Politics Scottish Independance.....Thoughts?

[Job]

Funny you should mention plug sockets that Scottish comedian did a bit about Scotlands economy being based on selling adaptors for a new 12 prong plug.

 

[old.user4556]

I'm not wrong though? they'd lose funding from England, meaning they'd have to pull the money out of their own arse to support what they'd lose

Do you have any figures to back that up? Can you cite sources to detail that exactly? Or are you rehashing the bollocks that if it wasn't for England, we'd all be in tents or painting on the walls of caves?

Well, let me have a shot at explaining it bearing in mind i'm over simplifying and i'm also not an economist.

Excluding oil revenues, Scotland generates £20571 per head compared with the UK's GDP of £20873. Including oil and gas, Scotland generates substantially more at £26424 compared to the UK's £22336 (reasonably neutral, but pro union source). Public spending is higher in Scotland minus the oil, but put the oil into it and it changes.

From the analysis on the most recently published GERS report:

Total public sector revenue, excluding North Sea activity, was £47.6bn or 8.2% of overall UK revenue, down £400m on the previous year. When a geographical share of oil and gas revenue is factored in, Scotland's public revenue stood at £53.1bn.

This was a drop of more than £3bn on the £56.3bn in revenue recorded in 2011/12. Where Scottish public sector revenue made up 9.8% of total UK revenue in 2011/12, it fell to 9.1% the following year.

Public expenditure has remained stable. The UK Government spent £65.2bn for the benefit of Scotland in 2012/13, a slight uptick from the £64.8bn spent the previous year. For both financial years, this represented 9.3% of total spending across the UK.

Public sector finances were in deficit to the tune of £14.2bn, or 11.2% of GDP excluding North Sea revenue, compared to £14.6bn (11.6%) of national income in 2011/12.

However, taking into account a geographical distribution of North Sea activity, the budget deficit jumped from £4.6bn to £8.6bn - an increase from 3.1% to 5.9% of GDP. This compared to a UK budget deficit of £91.9bn, or 5.8% of national income.

Fiscal balance, the incomings and outgoings in the public finances, offers a snapshot of how well a nation is balancing the books.

Wednesday's figures outline a net fiscal deficit of 14% of GDP, which works out to £17.6bn, without oil and gas activity - narrower than the 14.7% gap in the previous year. Allocating a geographical share of North Sea revenue, this financial gap closes to 8.3% of national income, or £12.1bn. The 2011/12 statistics, including North Sea oil, put the deficit at 5.8% of GDP.

By contrast, the UK's net fiscal deficit with all North Sea revenue included stood at 7.3% of GDP, or £114.8bn.

The Scottish Government pointed to a five-year analysis of the Gers figures, which showed Scotland's net fiscal balance stronger than the UK over the course of the recession. First Minister Alex Salmond said this showed Scots to be better off by £1600 per head compared to people across the UK - an overall advantage of £8.3bn.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Today’s GERS report confirms what independent commentators and analysts have been making clear: Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The figures show that tax revenues generated in 2012-13 were £800 higher per head in Scotland compared with the UK, meaning that now for every one of the last 33 years, tax receipts have been higher in Scotland than the UK.
​

The obvious problem we have here is a finite resource in the way of oil, and the volatility of oil's price. However, that is not the point being made here. The point being made, is that Scotland is a pauper in the eyes of the English and that the English are shelling out for all our free shit. Quite frankly, i find that arrogant and insulting when it's clearly not true and has been addressed across the board by many.

Now, the argument about an independent Scotland's reliance on oil is another situation altogether - I simply do not know who to believe on the remaining oil. On one hand, you have Better Together making out that having oil is like having scorching herpes. Never have I heard so much negativity about having an oil industry. Then you've got Yes saying there's £1 trillion yet to be extracted. I'm more inclined to listen to Sir Ian Wood's reasonable estimation of 35 years maximum. What happens after then? Who knows, however there's been a lot of talk about fracking under the north sea leading to another boom and extension of up to 100 years. It's hard to get to the facts - Pro Union parties / papers have rubished the report, and Pro Yes have been masturbating over it.

