time and time again that their genius can contribute only achievements of the highest order, how I love the works of Boswell and Burns. Adam Ferguson, William Cullen, James Hall, David Hume, Sir John Leslie, Adam Smith, Darwin, James Watt....forever will they light up the sky of knowledge like beacons in the night.

 

What a great head start you gave the British in industrialisation, only for the English to ruin it for you in the guise of Thatcher & Co.

 

Why stay with this de-industrialised nation of servants, indebted to the eyeballs? 

 

If and when you do manage to disengage yourselves from the putrid and choking English embrace, please know that all true Europeans will be honored to count you among our ranks. We shall welcome you with open arms.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Logosone

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, englishoak said:

 

Your in an echo chamber that isnt a big one tbh at most maybe 2 million might belong to it. Scotland dosnt even have the population of London and lets be realistic there is nothing it can do without the go ahead from Westminster and thats not going to happen anytime soon, you can seeth and make claims and insults about the Tories all you like but Boris has  been returned with the biggest mandate and majority since 1979.  Clearly the overwhelming majority, approx x10 the number who voted for the SNP up there. England voters dictate the UKs direction not Scotland, always have, always will. The Scots were asked and chose to stay knowing that full well the UK is run by Englands voters and its silly to pretend otherwise. Your actually saying the Scottish people were just plain too dumb to make the choice you personally wanted when we both know they arnt and it was done as openly and fair as could be expected... theres no good argument for another apart from the screeching of the SNP, to most in England it looks just like remaoners sour grapes all over again. It wont wash in a post Brexit world mate, not at all.   England once again 100% runs this show now not he EU not the reaminers, not N Ireland and certainly not Scotland.  

 

You know my feelings on England being free of you lot but its just not going to happen having had and blown your chance so recently. Boris has zero need or  reason to give another one now and its not even smart to do so, especially during the next few years .. The Gov isnt weak anymore mate its as strong as it could be and a strong gov isnt going to give a ref to a few million screeching Scots and risk the break up of the Union when the UK is off forging a new path and negotiating as the UK with other nations. Scotland as it always has will be kept on a leash as Westminster wishes, as it always has and there is nothing the SNP, you or any plastic Scottish government can do about it. Scotland is toothless and dependent on the coffers of England or another, the SNP knows it, you know it, I know it, the EU isnt going to get involved and dosnt want or need another mouth to feed, especially the state its in atm and the gaping hole in its finances our exit brings....  Scotland has zero but more debt to offer the EU..

 

As Scotland becomes worse and worse off by the incompetent management of the SNP the people there will begin to wake up and turn away... They dont deserve the mismanagement or the debt its run up and continues to and I dont think will put up with it for much longer as the rest of the UK begins to leave it further and further behind.  The rest of the UK  will forge new deals and partnerships with other countries and business that will be too nervous of going anywhere near Scotland while it shouts about borders with England  and leaving ... its damaging its own investment opportunities and prosperity by doing this and imo is stupid beyond belief for doing so but thats the SNP for you.... all mouth for what it wants and no thought for the people but benefits funded by England, more debt and less investment. England might throw it some scraps but only if the SNP do as its told and <deleted>s up fro a few terms.... I expect the catfish and blackadder will do what all before have done and thats be bought off. 

 

Union isnt going anywhere in at least his first term and if it goes well not the next

 

Just enjoy life in LOS and forget about it for at least 5 years, probably more. 

Much of what you wrote is true (although much is hogwash), especially with regards to who calls the shots. But with 60% of the economically contributing population of Scotland wanting separation, we simply need to continue to point out the democratic deficit and continue to grow in numbers. The most recent polls show overall majority support for independence - hopefully we will continue to move in that direction. 

 

As the polls show time and again, Scots are happy with the SNP's overall management of the country. 10 years in power and still at the top - your suggestion that the SNP is failing Scotland is not reflected by the voters, suggestion that either the voters are stupid or you have swallowed a line.

 

I have a question for you that I think I already asked you; god knows, I have asked plenty of people but never had a satisfactory answer. If Scotland is a net drain on the finances of the UK, why would the UK government continue, year after year, to support us? We have not elected a Tory majority since 1955 and only in 3 general elections since then has Scottish votes influenced the outcome at Westminster. Why then, keep a troublesome and cantankerous crowd in beer money when that money could be better spent on the people who will actually make a difference in who gets into No. 10?

