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

by freddo 167 Replies latest social current

• 

  notsurewheretogo

  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?

  Leap of faith? The UK government is responsible for all areas of the UK, whilst Scotland, Wales etc indeed are nations they are still under the responsibility of the UK...they are not going to knacker up a whole area of the UK they are responsible for. UK government sees Scotland, Wales just like English county's really...we are one big family.

  It is a bigger leap of faith to hope, guess etc that leaving the UK will be better, there are no facts to indicate that will be so. The facts seem to force us to come to the conclusion that life would be much harder if we went it alone.

  So at the moment I choose the less of two evils so to speak.

  The fact 45% of our nation choose to ignore these points and "hope" it would be better independent is quite frankly embarassing.
• 

  Amelia Ashton

  I voted Labour even tho everyone said Labour could not win here as in over 100 years since the seat was created it has never been red.

  Guess what?

  It's red! Totally delighted for a local lad born and bred a few streets away and looking forward to seeing what he can do.
• 

  slimboyfat

  In the 1970s the government commissioned a report on the impact of North Sea Oil. It concluded that Scotland would be very weathly as an independent country. And the UK government feared it would be bankrupt without the oil revenue. The report was concealed for 30 years.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4661584.stm

  Indeed Norway, with a similar population and oil reserves, has become one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

  Repeated requests to set up an oil fund in Scotland were denied by the UK government. Instead receipts from oil revenue funded Thatcher's monetary policy, resulting unemployment benefit, and deindustrialization in the 1980s.

  http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-–-failure-invest-britain’s-future

  Scotland is the only country in the world that discovered oil and saw little economic improvement as a result - because of UK government mismanagement.

  It is a matter of public record that UK governments have lied about and mismanaged North Sea oil resources.

  The UK government's own report concluded that an independent Scotland would be a very wealthy small country and Norway proves their point.

  Since the UK government mismanaged and lied about Scotland in the past, why do you trust them to be any more competent or trustworthy in future?

  What makes you think that London will send extra money to Scotland now the oil revenue is in decline? Boris Johnson (next Pm? Who knows) is well known for his view that Scotland gets too much money. Many other London politicians have said the same in less colourful terms. With the oil revenue gone he may actually have a point. Until now London politicians have moaned about Scotland getting extra money while conveniently ignoring the tax receipts from oil. When that vanishes what's left? We just hope London will subsidise Scotland forever? You call that a realistic plan for the future?
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  SMB...utterly irrelevant what has happened in the past.

  We are not or would not vote on past things...we would vote on the current situation.

  There is no money from oil now...and that won't change...in fact oil revenue is is the red...the bill picked up by the UK!

  https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/14195/north-sea-oil-cost-scotland-338million-in-2016-as-tax-receipts-go-into-the-red/

  To cut off our funding with no way to replace it is suicide. We both may not like the current arrangement but that is the current situation.

  You are right, we have no oil revenue. So we break away from the UK...we have no money coming in from oil so how do we cope with losing billions in subsidy from the UK.

  I'll repeat I've never had a straight answer yet from any SNP MP or supporter...because the only answer is painful.

  Raising of taxes, cutting of public spending, cutting of all that is good and free like eye tests, prescriptions, uni fees, childcare etc.

  I do not want to inflict that upon my children or my nation.

  If the SNP or any party produced a manifesto that clearly showed, with facts and figures that were not made up, that there was a path where we could go independent and not severely damage our already fragile economy and then grow and prosper then many of the 55% who voted NO in 2014 would change to YES myself included.

  But there isn't...
• 

  slimboyfat

  It's very relevant, because: when UK governments have concealed and extracted money from Scotland in the past, while giving the misleading impression of subsidising Scotland - why do you think they would turn around hand out free money instead indefinitely into be future? How is relying uncertain handouts any sort of viable economic plan? Apart from lacking self-respect it's also wishful thinking.
• 

  cofty

  When UK governments have concealed and extracted money from Scotland ...

  Can't you see what a daft statement this is?

  The oil belonged to the UK of which Scotland was and is a part. There was no appetite for Scottish independence in the 70s. "It's Scotland's Oil" was a failed campaign because Scots didn't want to leave the Union despite the oil money.

  My primary school teacher was an SNP ideologue in the 70s. It was very much a minority opinion although there was a brief flirtation with IRA style "Tartan Terrorism" in the 80s. Scotland was a Labour stronghold. Devolution was controversial never mind independence.

  We only decided to fancy independence just as oil became worthless.
• 

  freddo

  Nicola "nice legs shame about the face" Sturgeon is deluded. Too many Scots are fed up with her and she hit the high water mark in 2015 and she is now on the slide downhill.

  There won't be a "Neverendum" for Scottish independance within 5 years. As Brenda from Bristol famously said when "Maybe" called this ill fated general election - "Not another one!"

  Scotland has Tourism, makes fine whisky and has Haggis hunting in due season along with a bit of traditional Mars Bar frying. Rejoice over that and enjoy life.
• 

  cofty

  ...
• 

  slimboyfat

  And it's parliament that elects the Prime Minister. If the Tories had lost just 6 more seats they wouldn't have had enough votes to keep Theresa May as prime minister, even with DUP support.

  The Tories gained 12 seats in Scotland with help from unionists from other parties who voted tactically to keep the SNP out.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  The Tories gained 12 seats in Scotland with help from unionists from other parties who voted tactically to keep the SNP out - seriously?!

  You're saying that unionists from Labour voted for the Tories, in order to keep the SNP out.

  Can't you see how ridiculous that sounds?