The Dirty Independence Question

[5co77ie]

Question for the stat people...

Would Tony Blair still have won without Scotland ?

Lots of talk of Labour being finished if Scotland went... But I doubt that... Surely Labour would just become Tory-Lite like they did under Blair ?

I am presuming the landslide Blair had would of seen him through with or without Scotland ?

He would have still won - the majority was too much even with the 50 seats Scotland offer - but take away the Welsh and Scottish Labour seats, and re-design the constituencies - as is now being implemented and then it would have been a much thinner majority in 2001 and a loss in 2005.

Edited January 12, 2012 by 5co77ie

[kaosmark2]

Thanks...

That is pretty much what I thought...

I still don't buy the argument we would effectively become a one party system though...

The social impact from the combination of oil / debt and other things linked to Scotland could have some impact on the political make up of the UK. Plus I would imagine you would get Tory-Lite / Tory / Tory-full type parties emerge (even if it is under current party names) and the battle will be draw out like that...

I always see the people of the UK as being centre minded... and I think politics plays out around those lines mainly... I don't think the people would stomach 30-40 years of the same party would they...

There would only be one party that could get ridiculously large majorities withotu Scotland. Not a one party system, but I suspect Labour would need to go into coalition most times they wanted to form governments.

[eFestivals]

I don't think the people would stomach 30-40 years of the same party would they...

nope - the best any party might hope for (now that parliaments are set for 5 years) is about three wins on the trot.

After an amount of time the party in power can't blame previous govts for any fuck ups, plus they get corrupted by being in power - so the public will turn against them

[kaosmark2]

Is there really much appetite for many people in Scotland for independence? The way I see it, people are still rejecting Labour after 13 years, they're not particularly happy with the coalition so far, so for Holyrood, they just voted for the 4th option.

Obviously an oversimplification, but voting SNP doesn't mean voting for indepenence.

Also, I actually agree that the referendum should be a simple yes/no vote. Having "Do you want more benefits and more independence while still leeching as much/more off Westminster?" would obviously be wanted by most people in Scotland, but they shouldn't really be able to demand that off Westminster.

[Purple Monkey]

Breaking News:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/independent-scotland-could-be-exactly-the-same,-warn-experts-201201114752/?utm_campaign=11012012&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_medium=email/

[eFestivals]

Is there really much appetite for many people in Scotland for independence? The way I see it, people are still rejecting Labour after 13 years, they're not particularly happy with the coalition so far, so for Holyrood, they just voted for the 4th option.

Obviously an oversimplification, but voting SNP doesn't mean voting for indepenence.

there's an article in today's Guardian or Telegraph which looks into this, and pretty much says the same thing.

They even point out that while the SNP got a majority in the Scottish Parliament via a system that was designed to try and stop any party getting a majority, the SNP only got (I think it was) 43% of the vote.

Also, I actually agree that the referendum should be a simple yes/no vote. Having "Do you want more benefits and more independence while still leeching as much/more off Westminster?" would obviously be wanted by most people in Scotland, but they shouldn't really be able to demand that off Westminster.

Actually, I think the extra question would mean the opposite of that - that Scotland would stop leeching off the rest of the country if they got (only) financial independence.

According to the article I mention above the 'leeching' is currently worth £1,200 per person in Scotland - and even the guy (Bartlett, is it?) who came up with the formula that gives that extra to Scotland says that that formula needs revising.

[kaosmark2]

there's an article in today's Guardian or Telegraph which looks into this, and pretty much says the same thing.

They even point out that while the SNP got a majority in the Scottish Parliament via a system that was designed to try and stop any party getting a majority, the SNP only got (I think it was) 43% of the vote.

Actually, I think the extra question would mean the opposite of that - that Scotland would stop leeching off the rest of the country if they got (only) financial independence.

According to the article I mention above the 'leeching' is currently worth £1,200 per person in Scotland - and even the guy (Bartlett, is it?) who came up with the formula that gives that extra to Scotland says that that formula needs revising.

Still a higher %age than parties over here need in order to get a majority. Has to be a good thing, and I think there being potential for a majority is a good thing.

So Salmond does mean actual financial independence not pseudo-financial-independence? Huh.

Anyway, while they get things that people in England would like (no tuition fees, free prescriptions), I can't see how they could continue to have a pretty good existence in Scotland without some extras from the UK. I'd agree that it needs revising, but I don't think scrapping it is sensible. The Scots would be screwed.

[eFestivals]

and that looks like what the end game they want here...

They should be told to do one...

In or out... not in with benefits...

they're already "in with benefits", under the Barnett Formula - as is Wales and NI too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

[eFestivals]

So Salmond does mean actual financial independence not pseudo-financial-independence? Huh.