[englishoak]

13 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

As the polls show time and again, Scots are happy with the SNP's overall management of the country. 10 years in power and still at the top - your suggestion that the SNP is failing Scotland is not reflected by the voters, suggestion that either the voters are stupid or you have swallowed a line.

 

I have a question for you that I think I already asked you; god knows, I have asked plenty of people but never had a satisfactory answer. If Scotland is a net drain on the finances of the UK, why would the UK government continue, year after year, to support us? We have not elected a Tory majority since 1955 and only in 3 general elections since then has Scottish votes influenced the outcome at Westminster. Why then, keep a troublesome and cantankerous crowd in beer money when that money could be better spent on the people who will actually make a difference in who gets into No. 10?

10 years is about the limit for any party to peak and I suggest thats where the SNP is now, id also suggest its entirely possible it will begin to turn blue or red or even Orange rather than going more yellow since thats pretty much where things are now, logic and other examples would say there is only one direction from the top and thats down.  I am of the opinion that voters arnt so much stupid as hard to catch on, look at the north of England and Labour, or if you prefer Labour in Scotland, eventually people catch on when things stagnate for too long and then they want change. That is what the SNP promised which decimated labour  but the longer it takes and less visible improvement the less the excuses have impact.  The Tories lack someone in Scotland to follow since Ruth bailed, but until she did cracks were I think showing. a tinge of blue and probably could again, especially if Brexit becomes a success.. I dont think time is on the side of the SNP anymore as you do, there is a limit to any party support in a democracy and im pretty sure the SNP is there already.  Remember im keen to see the back of you so my observations are not what id like either but thats what i see and think. 

 

You asked a great question and you  have never put it to me before so forgive me if its long in answering but bare with me and ill try from a serious and macro national perspective

 

So lets have a go at your question. Scotland and its finances, ive wrestled with this over many years with various people and read many data articles etc etc from both sides of the border, im sure you have too. I concluded a long time ago yes,  its definitely a net drain  the other parts of the UK. Wales and N Ireland are also drains on England as are most of England too on London and the south.  The map below is old but its the only one i could find which is easy at a glance and its by Oxford economics so at least its of worthy note and can take it reasonably seriously. 

 

 

This is 10 years or so old but the drain and debt compounds and matches roughly the deficits of Scotland et al pretty well today....Im not going to argue the finer points of is it correct or not but overall most economists and Nation accountants and markets tend to agree with it , lets assume for the moment its accurate enough....  you asked  so why continue to support Scotland ?  Well its not personal for starters, nor is it petty and simply to rule over Scots for the heck of it nor for just the oil or haggis and salmon. As cannon fodder and manpower in wars and empire all poor regions have been very useful but thats not today, so why in modern times,  post empire and costly standing armies does England ( namely the south alone ) continue to bankroll the rest of the United Kingdom ???

 

 id say its a number of reasons and factors which are the same for all the other regions and is typical to most nations with multiple regions under management.. The world dosnt have any nation that all regions equally put in and take out.. case in point would be California which if an independent nation would be in the top 10 countries, in GDP terms its roughly equal to France all on its own. No way would the USA ever let that go. and understandably but equally many other states are a indeed a drain on its finances... yet the USA is a Union and it had a war to unify... We did the same many hundreds of years ago with Scotland, we know the results. Winners of territory are usually where possible, keepers.

 

I would say it is also tradition and habit plus it makes no sense to allow another separate country  and borders to exist on the same island if you can avoid it, We know the problems in Ireland and security would be hugely costly and all manner of other complications besides, its just not practical when viewed from a macro and national level. We tend to see things on a micro level when its personal. i would point you to Catalonia as one example.  Catalonia's debt in 2012 was the highest of all Spain's autonomous 38% of the total debt of the 17 autonomous communities in fact, yet Spain will NOT let it go despite the drain and  its location being easy to annex.. nations simply do not give up their territories willingly. Crimea would be a perfect example of what it takes. 

 

There is also the Royal connection, I think we often underestimate the historical importance of that connection with Scotland and am 100% there is no wish there to see it go. It still carry's great weight in Englands decision making and psyche not to mention the United Kingdom as an entity. 

