seosamh,
Oh come on;
Can you genuinely not see the relationship between brexitters saying “They need us more than we need them”, and you saying "Is rUK just going to give up on the £60bn on exports they send up here?"
Really? :O)
Is that because we will be in such a strong position in the negotiations that the rUK will roll over and give us what we want?
Is it because worldwide trade restrictions and rules [wether we are in the EU or out of it] will bend to our very will?
Also, Do you have no comment on whether brexit would have got off the ground if EU supported UK to the tune of 140Bn out of 772Bn spending a year in free money?
I mean you DO claim that scexit will get off the ground with the UK supporting scotland to the tune of 14Bn out of 77Bn spending a year (ish?) in free money?
What a great thread for a Friday.
Some thoughts. You can break down Brexit however you want to make your argument stick. 38% of people in Scotland voted to leave. London vote to remaim. It's not that simple and it not an England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland argument.
If Scotland were to break away from the UK they would have to stand along for a period of time before applying to join the EU. This would include meeting the economic criteria which is not certain they would. They would also have to establish their own independent currency. You cannot be linked to another (like the pound, dollar, Euro).
And let's not even talk about the exit negotiation. If you think Brexit has been complicated Scotland leaving would be much worse.
I think we all benefit from being together. I am British and only English when we play rugby. I even found myself at Twickenham chanting for Scotland when they sadly lost their final match of the 2015 rugby world cup. So I hope we all contunue to stick together through thick and thin.
Merry Christmas.
they would also have to establish their own independent currency. You cannot be linked to another (like the pound, dollar, Euro).
Aha, a man who knows. Perfect. Can you point us to the bit of the EU rules where that is made clear? We've been struggling to find it. TIA.
eat_the_pudding
Member
seosamh
Did you just say “They need us more than we need them” ..
Ah yeah, it's that thing when your argument is based entirely on just pretending the other guy said something he didn't.
Welcome scotroutes,
I see you're here to point out uncertainty (on the exact rules and future interpretation of EU policies on currency which may be unfavourable to your point of view),
But reluctant to deal with facts, on the deficit, the rate of growth required to avoid austerity in a future indy scotland, where the cuts would fall if required, and how long it would be before we could meet criteria to rejoin the EU?
Good job!
I'm probably away from this thread for the holidays unless I get bored.
Happy Solstice (and associated celebrations) everyone :O)
Do some of what makes you happy with the people who make you happy.
[coke/hookers]
Another few questions.
How much revenue did the UK get from oil over the last few years? (My understanding is there's no separation of the sources shown in govt figures)
Is any of that allocated to Scottish waters?
If you were running an independent Scotland would you stick to the current UK system of taxing it, or adopt the methods used by other countries? Possibly Norway, or a Middle East model.
seosamh,
You said;
Is rUK just going to give up on the £60bn on exports they send up here?
If you replace rUK with EU and you can't see that that sentence is similar to arguments made by brexiters, then I can't help you.
I realise you don't see yourself as a brexiter and I certainly don't see you as one, but you've just used a very similar argument (and one you could and would easily debunk yourself in an EU thread).
Have a Happy midwinter :O)
neilv
If Scotland were to break away from the UK they would have to stand along for a period of time before applying to join the EU.
Your source for that?
I mean you DO claim that scexit will get off the ground with the UK supporting scotland to the tune of 14Bn out of 77Bn spending a year (ish?) in free money?
You've read the growth commision, you base a lot of your arguments on it, so why are you still claiming that it can't get off the ground.
The suggested deficit reduction could take 5 to 10 years.
[img] 
[/img]
As for growth.
[img] 
[/img]
Once again, R&D example, but the UK and scotland are piss poor.. Still Better together eh, defo working. Scotland can't possibly be doing better than this..
One might call the attitude of Scotland can't possibly do better than us, British exceptionalism.. eh.. 😆
Anyhow, brexit just got done a minute ago, so I guess UK attitude to trade will be a known position long before any ref.
Anyhoo, have a good yin!
A key unknown is "How awkward is Westminster going to be over the financial divorce?
Share the assets, share the debt, co operate and a smooth pass thru a transition period where Scotland uses the pound.
Then the euro which would be IMO the only sensible choice long term
Or
Westminster has a tantrum, declares the bank of England belongs to it, Scotland takes none of the debt, Gets none of the assets. Euro immediately or Scottish pound backed by oil with no debt
The other is what party is in power in a post independence Scotland? These are decisions for a post independence Government to make. I could see Scotlands parties of the left make a resurgence perhaps with the left of the SNP
seosamh .. OK
I'm going after this one ...
oil revenue is in the graph I put on the previous page. I think those graphs from ("kevverages" blog) show all the oil revenue added to the scottish "non oil" revenue to show if the oil would get rid of the deficit. In the 80s oh yes, now, definitely not.