I'm not saying Scotland's fricking awesome with billions ahoy, but for the love of fuck, stop making out that we're scrounging off England please?

 

[Gwadien]

I really think this thread is going make G vote yes

 

[old.user4556]

I dunno Gwad, it's not oil or the economy that makes me want to vote Yes, it's the ability to really shake up politics in this country.

Think of the boot up the arse that English politics would get with a Yes vote in Scotland, and Farrage quickly chasing up the rear down south. Isn't that something that we'd all want?

 

[Gwadien]

I dunno Gwad, it's not oil or the economy that makes me want to vote Yes, it's the ability to really shake up politics in this country.

Think of the boot up the arse that English politics would get with a Yes vote in Scotland, and Farrage quickly chasing up the rear down south. Isn't that something that we'd all want?

As I was saying to someone the other day, if I were Scottish, I'd commit sui- no, I'd vote yes if I had the security of Europe, but by the looks of things, Europe isn't too welcoming to new independent countries, due to Spain, Italy etc etc, but yeah, it could shake up politics, but it also could keep things the same, if Scotland works as a new English speaking Socialist nation that gets off the world stage, it could shake things up in the rest of the UK, but I highly doubt it.

But frankly, since it's such a risky move, even with all the promises of lower corporation tax, I can't see why businesses would want to start opening major headquarters in Edinburgh/Glasgow, when London is 3 hours down the road, and all the other businesses are already there, I can't see oil being a long-term solution to the financial issue that you have, even with the Norway-esque investment fund, which I can't see happen, because it'd mean that people would have to sacrifice wealth in the short term, and we've not exactly got a good history of sacrificing for the long-term solution.

Frankly, I'd like to see Farage to start making everyone to question everything, but not have the fascist in power, I'd like to see us turn more socialist yet nationalistic, purely to keep things happy (Like the Scandinavian countries.)

We need to drop our attitude that we're a contender on the world stage, because we simply are not, stop thinking we need to get involved in everything across the planet, which includes aid/conflicts, let the British charitable characteristics shine through, and let us help others through that, not by paying off future generations with sending them rice with tiny union jacks painted on them.

As for the Scottish attitude towards London, I hear you, I'm from the Midlands, but as I say before, we're past the period of industrialisation, and it's about centralised financial centres, which these Isles already have, again, I cannot see businesses picking Edinburgh over London, the reason why they invest in London is to attract further business into London, that's really it. It's the sad truth, but it's more or less needed, arguably, we could change this with having Americanesque States, but are we really that desperate for such a move? Do we REALLY need more layers of bureaucracy to waste money on?

But either way, I wish Scotland the best of luck for what ever decision that they end up making, because either way, it doesn't really effect us either way (So long the SNP don't try and con us at negotiations.)

I'd like to see Scotland stay for historical purposes, but that contradicts everything I say about having a change of attitude for our country, so I'd rather Scotland go independent, and meaning the rest of the UK changes, than you staying and we still think we own 1/5 of the planet.

 

[Tuthmes]

The security of Europe? Frankly, any nation would do better alone. All the European Union has done is add an extra layer of goverment, that needs to be payed. Which meddles with everything you do on top of the goverments you'd already have.

Or to quote a quote from Civ4 (Oscar Wilde): The bureaucracy is expanding too meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

 

[Gwadien]

The security of Europe? Frankly, any nation would do better alone. All the European Union has done is add an extra layer of goverment, that needs to be payed. Which meddles with everything you do on top of the goverments you'd already have.

Or to quote a quote from Civ4 (Oscar Wilde): The bureaucracy is expanding too meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

To a new country, Europe is brilliant though, Europe will not let a independent Scotland fail.