 

Much like a company with a few hugely profitable sites they often have many branches running a deficit because it adds volume and turnover to the brand and thereby allows much higher borrowing at much better rates. Im sure this is also a factor given our national debt to markets overall has always been high and it acts a little bit like a guarantor the UK will at some point pay up as it gathers taxes from all corners and with accounting details i do not claim to understand uses it as leverage on further loans and payments, it should be easy to understand but with QE  made up numbers on a balance sheet, projected forecasts, bonds etc its harder for me to grasp these days. I wonder if anyone really understands things anymore,  is it all just a game of solid predictable accounting or really accounting BS and confidence ? i suspect its more the latter two these days. A grand ponzi scheme and confidence trick its often called. i tend to agree with that..

 

In summery imo its how most nations roll, useful in turnover, global accounting, loans, security, tradition, historic connection and good old fashioned habit with maybe a little bit of holding onto empire thrown in for good measure. 

 

Re reading I think on an impersonal macro level i just made a good case for a continued United Kingdom.  ....... i just happen to wish for selfish and nationalistic reasons much like yourself to see its end and believe England, would in the long run be far better off alone and clearly much richer but I also understand that is highly unlikely and on a macro National level its probably better for the rest of the UK if it remains a Union. Imo it is far more likely that Ireland will be let go and reunited before Scotland gets away and for both you and I that is no doubt a most painful thought. ???? 

 

Hope i didnt bore you too much but you asked and i think i had a pretty good stab at the Question... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by englishoak

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, englishoak said:

10 years is about the limit for any party to peak and I suggest thats where the SNP is now, id also suggest its entirely possible it will begin to turn blue or red or even Orange rather than going more yellow since thats pretty much where things are now, logic and other examples would say there is only one direction from the top and thats down.  I am of the opinion that voters arnt so much stupid as hard to catch on, look at the north of England and Labour, or if you prefer Labour in Scotland, eventually people catch on when things stagnate for too long and then they want change. That is what the SNP promised which decimated labour  but the longer it takes and less visible improvement the less the excuses have impact.  The Tories lack someone in Scotland to follow since Ruth bailed, but until she did cracks were I think showing. a tinge of blue and probably could again, especially if Brexit becomes a success.. I dont think time is on the side of the SNP anymore as you do, there is a limit to any party support in a democracy and im pretty sure the SNP is there already.  Remember im keen to see the back of you so my observations are not what id like either but thats what i see and think. 

 

You asked a great question and you  have never put it to me before so forgive me if its long in answering but bare with me and ill try from a serious and macro national perspective

 

So lets have a go at your question. Scotland and its finances, ive wrestled with this over many years with various people and read many data articles etc etc from both sides of the border, im sure you have too. I concluded a long time ago yes,  its definitely a net drain  the other parts of the UK. Wales and N Ireland are also drains on England as are most of England too on London and the south.  The map below is old but its the only one i could find which is easy at a glance and its by Oxford economics so at least its of worthy note and can take it reasonably seriously. 

 

 

This is 10 years or so old but the drain and debt compounds and matches roughly the deficits of Scotland et al pretty well today....Im not going to argue the finer points of is it correct or not but overall most economists and Nation accountants and markets tend to agree with it , lets assume for the moment its accurate enough....  you asked  so why continue to support Scotland ?  Well its not personal for starters, nor is it petty and simply to rule over Scots for the heck of it nor for just the oil or haggis and salmon. As cannon fodder and manpower in wars and empire all poor regions have been very useful but thats not today, so why in modern times,  post empire and costly standing armies does England ( namely the south alone ) continue to bankroll the rest of the United Kingdom ???

 

 id say its a number of reasons and factors which are the same for all the other regions and is typical to most nations with multiple regions under management.. The world dosnt have any nation that all regions equally put in and take out.. case in point would be California which if an independent nation would be in the top 10 countries, in GDP terms its roughly equal to France all on its own. No way would the USA ever let that go. and understandably but equally many other states are a indeed a drain on its finances... yet the USA is a Union and it had a war to unify... We did the same many hundreds of years ago with Scotland, we know the results. Winners of territory are usually where possible, keepers.

