Scots Vote

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

ORIGINAL: loki100

And, by the way, the English are net payers to Scotland (just as London is a net payer to the English regions). But am I, as an English taxpayer, complaining about this? No, not at all.

I'm really sorry but this is not true. Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what we get (the Barnett formula) is far less than we contribute.

That is incorrect. The Barnett formula applies only to public spending. When you factor in actual spending each scot gets ~ 2-3K more than they put in (depending upon how you decide oil revenue should be split).

For a good explanation try: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16477990

The whole thing is making me very sad. Perhaps the new politics of division and "them vs us" is unstoppable if a prosperous nations like the UK can't resist it.

Cheers

Pip

Or this, which is much fuller:

http://scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistic ... onomy/GERS

As you say, at the moment oil is the key, but what is also missing is that if goods are produced in Scotland and exported via the rest of the UK they are shown as produced in England in the national accounts. Its complex, requires all sorts of assumptions, but the basic position stands.

Now, a very different question is whether or not Scotland, being relatively prosperous, should share its wealth with the poorer parts of the UK. For a long time that was a compelling argument, but increasingly many people here see the current usage of that wealth (trident, bankers bailouts, privatisation etc) as its wastage, not its usage for the commonweal.

Thats way the wider politics matters. Is not the issue of 'being ruled by Tories when we don't vote for them', oddly we can cope with that. Its almost fun to defy them by hanging onto a socially inclusive mindset rather than just give in. The problem is that up to New Labour, at least we could think we would be represented at Westminster (and I don't mean by this, the precise individuals, this is attitudinal) when Labour was in power. To many in Scotland now, they don't represent our values. In effect, the political norms of Scotland (social democrat) and that on offer at Westminster have gone well apart.

The reason we are having the independence vote is all down to the systemic failure of the Labour Party in Scotland. In our 2007 elections, a significant number of Labour voters (including me) deserted to the SNP in part at disgust at the Iraq War and the rest of the New Labour legacy and in part as the SNP (cleverly) disentangled voting for them in the Scottish Parliament from a vote for independence. In 2011, this trend continued as the SNP had, for the most part, governed well and Labour had got far worse.

The Scottish electoral system is designed to ensure that no party has a majority. Labour managed the situation so badly that the SNP actually won a majority (though they choose to then govern with the Greens and offer the Lib Dems a place). Since the independence vote was in their manifesto, thats how we are here today.

[IronDuke_slith]

I don't see this ending well. Whoever wins, half the population will likely be unhappy, and I suspect the settlement will descend into a thoroughly acrimonious divorce.
The UK will say no to currency union, the Scots will default on their debt, and in addition to harming their own economy, that will also cause the separation to get very bitter.
The UK will play hardball with the separation wanting goods in lieu of the billions in debt that were defaulted, and as it gets worse, Social media will be flooded
with pro-UK jokes and tweets which will lead to (I strongly suspect) boycotts of Scottish goods and services in certain areas of the country. The lack of figures in the "yes" campaign literature doesn't bode well, and their attitude around the currency is frightening.

I also suspect they won't walk into EU and NATO. NATO is less of an issue, but a number of EU countries whose secessionist minorities will be highly exited by a yes, will not make it easy for Scotland to get in. I believe it'll take far longer than the 18 months Salmond believes it will take. Throw in inevitable border controls and red tape, and I just really don't see it ending well.

[Aurelian]

So where is the UK ballistic missile fleet going to go? The Scottish National Party (SNP), leaders , if they win, want them out of Faslane by 2020.

Don't have a dog in this hunt, but seeing Scotland leave would kind of make me sad.

Not sure why, it just does.

[warspite1]

...and the jobs that will go with them.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...and the jobs that will go with them.

http://rt.com/uk/180248-trident-nuclear ... -scotland/

Devonport? Maybe the Fal estuary?

[PipFromSlitherine]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

ORIGINAL: loki100




I'm really sorry but this is not true. Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what we get (the Barnett formula) is far less than we contribute.

That is incorrect. The Barnett formula applies only to public spending. When you factor in actual spending each scot gets ~ 2-3K more than they put in (depending upon how you decide oil revenue should be split).