 

[Raven]

Why? If they are part of Europe then Europe wont let them fail but membership is not guaranteed. Spain could say no, hell we could say no just to be dicks.

If they do join then they will have to take on the Euro and have their currency controlled by people even more out of touch with Scotland.

 

[old.user4556]

hell we could say no just to be dicks

I think there's a lot of that going on with the referendum.

If they do join then they will have to take on the Euro and have their currency controlled by people even more out of touch with Scotland.

Again, that's a very hot topic and you're absolutely right. Farrage was arguing on the radio that Salmond is selling this new, free world where as you give up one union and simply join another.

At least we would have full control of oil revenue and taxation.

 

[BloodOmen]

I dunno Gwad, it's not oil or the economy that makes me want to vote Yes, it's the ability to really shake up politics in this country.

So basically, the exact reason Alex Salmond wants to do it then? voting for independence is one thing, doing it for all the wrong reasons though.

 

[Zarjazz]

Think of the boot up the arse that English politics would get with a Yes vote in Scotland, and Farrage quickly chasing up the rear down south. Isn't that something that we'd all want?

I'd say the vast majority of people would say no. Cameroon was right about one thing this week. It's a world of difference between sending a "fuck you" to the politicians at a general election, that's a perfectly valid use of anyones vote, and a referendum that would affect the entire nation for a century. It's not like you can vote again in 5 years if it all goes horribly wrong.

If you honestly think Scotland would be better alone then vote Yes, but if you do it just to give someone a kick up the backside that's a terrible reason.

 

[Gwadien]

Why? If they are part of Europe then Europe wont let them fail but membership is not guaranteed. Spain could say no, hell we could say no just to be dicks.

If they do join then they will have to take on the Euro and have their currency controlled by people even more out of touch with Scotland.

Spain will say no, because if they say yes, it opens the rest of their country to split itself up.

What are the right reasons for independence?

Financial reasons?

Political reasons?

Nationalistic reasons?

Oppression?

I don't know, I think a lot of reasons that the Scots have picked up on are some-what questionable, but it's hard to see why they're doing it unless you've walked in their shoes.

 

[old.user4556]

So basically, the exact reason Alex Salmond wants to do it then? voting for independence is one thing, doing it for all the wrong reasons though.

It's all here:

http://www.yesscotland.net/

 

[old.user4556]

t if you do it just to give someone a kick up the backside that's a terrible reason.

Sadly, that's why a lot of people are voting Yes. They've had it with Westminster and everything that comes with it.

 

[BloodOmen]

It's all here:

http://www.yesscotland.net/

Yes, because lets trust everything a biased website tells us. Must be true, its there in snazzy pictures and as such must be 100% factual.

Or wait, no it isn't because we've already established what Alex Salmond said about gas and oil was utterly bollocks.

"BP today came out against Scottish independence and backed warnings by the oil industry’s most eminent businessman that Alex Salmond’s economic case for separation relies on highly inflated estimates for North Sea tax revenue.

Bob Dudley, BP Group chief executive, said Sir Ian Wood’s assessment that the North Sea would be all but spent by 2050 was correct and urged Scots to vote No. His opposite number at Shell also backed the estimate.

Sir Ian Wood, who has been praised by both David Cameron and Mr Salmond as the industry's foremost figure, warned Scottish voters were using their hearts rather than their heads in weighing up the independence debate.

He appealed to his fellow Scots to look again at the finances of separation for the sake of their children and grandchildren and accused the First Minister of relying on grossly “misleading information” about the tax revenues a separate Scotland would glean from the North Sea.

Mr Salmond insisted he was wrong and refused to admit that his claims about a separate Scotland’s jobs and oil boom may not materialise."

So based on that, fuck knows what he was talking out of his arse about, by all means though use that "Yes" vote for all the wrong reasons. Risk peoples futures on a whim just because you want to get one over on money grubbing politician's.

 

[Raven]

The future is shale gas not oil. (I have no idea how much shale gas Scotland has!)