 

I would say it is also tradition and habit plus it makes no sense to allow another separate country  and borders to exist on the same island if you can avoid it, We know the problems in Ireland and security would be hugely costly and all manner of other complications besides, its just not practical when viewed from a macro and national level. We tend to see things on a micro level when its personal. i would point you to Catalonia as one example.  Catalonia's debt in 2012 was the highest of all Spain's autonomous 38% of the total debt of the 17 autonomous communities in fact, yet Spain will NOT let it go despite the drain and  its location being easy to annex.. nations simply do not give up their territories willingly. Crimea would be a perfect example of what it takes. 

 

There is also the Royal connection, I think we often underestimate the historical importance of that connection with Scotland and am 100% there is no wish there to see it go. It still carry's great weight in Englands decision making and psyche not to mention the United Kingdom as an entity. 

 

Much like a company with a few hugely profitable sites they often have many branches running a deficit because it adds volume and turnover to the brand and thereby allows much higher borrowing at much better rates. Im sure this is also a factor given our national debt to markets overall has always been high and it acts a little bit like a guarantor the UK will at some point pay up as it gathers taxes from all corners and with accounting details i do not claim to understand uses it as leverage on further loans and payments, it should be easy to understand but with QE  made up numbers on a balance sheet, projected forecasts, bonds etc its harder for me to grasp these days. I wonder if anyone really understands things anymore,  is it all just a game of solid predictable accounting or really accounting BS and confidence ? i suspect its more the latter two these days. A grand ponzi scheme and confidence trick its often called. i tend to agree with that..

 

In summery imo its how most nations roll, useful in turnover, global accounting, loans, security, tradition, historic connection and good old fashioned habit with maybe a little bit of holding onto empire thrown in for good measure. 

 

Re reading I think on an impersonal macro level i just made a good case for a continued United Kingdom.  ....... i just happen to wish for selfish and nationalistic reasons much like yourself to see its end and believe England, would in the long run be far better off alone and clearly much richer but I also understand that is highly unlikely and on a macro National level its probably better for the rest of the UK if it remains a Union. Imo it is far more likely that Ireland will be let go and reunited before Scotland gets away and for both you and I that is no doubt a most painful thought. ???? 

 

Hope i didnt bore you too much but you asked and i think i had a pretty good stab at the Question... 

Thank you for a very interesting read; I genuinely appreciate the time and effort you put into that.

 

I think that there is a lot of deliberate obfuscation on much of the nation's finances, but the reality is that all areas of the UK run at a deficit with the exception of the SE. Whether that is inevitable or the result of a failed (or deliberate?) economic policy, I cannot say. I must say, though, that the near balance in the SW surprises me, given how frequently we read of significant poverty levels in that part of the UK - maybe a result of under-funding rather than impressive productivity?

 

If I were to summarise your post (or, at least, my take on your post) in a couple of lines, I think our views are similar - the desire for cohesion is more to do with an innate belief in a whole which, somehow, has become unassailable to some. At a base level, the same ideology can be seen in some Rangers supporters, who are so staunch in their support for their team that this becomes a principle by which they live their lives, particularly influencing their politics.  

 

Maybe the apparent failure of successive governments over the lifetime of the union to create a unified sense of Britishness is a particular fault here. I appreciate that people in the north of England may feel equally as remote from Westminster as those from the north of Scotland, but they are still English at heart. Scots, similarly, have, in the main, never dropped the Scottishness above Britishness.

 

Of course, that in itself is hardly a rational justification for separation - a drive for independence based on romantic hubris is no better than a similarly romantic desire to maintain the cohesion of the islands. But combine the former with a sense of unfairness, whether that be in resource allocation or decision making, and then you have a viable move to something better. 

 

And that is the key thing here - what is being mooted as the package of an independent Scotland is not simply a change of decision making from London to Edinburgh, but a fundamental change in how those decisions are made and who has influence over them. I could not support  an independence movement that merely aspired to copy Westminster's institutions and enact them in our own capital - I want that the manifest failings of the UK political system are dispensed of entirely. We have seen that there is no desire whatsoever among either the Tories or Labour to amend the culture from which they have benefited for so long. Scottish voters have been proven to be ineffective in influencing change at a UK level. So, if you cannot change from within, better to walk away and create something better on your own.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

Last week Yougov put support for independence at 51%; today Panelbase puts it at 52%.

The tide certainly seems to be turning; although while there would be something deliciously ironic about a 52/48 win for independence, I want to see the gap continue to increase. I have no doubt that Johnson will continue to do his best to facilitate that. 

