kingantti1874 Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Don't usually post articles from the daily record but found this one interesting.. A bit of a reality check for those thinking independence would somehow mean an end to austerity.. Like many I suspected that another referendum, and a yes vote would occur sooner rather than later.. Given the economics of the decision I'm relatively confident this won't happen. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/how-economy-remains-obstacle-second-6685837 "The figures are dry and complicated but their message is undeniable ? independence would have cost billions. If Swinney had been on the winning side of the referendum, he would currently be preparing the first budget of an independent Scotland. It would have involved a lot of pain. His stark choice would have been to slash spending, hike up taxes or borrow vast amounts of cash at artificially high interest rates on the international money markets. He would probably have had to do all three."
Mikey1874 Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Yes voters don't care For next Referendum No campaign needs to understand that.
Mysterion Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 I do believe that Scotland could be Independent - i don't believe we just couldn't survive but i'd also add i didn't fully believe the White Paper was completely viable. It was never going to be easy and much harder that expected - i think we suffer from being in the position that when things are good then for many there's there's no reason to shake things up. When things are bad we have to be honest enough to accept we've got a fallback in Westminster despite some of the vile people who serve in it.
kingantti1874 Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 Yes voters don't care For next Referendum No campaign needs to understand that. Oh I'm not so sure for the real hardcore you are correct of course but I think many were on the fence and genuinely believed we'd be stronger financially... my circle of friends and family was split down the middle in terms of the way they voted, I would think, in fact I guarantee some, actually most, of them would vote no if faced with being worse off financially, especially those working in public services.
kingantti1874 Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 The DR as a source? On the presumption that we mirror Westminister spending no doubt? With independence, we'd no longer fund English vanity projects and although not mentioned often, we'd surely secure a quarter of UK assets both here and abroad making us extremely wealthy. The scare stories never worked on 45% of the population last year, after everything that has happened since the referendum, they're unlikely to ever be believed from such questionable sources. The number didn't add up last year, they certainly don't add up now, I do t think I've read any economist who thinks we'd be anything other than significantly worse off, especially now the oil industry is on its last legs.. I don't honk I've ever read any economist argue that we'd be better off, even the SNP have given up with that particular Line of argument which says it all.. We won't be wealthy mate.. That's a complete fantasy ... Maybe if we could go back to he 70's it'd be different.
reaths17 Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 The DR as a source? On the presumption that we mirror Westminister spending no doubt? With independence, we'd no longer fund English vanity projects and although not mentioned often, we'd surely secure a quarter of UK assets both here and abroad making us extremely wealthy. The scare stories never worked on 45% of the population last year, after everything that has happened since the referendum, they're unlikely to ever be believed from such questionable sources. it may be the DR but maybe you can get your head out the sand long enough to dispell the points made in the report, bearing in mind that mr swinney SNP finance minister agreed that their monetary plans were pie in the sky.
kingantti1874 Posted October 22, 2015 Author Posted October 22, 2015 So you're saying that we wouldn't be entitled to one quarter of home/overseas assets if we were independent. Last figure I had for overall value was trillions rather than billions by the way. Financial black holes are based on current Westminister spending plans. I'd rather be poor and happy, than comfortable and miserable. No we wouldn't be entitled to one quarter (why a quarter btw? Given we are 1/10th of the population ? )of the uk's assets - , not unless we take a quarter of the debt which would be about ?320bn As of today. I'm not even sure what assets we have.. People are unhappy at current Westminster spending plans because they aren't investing enough.. Yet we'd find a black hole in our finances 7% greater than the current deficit ... you may well be happy.. but people won't vote to be poorer, to have their benefits cut even further, to lose jobs in the public sector, for hospitals and schools to be closed or scaled back, for the police and fire brigade to suffer...people won't make a decision which harms their family and jeopordises their home.. A significant number got caught up in the romance, the notion that independence would fix all our economic woes, that we'd somehow be better off... And it was predominantly about economics, swinney is right on that front - they didn't convince people that it was viable .. Those people will now pull back, turkeys don't vote for Christmas after all
Thunderstruck Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 The DR as a source? On the presumption that we mirror Westminister spending no doubt? With independence, we'd no longer fund English vanity projects and although not mentioned often, we'd surely secure a quarter of UK assets both here and abroad making us extremely wealthy. The scare stories never worked on 45% of the population last year, after everything that has happened since the referendum, they're unlikely to ever be believed from such questionable sources. Firstly, it wasn't 45% of the POPULATION. Repeating that lie will not make it come true. At best, it was 36% of the registered electorate (itself between 90 and 95% of the eligible adult population). If you get that wrong, doubt is cast on your point on finances. Secondly, you want a share (presumably 8% on the basis of GDP) of the assets would it be fair to take (and service) a similar proportion of the national debt? If so where does that leave your calculation?