Overall black bit went to the UK, red bit came up to scotland, roughly equal areas (red beating black more as we go into the future).
Your comment about recovering from deficit. Two answers
a) thats the future so epi-nomics says we can't possibly know.
b) thats the bit of the report that a lot of people have issues with. The rate of growth required is not impossible but very unlikely. It's a trip back to the "celtic tiger" predictions, and failure to launch could have serious consequences for the finances of scotland, and more importantly its people.
That report has a lot of facts in it (for an SNP economic report meant to feed indy), but where exaggeration was possible, and benficial, it was used.
e.g. Nicola is fond of saying (repeatedly) that the economic guidance in there would have meant that scotland needed no austerity over the last X years. But it doesn't. It suggests pinning spending to growth (as I recall) and that would have required austerity. But she'll never ever say that.
Definitely off now.
Can I just say (because its christmas) that although we all get a bit heated now and again, that the tone and discussion here could teach other social media a lot.
Have a good one everyone.
why does Westminster want to keep Scotland if we cost so much money?
neilv
Subscriber
If Scotland were to break away from the UK they would have to stand along for a period of time before applying to join the EU.
Why do you think that?
neilv
This would include meeting the economic criteria which is not certain they would.
There isn't any real doubt. The economic criteria for joining the EU are pretty undemanding, it's the criteria for joining the euro which are trickier but these two things were kept intentionally separate.
In fact it's the rule-of-law and rights criteria which have caused almost all of the challenges for new and prospective members, and we start out aligned on that and are incredibly unlikely to want to diverge.
neilv
They would also have to establish their own independent currency. You cannot be linked to another (like the pound, dollar, Euro).
We've covered this at some length already but no, there is nothing in any of the EU rules or treaties that requires a new member country to have its own currency. It would be a difficulty if joining the euro but these are not the same. Using the pound certainly could become a specific issue, if the RUK decided to diverge massively from the EU or suffered a massive ecomomic collapse but tbf in those cases using the pound at all would be a terrible idea.
None of this stuff is mysterious- the rules for joining the EU are laid out, boringly and exhaustively, in treaties, and we can also see how they've worked in practice with all of the previous enlargements.
@poah - this is what I keep asking myself as an Englishman. Give the Scots their ref. If they want to stay, great, but then leave the independence stuff for a long time this time rather than demanding it again 5 years later (I accept with Brexit they should get another go as circumstances have changed since 2014). If they want to go l, also fine, it's their democratic right. I think it would be a shame, but there would be a silver lining as English taxpayers would almost certainly save a bit of money.
Only way to end the debate, have the indyref2!
Good Lordy! 109 pages.... have you lot not left yet? C’mon, spit spot. 😉
Tom Zesty Scotland does have a right to choose.
as English taxpayers would almost certainly save a bit of money.
Go on then, tell us how?
Don’t know why you guys are arguing about this. It’s a simple democratic right of a country to vote on its own future. If the Scottish parliament votes to have a referendum (which it did) then it should have the power to go ahead with that referendum.
It’s a joke that the Westminster government with 6 MPs in Scotland is saying no. Should be exactly the same for Wales and Northern Ireland being able to decide their own future.
If you are arguing against that is it because you reckon they are colonies and Westminster should make the big decisions? Perhaps then we should ditch the pretence of a union and call it what it is a little empire.
What do you think of this?
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49249276048_8eb9f22e95_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49249276048_8eb9f22e95_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Don’t know why you guys are arguing about this. It’s a simple democratic right of a country to vote on its own future.
Totally agree. And in the election last week around 55% of Scottish voters voted for parties opposed to a second referendum.
Therefore all Westminster is doing is respecting the wishes of the majority of Scots rather than giving in to a (admittedly very vocal) minority.
In the same way that Boris has no actual mandate for Brexit. Two examples of our absurd first past the post voting system.
I think it's exceptionalist rubbish, Scotland more social, more internationalist etc
It's reheating the "get the rUK wound up so they want to get rid of us " strategy
Anyway how long is a generation? Just trying to judge how long we are going to be debating for.
Second thoughts when does Alec go on trial, it would explain the SNP haste to get momentum in to the campaign before the dirty washing gets aired
Anyway how long is a generation?
It was once in a generation, unless there was a material change in circumstance, folk seem to conveniently forget this bit.
I'd say that taking us out of the EU fulfils that change in circumstance.
Should be exactly the same for Wales and Northern Ireland being able to decide their own future.
But not Northern England?
