Hi again,
I found the reference that I was looking for. It was wrong of me to to say (off the cuff, based on flawed recall, without checking) that the SNP campaigned against devolution. But they did withdraw from the constitutional convention that laid the groundwork for devolution as it now exists and their 1997 manifesto (the election which led to the vote on holyrood) contained the phrase "New Labour’s scheme for a Scottish Assembly [sic] is fatally flawed, and will deliver no real power". Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement?
More details here https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-snp-and-devolution/
As to:
You’ve made one further claim based on a flawed measurement of the current situation and applied that to a possible future.
If you are talking about GERS and its provenance and accuracy I think I know who has provided the positive evidence to support their case in this thread. Explain why Nicola and the SG agree with me or get off your high horse.
When the next report comes out the deficit figure might be better (which would be nice) or worse (which I would regret), but I'll accept it and move on whether its good for the argument I'm making or not. Can you say the same?
TJ did offer to show me:
much academic and rigorous analysis independent of the SNP
But then didn't, because apparently "my mind is closed" 🙂
I do hope it wasn't Richard Murphy with backing from "Dick Murphy" (the only other economist who agrees with him, and lives in the same trousers).
What was the second "FALSE CLAIM" (sound of approaching hooves). I don't recall?
I could get the feeling that you are spending more time here trying to discredit me in some way. Maybe in order to avoid answering questions or accepting facts that don't fit with your pre-decided world view, but who knows?
With reference to the original post. We all know (even deep inside) that economics is more important than woad supplies when it comes to any possibility of Scottish independence (otherwise why the animosity directed towards me on this thread?).
Political stunts and membership numbers mighty make a good story, but they aren't a sound basis for a country that can look after its own people better than they currently are.
What if the Scottish Government tried to build a better country (with better education and healthcare and social provision) NOW. Maybe the majority of people in Scotland would start to want more of the same?
A proper federal solution for UK wide issues
so thats a parliament for each constituent nation with the same powers and a federal “senate” that is representatives from each national parliament for UK wide issues
Like wot America has? I notice just how well that’s working for them right now...
ETP your second false claim is in the thread you acknowledged your error read back and refresh your memory
ETP wrote
With reference to the original post. We all know (even deep inside) that economics is more important than woad supplies when it comes to any possibility of Scottish independence
I can see the reference to Braveheart (again)but where does that make any reference to the original post?
Like wot America has?
Bit silly and very ignorant to put America's problems.down to federalism. Especially as it's far from the only country try to be run that way.
Show me a realistic route for the UK to become a federal system and then we can talk. There is absolutely zero sign of it happening. It would have to be a Macron effect x 100 for a government to be elected that would even consider it.
Not saying it can't or won't happen, just that it's a fantasy far in excess of anything the SNP have put forward as being achievable.
Fair enough, I just thought as you brought it up you could save me time.
I still fail to see a problem with being wrong and acknowledging it
Tho' I can see that "you've made two claims which were false" sounds better for you than "you've made two errors and acknowledged them" 🙂
Anyway while we're on the subject of acknowledging error, have you had any second thoughts (or viable supporting references) on why you're denying the accuracy of GERS?
You seem very determined to discredit my POV without bringing any verifiable facts of your own.
Are you having trouble finding support now that even Nicola and the SNP have moved on?
RE the original post? I'm not sure what you mean about me not addressing it? But if I haven't been clear I'll repeat using different words.
The original poster thinks that the walkout means the beginning of the end of the union.
I'm arguing that economic reality is a far greater barrier to Scottish independence.
Grievance and nationalist feeling (woad, tartan, whatever analog you choose) won't do it.
I guess you probably agree with me or you wouldn't be attacking me so much :oP
why you’re denying the accuracy of GERS?
I don't think anyone is denying the accuracy of GERS with the appropriate caveats around the data used and assumptions made.
What we are saying, is the GERS figures reflect the status quo.
What would they be under an independent Scotland? I know you're going to say "exactly the same" hence pushing the notion that an independent Scotland would have the same theoretical deficit.
I'm going to guess your position is based on the idea that the GERS figures reflect the spending requirements of Scotland as it includes an allocation for money spent in the rest of the UK which "benefits" Scotland, and even under an independent Scotland those "benefits" would need to be funded from somewhere.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">We could spend a lifetime arguing over the minutiae however here's the two most commonly mentioned items of expenditure that an independent Scotland may not have: Trident and a full standing military. Without those two big ticket items, what would the deficit look like for Scotland.</span>
TLDR: we agree GERS reflects the current situation with caveats, but it doesn't reflect what an independent Scotland would look like (it could be even worse 😂 )
Anyone else listening to the R4 play last week?
Gers is the starting point. Glad we've accepted that 🙂
Things can change. No problem with that.
I feel I'm repeating myself, but an independent Scotland would have to grow its economy and reduce the deficit by a huge amount to e. g. rejoin the EU. The snp say 10 years under their favourable scenarios. Others say it might take 25 years.
Initially Scotland would have to raise taxes by 20% or reduce expenditure by 20% ish (or a bit of both).
That's why I put up the graph of Scottish spending a few pages ago.
If you're going to have an honest discussion of the economic consequences of independence then (without handwaving) tell people what you think they can do without.
Here's the graph again
Trident (as I recall SO I COULD BE WRONG!) is about £200Mn per year for Scotland. Defence could be zeroed, but may for a sensible govt be more.
What else? Find another 10Bn plus (5x tory austerity) or put up tax by 20%.
I my view that's not an argument that will get much traction with the people of Scotland.