 

[old.user4556]

stuff.

Dude, you asked me why people were voting for Salmond, so I gave you the link to their site that spraffs a load of pro-Yes stuff - that's what they think they're voting for.

Oil is running out whether or not people vote Yes. This is what voters for the union don't get - if you vote No, oil still runs out!! The question is, is the next 30 to 40 years of oil better in Scotland's hands? or to fund Westminster's crusades?

 

[Job]

What has Scotland got going for it.
Oil..fishing grounds...practically endless conditions for renewables (sun excluded).
Tourism..as good as anywhere.
Brand..probably in the top 5...everyone on the planet knows Scotland and it's nearly always seen in a positive light even if the reality is different.
Kilts..bagpipes..all part of the mystique of a people associated with tenacity and honour..a very important backdrop of history in a world so lacking in substance...I would say a King or Queen of Scotland would be seen as a real one especially if they put her/him in Edinburgh castle.
All very cheesy but so is the branding of many of Scotlands products and if they could carry that over to other industries they could be world beaters..really..think about it..I've always said if Scotland were in charge of the banks we would have 50 trillion under the bed...the tight bastards.

 

[Embattle]

It is ironic that most of the debate seems to relate to Scotland and oil almost utterly ignoring the much longer pre oil period.

 

[old.user4556]

What has Scotland got going for it..

By sector end of 2011:

 

[old.user4556]

It is ironic that most of the debate seems to relate to Scotland and oil almost utterly ignoring the much longer pre oil period.

Not sure what that means.

 

[Gwadien]

By sector end of 2011:

Onshore fishing, interesting.

 

[Job]

The sister in law was in charge of international sales for Grants till a few months ago and we have cupboards full of one off bottles she says we should keep..anyway the profit on whiskey is just humongous...they could pay for the NHS just on that.

 

[Mabs]

Onshore fishing, interesting.

presume thats all the salmon etc farms ? /shrug

 

[Scouse]

Bob Dudley, BP Group chief executive

"Wah wah wah bullshit!" says the guy who's company stands to lose out *massively* as Scotland stands to take all their profits right off them and put them into social projects instead...

I mean, seriously, Blood??! Really?

 

[BloodOmen]

"Wah wah wah bullshit!" says the guy who's company stands to lose out *massively* as Scotland stands to take all their profits right off them and put them into social projects instead...

I mean, seriously, Blood??! Really?

Into social projects? bwahahahahahhahahahaha, you naive person you.

 

[Tom]

I dunno Gwad, it's not oil or the economy that makes me want to vote Yes, it's the ability to really shake up politics in this country.

Think of the boot up the arse that English politics would get with a Yes vote in Scotland, and Farrage quickly chasing up the rear down south. Isn't that something that we'd all want?

Not at the expense of a relationship that's served the UK well for the last 300 years.

 

[Scouse]

Not at the expense of a relationship that's served the UK well for the last 300 years.

But abominably for the masses since about the 50's...

Into social projects? bwahahahahahhahahahaha, you naive person you.

At least there'd be a chance - instead of definitely no chance, increased privatisation in the NHS and fucloads more zero-hours contracts, just like in England...

 

[Tuthmes]

Why not? Scotlands votes now get added as a minority vote into the bigger sum. That's the problem of joining a larger state. Your vote ends up to be worthless and you've got nothing to say anymore (same goes for the smaller countries in Europe). As I understand Scotland has always bin heavy on the left side (Labour). Which is not what they are getting atm.

The argument stands that if Scotland would be worse of alone, then why is GB making such a big deal of this? Surely GB would be better off without Scotland if this were the case? If not, then explain.

 

[Tom]

But abominably for the masses since about the 50's...

So the Welfare State (rather than Poor Law), free at the point of use medical treatment, state pensions, paid sick leave, paid maternity/paternity leave, anti-discrimination laws, mandatory education, no more child labour....these don't count?