Anyway, while they get things that people in England would like (no tuition fees, free prescriptions), I can't see how they could continue to have a pretty good existence in Scotland without some extras from the UK. I'd agree that it needs revising, but I don't think scrapping it is sensible. The Scots would be screwed.

that "financial independence" wouldn't include the oil/gas money I don't think - while Scotland is a part of the UK the oil/gas money is UK revenue, not Scottish revenue.

I presume they'd get a proportional cut of that, and get to have all of the tax revenue raised within Scotland. And like you say, the Scots would be screwed.

But perhaps that Salmond's plan ... if that's how things panned out then he'll be able to say "if we had full indepence we'd have all the oil money and be fine". He's played a very well considered game for the last 20+ years around the question of independence, and this angle could be more of that.

[eFestivals]

is this the one ?

http://www.telegraph...AAA-rating.html

Nope, that's one I didn't read.

It was this one:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9008823/Scrap-formula-giving-Scots-extra-cash-say-Tory-MPs.html

... and I got it wrong saying the benefit was £1,200 per person, it's £1,600.

[kaosmark2]

that "financial independence" wouldn't include the oil/gas money I don't think - while Scotland is a part of the UK the oil/gas money is UK revenue, not Scottish revenue.

I presume they'd get a proportional cut of that, and get to have all of the tax revenue raised within Scotland. And like you say, the Scots would be screwed.

But perhaps that Salmond's plan ... if that's how things panned out then he'll be able to say "if we had full indepence we'd have all the oil money and be fine". He's played a very well considered game for the last 20+ years around the question of independence, and this angle could be more of that.

I can't see it including as much as Salmond thinks it would. He won't really have much to negotiate with UK-S if independence does go through.

I suspect he's fishing for something like that, but it's very ideological and ultimately a bad idea. I can't see how anyone benefits from Scotland splitting, with the Scots being most screwed of all.

[eFestivals]

I can't see how anyone benefits from Scotland splitting, with the Scots being most screwed of all.

I can only think that Salmond intends to find salvation by operating a low tax regime for businesses in a similar - but more successful (cos of its better links to London) - way to how Ireland has.

Doing something like that is of course an independent state's right, but it's also morally reprehensible by the way it fucks over others rather than creating or adding anything. And ultimately it won't work even for the thieving nations on each's individual basis because someone else will always come and undercut the undercutter.

If Scotland did something like that it'd be the remaining-UK which would be the victim almost exclusively. And if Scotland were to do something like that then it's going to get mightily unpleasant I reckon.

[Kyelo]

Breaking News:

http://www.thedailym...m_medium=email/

haha that isn't actually far wrong!

Actually, I think the extra question would mean the opposite of that - that Scotland would stop leeching off the rest of the country if they got (only) financial independence.

According to the article I mention above the 'leeching' is currently worth £1,200 per person in Scotland - and even the guy (Bartlett, is it?) who came up with the formula that gives that extra to Scotland says that that formula needs revising.

A good little read about who gives who what with this quote being telling "If you apply the same kind calculation to the UK as a whole, the net 'subsidy' for the average person was well over £2,000 last year." - http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-16477990

As to the 'a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence', well either is 'a vote for anyone but the SNP is a vote against independence.'

The whole 'Scottish bank collapse', the very reason those banks are the size they are is because we are part of the UK, there is no way on Earth Scotland would have managed that alone.

Edited January 12, 2012 by BenchBuddah

[eFestivals]

The whole 'Scottish bank collapse', the very reason those banks are the size they are is because we are part of the UK, there is no way on Earth Scotland would have managed that alone.

two words...

1. Iceland

2, Ireland

[5co77ie]

So presumably the Scottish take RBS (and the debt) with them?

[eFestivals]

So presumably the Scottish take RBS (and the debt) with them?

not sure they could really afford to, when the associated liabilities are included.

Hey, maybe they could pay for it with an extra oil/gas percentage coming to the remaining-UK on top of whatever percentage is deemed to belong to the remaining-UK?

[Kyelo]

two words...

1. Iceland

2, Ireland

So your telling me Scotland could amass debt in this institutions alone that was more than any other nation on Earth bar the USA? Doubt it...the fact we are part of the UK(and the Empire)means our fingers went much further afield and had much more influence.

So presumably the Scottish take RBS (and the debt) with them?

not sure they could really afford to, when the associated liabilities are included.

Hey, maybe they could pay for it with an extra oil/gas percentage coming to the remaining-UK on top of whatever percentage is deemed to belong to the remaining-UK?

The fact 'Scotland' is in the name means as little as 'British' does in BP, they are floated on international markets for a reason.