ETP BoardingBob has it correct about GERS it's a measure of the Scottish economy under the United Kingdom govt.
So far as the OP goes I would say that E U withdrawal bill has undermined the devolution settlement and arguably begun the dissolution of the union
Initially Scotland would have to raise taxes by 20% or reduce expenditure by 20% ish (or a bit of both).
Genuine question (because I've been racing all weekend and can't be arsed doing the calculations myself) what would that do to your current deficit estimate? Half it? Eliminate it? Just get it to EU acceptable levels?
The rental for Faslane and Coulport will come to a fair bit....
The rental for Faslane and Coulport will come to a fair bit….
Indeed. And there’s nowhere else in the UK that could support it, so renting it out is probably the only option
The rental for Faslane and Coulport will come to a fair bit…
As will the oil tax income and mineral rights income (etc).
Personally, having paid this a few times in the last couple of years, I'm all for a £1 a night tourist/visitor tax on accommodation, paid direct to councils.
I would have thought that Faslane rental would be a non starter, unless a great many people are happy to forego their moral compass.
I think it would be morally wrong to close down those facilities at short notice and deprive rUK of the nuclear "deterrent" it so badly wants. IScotland could rent the facilities out while a replacement is built in Devonport/Wales etc.
Aye, for me it's not a moral issue, it's just a matter of sanity, there's no magic money tree except when you're buying nuclear white elephants or irish politicians. I'm perfectly happy for Westminster to keep pissing money into the loch, if it's their money and our loch. (which I see is now officially estimated at £50.9bn for the next decade by the National Audit Office, 25% of the entire military budget, even though they're only 2 years into budget overruns)
The irony is, we'll never know how much damage Trident would do to an enemy but we can see fine well the damage it does to the UK.
The replies since I last put up my graph seem to indicate that people aren't grasping the size of the deficit. look at the graph.. its about 50ish Bn total spending. knock off 13.
You don't replace that with a tax on motorhomes.
You can grow out of it.
But look at the best and fastest growing economies in the world.
How fast and at what cost to their social fabric, and what happens to the poor in the meantime.
Add to that that the latest reasoning for suggesting this comes on the basis of a grievance about 'stolen' powers that Holyrood has never had.
Anyway its Monday. Time to move on. Weathers nice here 🙂 What's it like where you are?
I think you're placing all your eggs in one basket with the 13BN deficit. Let's ignore all the issues with the figures and assume it's 100% accurate.
You said you don't want to look at the historical average even though it shows that Scotland's deficit is below that of the UK's. Fair enough.
Come August, it could be the deficit is back below the UK's (again, £8 billion in oil revenue with oil price at $100/bbl vs £0.2 billion with the oil price at $50 vs the current price of $75). Revenue will be higher although we can't say by how much.
Let's take a hypothetical where the deficit returns to it's historic average of being less than the UK's. What other factors make you think Independence is a bad idea?
As you said, it's Monday. Let's try changing the tune.
Anyway its Monday. Time to move on.
We live in hope....
Leaving aside the fact that the scenario you put forward is unlikely. (2014 was a perfect storm for the SNP of high oil price, toary govt, alignment of the stars etc. and still failed).
I've spent time on the 'broken record' of the deficit because people kept denying it without evidence.
But the shorthand added reasons for staying in the UK are:
Think of all the reasons its foolish and self defeating for the UK to leave the EU (closest neighbours, customers, market, putting up unnecessary barriers to trade etc. )
That's why it's foolish for Scotland to leave the UK.
I know someone will come along and say there would be no barriers and trade would be seamless, and that we would be in a partnership of equals and that nothing bad would happen. We'll if that's what you're thinking then I have a Brexit I'd like to sell you (and we can all see how that's working out).
We're better off together. There may be downsides, and imperfections but devolution protects us from the worst and the rest of the UK is still a massive part of our economy and lives (is it 5x more trade than the EU? or more?). There is definitely more that unites us than divides us.
Even if it's a marriage of convenience rather than love for many.
Look again at the EU. It was hard to describe as perfect in the face of brexiers shouting "freedumb!" and "muh own laws!" and "sovrin parlymunt! " .
That's because it's not perfect, and never will be, because what political construct is?
But now looking at the hard realities are you wanting in or out?
Scottish independence is (in my opinion) the same (brexity) answer to a different union and could well strip the country of the very things we claim to value.
A social conscience is worth sweet FA if you can't pay for it.
Indy would bring some things too. But you have to balance the pluses and minuses and the minuses are hard and real, and the pluses sound (to me) a lot like: "freedom!" and "our own laws!" and "sovereign parliament!".
Not necessarily bad things, but sometimes badly prioritised.
People have raised perfectly valid issues with the deficit. You've provided no evidence to contradict them. It swings both ways.
As I said earlier, there are plenty of issues leaving the UK and joining the EU, that's why I suggested one solution would be to join the EEA instead. It would mean an open border with England while disruption to trade with the EU would be minimised. We wouldn't be held hostage to the whims of the little-englanders and their desire to keep foreigners out no matter the cost to the economy.
I said I wouldn't post again in this thread, but this is a major coup getting this acknowledged at this time.
From Hansard tonight:
"Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."
Apparently unanimous.
It highlights the difference in sovereignty in Scotland compared to England.
Basically in Scotland the people have always been sovereign, in England the parliament is sovereign. (Our different legal system is protected by the Treaty of Union, and its priority in Scotland has been affirmed by various court cases since).
What I expect to see out of this is a political challenge to the right of Westminster to strip Scotland of its powers that are returning from the EU.