For a good explanation try: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16477990

The whole thing is making me very sad. Perhaps the new politics of division and "them vs us" is unstoppable if a prosperous nations like the UK can't resist it.

Cheers

Pip

Or this, which is much fuller:

http://scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistic ... onomy/GERS

As you say, at the moment oil is the key, but what is also missing is that if goods are produced in Scotland and exported via the rest of the UK they are shown as produced in England in the national accounts. Its complex, requires all sorts of assumptions, but the basic position stands.

Now, a very different question is whether or not Scotland, being relatively prosperous, should share its wealth with the poorer parts of the UK. For a long time that was a compelling argument, but increasingly many people here see the current usage of that wealth (trident, bankers bailouts, privatisation etc) as its wastage, not its usage for the commonweal.

Thats way the wider politics matters. Is not the issue of 'being ruled by Tories when we don't vote for them', oddly we can cope with that. Its almost fun to defy them by hanging onto a socially inclusive mindset rather than just give in. The problem is that up to New Labour, at least we could think we would be represented at Westminster (and I don't mean by this, the precise individuals, this is attitudinal) when Labour was in power. To many in Scotland now, they don't represent our values. In effect, the political norms of Scotland (social democrat) and that on offer at Westminster have gone well apart.

The reason we are having the independence vote is all down to the systemic failure of the Labour Party in Scotland. In our 2007 elections, a significant number of Labour voters (including me) deserted to the SNP in part at disgust at the Iraq War and the rest of the New Labour legacy and in part as the SNP (cleverly) disentangled voting for them in the Scottish Parliament from a vote for independence. In 2011, this trend continued as the SNP had, for the most part, governed well and Labour had got far worse.

The Scottish electoral system is designed to ensure that no party has a majority. Labour managed the situation so badly that the SNP actually won a majority (though they choose to then govern with the Greens and offer the Lib Dems a place). Since the independence vote was in their manifesto, thats how we are here today.

The fact that so many are willing to irrevocably destroy a centuries old union because they don't like today's politicians is part of what leaves many like me utterly despondent. I consider Scots to be my countrymen, and it appears that nearly half don't return the sentiment.

Cheers

Pip

[warspite1]

Pip it sounds like you and I are singing from the same hymn sheet. I think Sadness is my overwhelming feeling about this whole episode.

[aaatoysandmore]

William Wallace has risen. FREEEEEDOMMMM! [:D]

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine


The fact that so many are willing to irrevocably destroy a centuries old union because they don't like today's politicians is part of what leaves many like me utterly despondent. I consider Scots to be my countrymen, and it appears that nearly half don't return the sentiment.

Cheers

Pip

The same thing is happening in the US (though we hardly have the long history that the British Isles do).

If given a choice I believe (and I am not alone in this) that with one or two exceptions all of the deep south and every state west of the Mississippi with one exception to include the left coast would choose to say good bye to the current and future federal government without blinking an eye.

The US has become increasingly polarized with the forces of collectivism on one side and the forces of individualism on the other.

Give it another 20 years or so and one way or another we'll be facing the same question that Scotland faces today.

[Zorch]

And now for a word from a very respected person of Scottish extraction:

https://time.com/3372547/the-simpsons-g ... ependence/

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine


The fact that so many are willing to irrevocably destroy a centuries old union because they don't like today's politicians is part of what leaves many like me utterly despondent. I consider Scots to be my countrymen, and it appears that nearly half don't return the sentiment.

Cheers

Pip

The same thing is happening in the US (though we hardly have the long history that the British Isles do).

If given a choice I believe (and I am not alone in this) that with one or two exceptions all of the deep south and every state west of the Mississippi with one exception to include the left coast would choose to say good bye to the current and future federal government without blinking an eye.

The US has become increasingly polarized with the forces of collectivism on one side and the forces of individualism on the other.

Give it another 20 years or so and one way or another we'll be facing the same question that Scotland faces today.

No we are not going through the same thing. Outside of fringe groups, there is no talk worth listening to about breaking up the Union.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine


The fact that so many are willing to irrevocably destroy a centuries old union because they don't like today's politicians is part of what leaves many like me utterly despondent. I consider Scots to be my countrymen, and it appears that nearly half don't return the sentiment.