 

Poll: Support for Scottish independence jumps to 52%

 

THE future of the UK may be on a knife edge as a new poll places support for Scottish independence at 52% - its highest for over three-and-a-half years.

The Panelbase poll puts Yes support at 52% - up five percentage points from a previous study.

[Brigand]

Scotland can go it's own way but the numbers just don't add up and the SNP's record on most stuff is feeble really, so there is likely going to be a long period of being in the wilderness whilst it conforms to the requirements of the EU (which will be painful out on it's own). Just the other day, even the annoying Tusky said that there was "empathy" for Scotland joining but it wouldn't be automatic as basically it doesn't qualify with an above 7% deficit and a bunch of other unhelpful stats. I think a lot of this rancor from Krankie is clever misdirection to cover for the SNP's awful record on many things. The SNP would be better off learning how to run Scotland properly first as if they leave the UK then they can expect short-shift from Westminster on pretty much everything.

Even if there is a "Transition period" then Scotland won't have their independence as they won't control the currency/financial policy and other stuff and then slide into being controlled by Brussels if the EU is willing to accept another country that will be a beneficiary rather than one that contributes money wise (which is not a given). The SNP should see where this is going after Brexit as no-one truly knows how it will pan-out and decide when they are more informed of what the results will be. As an aside, I'm not sure if Brussels is too keen on making it easy for break-away areas of larger countries to simply go their own way and rejoin the EU just like that as it doesn't bode well for some of their own larger members like Spain or France, plus some others, as fragmentation of the larger countries can hardly be in the interests of the EU in general ... bad example to set and will just set in motion further trouble for the future as many will think "Scotland did it so why can't we?" It will be nowhere near as easy as Sturgeon thinks and Brussels will have Scotland over the barrel and can ask for absolutely anything as what choice would Scotland have then otherwise? The Shrewd move for the SNP would be to see how Brexit pans out and then make a move if you must as you are only going to get possibly one more shot at it eventually (whenever that is and won't be soon).

 

At the moment, she sounds like this ........

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Scott
spelling of name

[RuamRudy]

45 minutes ago, Brigand said:

Scotland can go it's own way but the numbers just don't add up and the SNP's record on most stuff is feeble really, so there is likely going to be a long period of being in the wilderness whilst it conforms to the requirements of the EU (which will be painful out on it's own). Just the other day, even the annoying Tusky said that there was "empathy" for Scotland joining but it wouldn't be automatic as basically it doesn't qualify with an above 7% deficit and a bunch of other unhelpful stats. I think a lot of this rancor from Krankie is clever misdirection to cover for the SNP's awful record on many things. The SNP would be better off learning how to run Scotland properly first as if they leave the UK then they can expect short-shift from Westminster on pretty much everything.

Even if there is a "Transition period" then Scotland won't have their independence as they won't control the currency/financial policy and other stuff and then slide into being controlled by Brussels if the EU is willing to accept another country that will be a beneficiary rather than one that contributes money wise (which is not a given). The SNP should see where this is going after Brexit as no-one truly knows how it will pan-out and decide when they are more informed of what the results will be. As an aside, I'm not sure if Brussels is too keen on making it easy for break-away areas of larger countries to simply go their own way and rejoin the EU just like that as it doesn't bode well for some of their own larger members like Spain or France, plus some others, as fragmentation of the larger countries can hardly be in the interests of the EU in general ... bad example to set and will just set in motion further trouble for the future as many will think "Scotland did it so why can't we?" It will be nowhere near as easy as Krankie thinks and Brussels will have Scotland over the barrel and can ask for absolutely anything as what choice would Scotland have then otherwise? The Shrewd move for the SNP would be to see how Brexit pans out and then make a move if you must as you are only going to get possibly one more shot at it eventually (whenever that is and won't be soon).

 

At the moment, she sounds like this ........

 

Can you go into a bit more detail about why you think, economically, independence is not a viable option? Please don't just parrot the tired old lines but add some actual insight. 

 

Similarly, dont be like every other poster who bores us repeatedly by saying that the SNP is making a mess of Scotland without being able to expand on that in any meaningful way. Please, be different from the rest, and show some insight. 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

A little high level, but it shows just how much spending is our of our control.