[Kyelo]

I do actually sound like I'm banging the drum for the SNP but in fact have never voted SNP, never will and am totally undecided about independence...more to the fact I plan to totally leave the UK

[lost]

is this the one ?

http://www.telegraph...AAA-rating.html

Speaking at an event in Glasgow in November, former Chancellor Alistair Darling, who authorised the bail-outs, had some cutting observations for his audience.

"If there are any Nationalists in the room, let me tell you this. This didn't happen [the banking crisis] because of what was happening in the sub-prime market, or in New York, or in London, it happened because of bad decisions being taken 40 miles away on the other side of the M8."

hmmm.. Hope Mr Brown wasn't listening, comments interesting too:

Alex Salmond 2007:

"We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in ‘gold-plated’ regulation.”

Edited January 12, 2012 by lost

[TalkShow Bob]

a big question, one I was considering starting a thread on myself yesterday.

I love scotland, I married a scot, and have some great friends up there that I have met over the last 18 years, and have spent at least a year of my life up there over those years.

I heard a man on the radio yesterday describe the SNP as "the nastiest kind of seperatists at heart" yeasterday, and whilst that is a rather harsh genrealisation to make, I have witnessed some quite nasty anti English behaviour whilst up there. the vast vast majority of scots I meet are fantastic people.

I do however- fail to see what scotland would truly achieve from becoming a seperate country. they will need to set up and finance their own NHS, HMRC (i know the HQ is in cumbernauld anyway), education system, prison service, border controls, police service, DSS, etc etc etc, and whilst that might do nicely for the employment figures I truly fail to see how a country with such a small, widely spread population could finance such an infrastructure?

I'm prepared to be educated/better informed on the subject, and freely admit I only grasp the barest of understandings of the subject, but please - be my guest - argue the case for total independance - I am here to be converted.

I seriously dont see how gas/oil/fishing will cover all of that.

as a slightly related aside - my father in law didnt realise that we pay for prescriptions in England, and I reckon that would be one of the first things to go if Salmond gets his way.

To be honnist they will have most of the stuff you list set up allready. The NHS has been fully devolved for longer than devolution has existed, their legal system is diffrent as is their police force. Not sure about prison but it would make sence it was also. DSS and borders would need to be sorted out but it would be simple to move controll of those form Whitehall to Victoria Que (Scottish Governments equivlenet of Whitehall).

Their population size and spread isnt that far off Scandinavias and look how well they do.

[Kowalski]

Nicola Sturgeon is a terrible advert for the SNP. Taken to the cleaners by Paddy Ashdown and David Dimbleby tonight about the addition of the third question on the referendum.

And apparently the vote is in 2014 to avoid the Commonwealth Games

[kaosmark2]

Silly bint krankie talking about the length of time it will take for HS2 to come to Scotland....

HS2 is a great example of a spend on Scotland that won't show up on the Scottish book...

Bet it'll reach Edinburgh before Cornwall, or East Anglia.

[eFestivals]

So your telling me Scotland could amass debt in this institutions alone that was more than any other nation on Earth bar the USA? Doubt it...the fact we are part of the UK(and the Empire)means our fingers went much further afield and had much more influence.

Scottish banks could amass debts way beyond the capability of an independent Scotland to bail them out, yes.

Banks in Iceland and Ireland managed to do that - and they will have had a lower international reach than banks within an independent Scotland would have* managed (because of Scotland being more closely identified with the secure banking country that is Britain/England).

(* I say "would have" because that was the situation in the past. It might not be so easy for banks to stretch things that far in the future because of what happened recently).

The fact 'Scotland' is in the name means as little as 'British' does in BP, they are floated on international markets for a reason.

that has zero to do with the comments I made regarding debts that soveriegn states have.

[5co77ie]

So your telling me Scotland could amass debt in this institutions alone that was more than any other nation on Earth bar the USA? Doubt it...the fact we are part of the UK(and the Empire)means our fingers went much further afield and had much more influence.

The answer on last night's Question Time about currency was telling - the gist of it - will Scotland keep the £? Justine Greening - Well it'll depend upon whether England wants to let them.

[5co77ie]

The fact 'Scotland' is in the name means as little as 'British' does in BP, they are floated on international markets for a reason.

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2012/01/what-currency-will-an-independent-scotland-have-and-other-tough-questions-for-salmond/#axzz1jKEV1nve

Salmond’s answer to Channel 4′s Jon Snow last night was that an independent Scotland would keep the amount of North Sea oil and gas that is on its continental shelf – 90 per cent of the UK’s total. But he was much more reluctant to accept any share in the Treasury’s toxic RBS assets, which it gained when the bank was nationalised. These, he said in one of his more ingenious phrases, were the responsibility of the “London Treasury”.