Cheers

Pip

The same thing is happening in the US (though we hardly have the long history that the British Isles do).

If given a choice I believe (and I am not alone in this) that with one or two exceptions all of the deep south and every state west of the Mississippi with one exception to include the left coast would choose to say good bye to the current and future federal government without blinking an eye.

The US has become increasingly polarized with the forces of collectivism on one side and the forces of individualism on the other.

Give it another 20 years or so and one way or another we'll be facing the same question that Scotland faces today.

I live in a little city in Texas and I've heard of that as well. Seems some Texicans want to break away from the Union as we speak. Now Aurealian may be correct but I just find it interesting in the small town I live in the long arm of information has reached here as well.

[jday305]

I have to agree with Werewolf above in that what can happen in the UK and happen in the US. I don't even think it may take 20 years as he mentioned. I hope it doesn't happen in either country but when the opposite sides refuse to have any dialog to discuss the issues then they just continue to drift apart. I'll be watching this with interest and to see how this effects the future of Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[radic202]

Let's just say as a French Canadian who was born in Quebec but now lives in Ontario (and yes live with about 60% of equal French rights), this "separatism" debate happened twice in my lifetime and boy oh boy! The emotions that came out of both sides probably cost me 10 years of my life.. Dad is French Canadian and Mom is from Nova-Scotia and little me at a 16 years old (the first time) caught between 2 sides at the first go around. I am pretty sure there are plenty that have parents from both nationalities and all I can say is pray that the voters choose the correct path (not siding here). Just wanted to share I have been through this twice and pray I will never go though it again.. Praying for all Scots and Englishmen/women that they find solace in whatever the outcome.

In peace and respect from someone who has lived through it.

Remember: there are no winners when emotions becomes the political weapon.

[JDM]

Firstly I want to make it clear that I am a Scot and every bit as patriotic as the next man.
However, I am deeply concerned that by voting "Yes" Scotland Is sleepwalking into an unredeemable catastrophe. The prospect of splitting our Nation in two has hugely detrimental and financial consequences, for both a separate Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

So I hope that all of my friends and family North of the Border will take a few moments to read this in the spirit that it is intended and please feel free to pass this to any other current residents of Scotland who might be interested in my thoughts.

Despite how the "yes" campaign argues it, by leaving the UK, Scotland will have to apply for membership of the EU, there will be no automatic entry, and nations like Spain with their own separatist issues may well refuse to accept Scotland. This would also require Scotland to sign up to the Euro and grant Brussels jurisdiction over many issues, including but not limited to the law, immigration and border controls.

Even if Scotland wants to hold onto the Pound, The Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that just to begin discussions, supposing this was even on the table which it currently is not, a Scottish Central Bank would be required to hold reserves in excess of an independent Scotland's entire GDP. The issue of currency and banking is the bleakest or perhaps the most disingenuous piece of the independence argument.

Further the threat of withholding its share of the National Debt, if demands are not met, is frankly ludicrous and would wreck Scotland's reputation and financial standing Worldwide. This should not be underestimated, as it would destroy an independent Scotland's credit ratings and ability to borrow, as the rest of the banking world not disregard these liabilities.

In purely practical terms to unravel and recreate the institutional ties that currently bind the UK, for example the NHS or the BBC, amongst many others would be far more complicated than anyone in the "yes" campaign seems yet to have acknowledged. In addition it will be necessary to renegotiate literally thousands of international treaties and agreements covering everything from the UN, with its myriad of Departments and specialist areas. Treaties, like for example, governing Aviation, Shipping, Border Controls and a whole plethora of other other Treaties and Agreements. These would likely take years of renegotiations and certainly not the 18 months which the "Yes" campaigners would have us believe. In the meantime, would for example, airlines be willing or even able to fly through Scottish airspace.

Where will the thousands of experienced civil servants come from to carry out all of this? Who will train them? What will all this cost? The economy of scale will be lost and all of these services and departments will require to be duplicated and most importantly an Independent Scotland with a population of around one twelfth of the UK will have running costs at the same or near the same level that the combined UK now has. The economies of scale will be lost. Further the additional costs in setting up this new bureaucracy are either incalculable, or have been concealed from us. The "White Paper" lacks any detail on how any of this would be achieved.