Last I checked northern England isn't a country.
That, and lots of it is a Tory heartland...
big_n_daft
...Second thoughts when does Alec go on trial, it would explain the SNP haste to get momentum in to the campaign before the dirty washing gets aired
Can you explain why that should change our views on independence?
Once in a generation? When does a casual remark become law?
Can you find it in the actual agreement?
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47737132162_43c29cfb87_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47737132162_43c29cfb87_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
And it's not in the Smith Commission either...
kennyp
Totally agree. And in the election last week around 55% of Scottish voters voted for parties opposed to a second referendum.
I already showed you the manifestos proving that to be bull.
molgrips
But not Northern England?
If the north of england was sitting 50:50 for it's own state, we'd know all about it.
They, like wales, can speak for themselves.
You will have to post the bit where a material change is mentioned as a reason for yet another referendum
Can you explain why that should change our views on independence?
Depends on how many of the leading lights of the SNP are left in a year. Regardless of guilt it's going to be messy
The Conservative and Liberal manifestos said they were opposed to a second referendum. The Labour manifesto said they were opposed to one definitely in the first few years and not certain after that.
The majority of Scots voters opted for one of those parties. Therefore respecting the wishes of the Scottish people (as the SNP are very fond of saying) means respecting their desire not to have another decisive referendum.
big_n_daft
Member
You will have to post the bit where a material change is mentioned as a reason for yet another referendum
Do you have anything other than sound bytes to offer? Could be forgiven for thinking you're just out to get a rise...
kennyp
Subscriber
The Conservative and Liberal manifestos said they were opposed to a second referendum. The Labour manifesto said they were opposed to one definitely in the first few years and not certain after that.
So not a majority for absolute no then...
What you actually had was 46% yes to ref, 35.1% no. 18.6% sitting on the fence, but not for a couple of years.
Somewhat different to what you portray.
No but a majority for no referendum for at least the next few years. If the next Scottish election sees a change then fair enough but for now the voters do not want one.
Not gonny get one for a few years anyhow.
Indeed and I’m biking in the morning so off to bed. Have a happy Christmas whatever your views.
Aye aw the best. I'm done for now I think anyhow. 😆
@gordimhor - I literally said they have the democratic right to choose? I'm in favour of the ref.
@seosamh77 - as I understand it, and I may be wrong, Westminster sends more money to Scotland than Scotland pays back in taxes (much like most other areas of Britain other than SE). Therefore, if Scotland were independent Westminster would have more net money.
Peace on earth and goodwill to all men... Nah that'll never catch on
@seosamh77 – as I understand it, and I may be wrong, Westminster sends more money to Scotland than Scotland pays back in taxes (much like most other areas of Britain other than SE). Therefore, if Scotland were independent Westminster would have more net money.
I guess you've not read a thing I've been posting. 😆
Headline - It's all fired on the credit card..
ps there's only 3 area of the uk that don't run a deficit.
London, South East, and East of England.
But they get subsidised in other ways, ie 75% of private investment goes to their way. Which is government policy.
So it's a bit off to say they subsidise the rest of the uk when the system is rigged so they get the vast majority the private investment (considerably more than a population share.)..
@tom Zesty. Yes I understood that and considered not posting, however its the language used. If a person or group have a right, that right cannot be "given" or taken away by others..
Anyway peace and goodwill to all.
big_n_daft
Member
I think it’s exceptionalist rubbish, Scotland more social, more internationalist etc
Aye, there's no evidence for that at all, I mean it's not like we voted against brexit while every other part of the UK voted for, or anything, or voted once again for a left of centre party while everyone else votes for another Tory government which we haven't voted for here since 1959.
TBH I'm not convinced you even know what exceptionalist means. Which is weird, because it really does mean exactly what it sounds like- thinking that you are exceptional. And frankly most of the independence movement is about saying actually, we're not at all exceptional, we just want the same perfectly normal things loads of other countries have.
We're not the ones talking about being "unshackled from the EU" "unleashing our potential". Or thinking there's something wrong with only being the 5th biggest economy in the world. Or for that matter, thinking that there's something exceptionally bad about us that means we can't compete with other similar economies and that we have to slash corporation taxes to attract investment. Or that we can't run our own trains, but the Dutch, French, German and Italian governments should do it for us.
Or that we can’t run our own trains, but the Dutch, French, German and Italian governments should do it for us.
Turns out they’re **** at running them for us too 😉
Some of you guys are misunderstanding this completely. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on a referendum. If they want to have one every year they should be able to do that.
My point was Westminster should not be able to veto that. The Scots should be able to decide their own future.
All this stuff about once in a generation and what do the people of northern England want is absolute bullshit.
