Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017

by freddo 167 Replies latest social current

• 

  slimboyfat

  The argument that Scotland must stay in the union to receive handouts from London is bizarre on all sorts of levels.

  It ignores that Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK for decades because of oil revenue.

  If you say that's all history now, and oil is over, fair enough. But the theory that London will hand out money to Scotland indefinitely has not been tested. It presumes firstly that Scotland will not make up for oil revenue with other sources of income, and secondly it assumes that if Scotland fails to increase its revenue that London will send us money to make up the difference indefinitely.

  Given that many in the rest of the UK seem to be under the impression that Scotland has been subsidised for decades, despite money actually flowing in the other direction since the 1970s, how likely is it they are going to actually to send a net contribution to Scotland indefinitely?

  Even if you grant all these assumptions:

  1. That Scottish oil revenue won't revive

  2. That Scotland won't be able to grow other industries to take its place

  3. That we need money from London to survive

  4. That London won't cut off the money at some point

  Even if you grant all those dubious assumptions, what sort of self-respecting people really thinks the only viable future they can have in the world is to reply on handouts from someone else? That other small countries such as Denmark and Switzerland are prosperous without oil, but the idea that Scots could do the same is complete fantasy?

  There is no doubt that Scotland's economy faces significant challenges as the oil industry declines. What is not clear is how unionism offers any sort of solution to this problem. In fact it is worse that that, it implies we don't need to find a solution, we don't need to fix our economy, or grow other industries. All we need to do is rely on the generosity of London and them to send us money indefinitely.

  That's unrealistic an offers no real solution.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  The fact is though...what we contribute is far less than what we receive...period.

  With oil never hitting $120 a barrel ever again given shale (fracking) it's game over...going independent would destroy our economy.

  Your points are all "if"...a SNP supporter said on my doorstep that it "may be better" if we went independent.

  So SNP want me to vote on them for an "if", or "maybe"? A coin toss? A gamble? A "maybes aye maybes no"? No facts, no data, just "what ifs".

  Mental. The facts is we ARE better off in the UK money wise at present. To vote out on a "maybe" or "the uk may not subsidy us in the future" is just strange.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Do you really believe that London will send a subsidy to Scotland for decades to come if we remain in the union?
• 

  hothabanero

  @Slimboyfat: Your argument is ignoring basic facts. suppose oil rebounds. Scotland will be a small country relying on natural resources for export to survive. it would basically be an arab oil state.

  These states are very good for the extremely wealthy who control the oil production, and they are good for the people who import and use the oil cheaply because they can bribe and influence the wealthy. This is what is happening across the arab world.

  Scotland would be a small satelite state to the greater EU.. the working class in Scotland would suffer tremendously while France, Germany, and the rest of the globalist elite laughed their asses off. This is pure power play: UK booted out the globalists, now the globalists want REVENGE.

  England should never allow this. NEVER. It would be tantamount to treason/surrender and hurt Scotland for generations.

  A vote can never be allowed for 20 years and England should consider the Scottish nationalist movements as being possibly influenced by hostile powers.
• 

  Laika

  That other small countries such as Denmark and Switzerland are prosperous without oil, but the idea that Scots could do the same is complete fantasy?

  Hi Slim, Denmark and Switzerland have their own currency, that Scotland could do the same while keeping the pound does seem like complete fantasy to me, but if I recall correctly this is what the SNP were offering.
• 

  hothabanero

  And before you mention Scandinavia, these countries are not oil-based the same way Scotland would be. Scotland without England would be Tourism, oil and Whiskey. Fine if you want to visit not fine if you live there...
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Do you really believe that London will send a subsidy to Scotland for decades to come if we remain in the union?

  Well they have since how long? 1980's when the Barnett formula kicked in? Irrelevant though...the fact is we go solo now...it will destroy us.

  That is all is that matters. If, at some point in the future, it becomes apparent we can be independent AND go it alone financially then THAT is the time I vote YES.

  Surely that is the common sense approach?
  
  
• 

  Simon

  ... by implying Scotland may not have a referendum even if it wishes. She didn't quite say that when she said "now is not the time", but it comes perilously close.

  This is reasoning that many take advantage of to push through political change that they otherwise can't achieve. The EU did this in lots of countries to get their way on single currency adoption.

  I can absolutely guarantee that Scotland would vote for independence - just have a referendum every week until people get bored of showing up to object and vote no and it passes.

  That is why it should NOT be an option to keep repeating a referendum until some group gets the answer they want. It's probably part of why the SNP did so much worse than in the previous election.

  There was a referendum and people said no. There should always be a binding time period on such things that prevent repeat votes.
• 

  scotsman

  I forgot to add creationism to the DUP's litany of delights.

  Arlene Foster doesn't want a hard border with Ireland and Ruth Davidson wants to remain in the single market and have increased immigration to Scotland: these are not happy bedfellows for the anti EU members of the Tory party.

  i know you all wrongly predicted the outcome of this election at the beginning of this thread but anyone up for a bet on how long Theresa May will be PM? 18months max?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Well they have since how long? 1980's when the Barnett formula kicked in? Irrelevant though...the fact is we go solo now...it will destroy us.

  Actually that's the point. The Barnett formula only gave back to Scotland some of the extra money that was raised in Scotland from oil. Until 2014 Scotland had been sending more per capita in tax to London than it was receiving back in extra spending every single year since at least the early 1970s.

  See this table that shows higher tax receipts per capita in Scotland compared to the UK for the last few decades.

  http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00418381.pdf
  

  Only very recently has this trend changed. London has not been sending Scotland money, it's been the other way around.
  

  The idea that London will send Scotland extra money indefinitely despite falling tax revenue from Scotland is a leap of faith.

  In fact London politicians have stated the opposite: that Scotland in future needs to raise its own taxes to cover spending.

  So I ask again what makes you think London is going to send extra money to Scotland for decades to come?