A further and similar issue is the location, creation and staffing of Embassies in over 190 countries around the world. This would be a complete duplication of costs and services already fully funded in a combined UK and again the entire costs would require to be funded from the new and much smaller Scottish exchequer. Mirror all of this in Education, Health Services, Welfare, Pensions, Borders & Immigration, Public Spending & Investment, etc, etc, all to be wholly funded by an independent Scotland, one twelfth the size of the combined UK. Will our citizens expect or accept lower standards, of course not, they will demand at least as good as we now have, but then we are told don't worry, we have oil, so it's all sorted.

How will a Scottish, Army, Navy and Airforce be created and funded? How will the Ships, Aircraft and equipment be funded? Where will the money come from to pay for this? How will alliances be formed and who with, certainly not NATO, as the "Yes" campaign has already declared its intentions in respect of a nuclear deterrent, so NATO will not be an option. Also in the current state of international tensions, what is the plan for security and intelligence services? What has Scotland got to trade in security dealings with other nations and how will these very specialist services be created? Again the initial setup costs in establishing all of this are either incalculable or have been concealed from us or simply not considered. How long will it take to establish all of this? In the mean time, in an increasingly dangerous world, Scotland will be left exposed

The Plethero of Banking and commercial interests now urging caution are not some Whitehall conspiracy, just like me and about half of the current residents of Scotland they can see the difficulties in all of this, their warnings are heart felt and genuine.

Taxation at present levels cannot possibly hope to fund all of this, so where and how will a country with no independent currency borrow the money to manage these many issues. The recent failure of the Euro and the position of countries such as Greece and Spain are not at all dissimilar to the position that Scotland could easily be faced with. Their problems are a fair indicator of the likely outcome with ancillary problems, like unemployment levels in excess of 25% and the failure of failed banks to pay out.

So what is the solution, vote with your head not patriotic fervour, you will still be a Scot and despite a NO vote, without doubt there will be significant changes to the existing governance of Scotland, that is now beyond doubt.

[kvob]

As a Scot, I will be voting No. I'm often infuritated by the fact that, more times than not, I don't get the government I vote for - but that's Democracy for you. It's not perfect but it's the best we've got. The answer is to persuade others to your way of thinking, not walking away.

So, after much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that Scotland leaving the United Kingdom would probably be one of the greatest acts of self-harm in human history.

[Jonathan Pollard]

ORIGINAL: JDM

In the mean time, in an increasingly dangerous world, Scotland will be left exposed

If Scotland had been independent in 2003 it would not have been complicit in one of the major reasons this world is increasingly dangerous, namely the invasion of Iraq. A majority of Scottish MPs voted against the war.

[Zap]

Maybe I don't understand much of the deep feelings. But wasn't Scotland an independent nation, at one time? And if it can't make that move now because its so dependent on England, There is something wrong(as far as I can see). I mean other countries (that were a part of the united Kingdom) have been given there chance to leave. And they also had to face many challenges. but their independence was more important to them then comfort. So, it will depend on how deep the desire Scots have to forge their own destiny.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zap

Maybe I don't understand much of the deep feelings. But wasn't Scotland an independent nation, at one time? And if it can't make that move now because its so dependent on England, There is something wrong(as far as I can see). I mean other countries (that were a part of the united Kingdom) have been given there chance to leave. And they also had to face many challenges. but their independence was more important to them then comfort. So, it will depend on how deep the desire Scots have to forge their own destiny.

Warspite1

Zap no one is saying they CAN'T make that move now. The question is what will it mean to do so? Yes Scotland was independent previously - 300 years ago - that is long time ago. Unravelling so much that we share is not impossible and, if that is want they want, it can be done, but make no mistake, it WILL be a painful, expensive and hugely uncertain process.

[kvob]

Scotland isn't dependent on England. and just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you have to?
Why break the Union?
Are we subjugated? No.
Are we excluded from democratic processes? No
Are we classed as second-class citizens? No
Is our Scottish identity under threat by being part of the Union? No
Are we slowly being subsumed by the English? No

We are a smaller nation - that much is fact - but I believe we are valued as much as every other nation of the Union. In truth, it is a partnership of equals.