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.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
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.
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?
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
slimboyfat
Hi Laika,
Actually Scandinavia demonstrates that all sorts of currency options are viable.
Denmark - uses its own currency pegged to the Euro
Sweden - uses its own currency with a floating exchange rate as an EU member
Finland - uses the Euro
Norway - uses its own currency with a floating exchange rate as a non-EU member
Scotland as an indepdent country could peg its own currency to the pound, or peg to the Euro, or have its own floating exchange rate, or use the pound or join the Euro. All of these are viable options that are directly comparable to what many other countries do around the world. Scotland as an independent country would choose the best option at the time, and as an independent country it would have the ability to change, as other countries do all the time. There's nothing particuarly remarkable about it, unless you buy into the notion that Scots would be singularly inept at managing and choosing between the many currency options available in the modern world.
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
slimboyfat
I was surprised Theresa May didn't resign immediately.
She could struggle on for years if the Tories see it as being in their own interest. Or she could be gone in hours. I give up trying to predict, politics is crazy now.
The DUP are looking forward to the Trump visit. Iain Paisley Jnr. Is best mates apparently.
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
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?
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
slimboyfat
Do you really believe that London will send a subsidy to Scotland for decades to come if we remain in the union?
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
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.
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
slimboyfat
I don't think the distinction between country and city is meaningless. It's how the international system has operated at least since Woodrow Wilson and the doctrine of self-determination for nations. Arguably it has its roots much further back in the Delaration of Arbroath and other documents asserting national sovereignty dating back to the Middle Ages.
Even unionists who have opposed Scottish independence have not disputed that Scotland is a country and has the right to self-determination if it chooses. This is different than the situation in Spain for example where the Spanish state does not recognise the regions as having the right to choose self-determination.
You could argue back and forward whether it makes sense to construe Catalonia or Quebec or such places a countries or ever having been countries. However no one seriously disputes that Scotland is a country, not even the British state. Scotland was an independent country before it joined the union. Now it is a country within the union because it chooses to be. British prime ministers accept that Scotland could choose independence again if it wishes. They argue Scotland should not choose indepdence, not that it cannot choose independence. This is an extremely important distinction that Theresa May threatened to undermine 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.
London is not a country. Comparing Scotland to London isn't just insulting, it's historically and politically ignorant.
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
slimboyfat
London is not a country. The analogy only works if you start from the position that Scotland is not a country with no right to self-determination any more than a city within a state. Even staunch unionists such as Blair and Cameron acknowledged that Scotland is a country and could decide to leave the United Kingdom if it wishes. Comparing Scotland to London should be just as insulting to self-respecting unionists as it is to those who support independence. Because don't unionists claim that we are a family of nations that come together voluntarily?
In Australia all the regions need to agree to a change in the constitution for it to pass. (For example one state could prevent the abolition of the monarchy even if a majority of people voted in favour across the country) Why is Scotland regarded as less than a region of Australia? If all the regions of Australia need to agree a change in the constitution, why not all countries in the UK need to agree before we do anything as drastic as leave the EU?
When Scotland voted in 2014 it was promised we would be equal partners in a more federal system. If that were true our vote to remain in the EU would count.
-
167
Sudden General Election in UK to be held June 8th 2017
by freddo intheresa may the british p.m. has called for an election.. the house of commons has to vote tomorrow and have a two-thirds majority to agree and the main opposition parties want it to happen too so it looks pretty certain to go ahead..
-
-
slimboyfat
In 2014 Scots voted to stay in the UK and we stayed in the UK. That's democracy.
And if Scots vote for parties that want another referendum, that's also democracy.
In 2014 Scots were told to vote No in order to stay in the EU.
In fact it turned out that Scotland was dragged out of the EU despite a majority of Scots voting for the EU.
The SNP argued that this changed the situation and there should be another referendum. They won three elections making that argument. So now there is a majority in the Scottish parliament for another referendum, and a majority of Scottish MPs support a referendum.
In this democracy, if voting for parties that propose a referendum is not enough to secure a referendum, is there any democratic way to get a referendum in this system?