JamboX2 Posted October 22, 2015 Posted October 22, 2015 Good article. The choice was never going to be milk and honey or more milk and honey or comfort v destitution. But it would've been hard and difficult and frankly most voters don't like that. Something the SNP know all too well as they consistently dump radical reform to appease the majority from land reform to council tax reform. I get for some that independence is the be all and poverty is worth it if we're poor and running the show ourselves but it's not that easy and widespread a view when the electorate as a whole beyond the core of a movement need to contemplate cuts to schools, hospitals and pensions. I reckon the SNP would've broken apart within a few years of independence under the economic conditions outlined in that article. No way could their left and right hold together for a terms with cuts, tax hikes and inflated borrowing costs.
aussieh Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Good article. The choice was never going to be milk and honey or more milk and honey or comfort v destitution. But it would've been hard and difficult and frankly most voters don't like that. Something the SNP know all too well as they consistently dump radical reform to appease the majority from land reform to council tax reform. I get for some that independence is the be all and poverty is worth it if we're poor and running the show ourselves but it's not that easy and widespread a view when the electorate as a whole beyond the core of a movement need to contemplate cuts to schools, hospitals and pensions. I reckon the SNP would've broken apart within a few years of independence under the economic conditions outlined in that article. No way could their left and right hold together for a terms with cuts, tax hikes and inflated borrowing costs. Thered be no SNP after the first election, come to think of it, thered be no need for any party beginning with Scottish.
Seymour M Hersh Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Don't usually post articles from the daily record but found this one interesting.. A bit of a reality check for those thinking independence would somehow mean an end to austerity.. Like many I suspected that another referendum, and a yes vote would occur sooner rather than later.. Given the economics of the decision I'm relatively confident this won't happen. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/how-economy-remains-obstacle-second-6685837 "The figures are dry and complicated but their message is undeniable ? independence would have cost billions. If Swinney had been on the winning side of the referendum, he would currently be preparing the first budget of an independent Scotland. It would have involved a lot of pain. His stark choice would have been to slash spending, hike up taxes or borrow vast amounts of cash at artificially high interest rates on the international money markets. He would probably have had to do all three." Nonsense! Wee Eck told us it would only cost ?200m.
Riddley Walker Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Sourcing the Daily Record? Can't believe folk are still buying into the nonsense that Scotland would somehow crumble into poverty if it was to go independent. Keep lapping.
reaths17 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 The Vow paper. Sourcing the Daily Record? Can't believe folk are still buying into the nonsense that Scotland would somehow crumble into poverty if it was to go independent. Keep lapping. so all you've got to refute these claims are a derisory comment and a ****in smiley, about sums up the seperatists, not a clue about what happens after, they just want FREEDOM.............to be ruled by Scottish idiots and have poverty back.
Riddley Walker Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 so all you've got to refute these claims are a derisory comment and a ****in smiley, about sums up the seperatists, not a clue about what happens after, they just want FREEDOM.............to be ruled by Scottish idiots and have poverty back. Scottish idiots? What are you on about? Don't think you understand much about what would happen.
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 So you're saying that we wouldn't be entitled to one quarter of home/overseas assets if we were independent. Last figure I had for overall value was trillions rather than billions by the way. Financial black holes are based on current Westminister spending plans. I'd rather be poor and happy, than comfortable and miserable. It's easy saying that but show me someone with a family who is relatively comfortable who'd be happy to be poor and I'll show you a liar! For arguments sake lets say gaining independence meant families being poor. Do you honestly think people would want or accept this? No they wouldn't. I'm proud to be Scottish however if my family was going to suffer as a result then I'd never put them through the strain.
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 "Scotland would get one quarter of the assets..." 10 per cent of the population (less than Yorkshire) gets 25 per cent of the assets. Sound legit. The thing you should always remember is that the yes campaign hate the English. The rest of it doesn't really matter to them.
Ron Burgundy Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 so all you've got to refute these claims are a derisory comment and a ****in smiley, about sums up the seperatists, not a clue about what happens after, they just want FREEDOM.............to be ruled by Scottish idiots and have poverty back. La La La, fingers in their ears. Complete fantasists. It's independence and to hell with the consequences.
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 So you're saying that we wouldn't be entitled to one quarter of home/overseas assets if we were independent. Last figure I had for overall value was trillions rather than billions by the way. Financial black holes are based on current Westminister spending plans. I'd rather be poor and happy, than comfortable and miserable. You make it sound like you're living in Somalia.
Der Kaiser Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 The Daily Record......it's not even a decent source of chippy wrappers!
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 They're already poor, and getting poorer. When you have nothing, what is there left to lose. That's not what you originally said though!
Yoda Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Don't usually post articles from the daily record but found this one interesting.. A bit of a reality check for those thinking independence would somehow mean an end to austerity.. Like many I suspected that another referendum, and a yes vote would occur sooner rather than later.. Given the economics of the decision I'm relatively confident this won't happen. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/how-economy-remains-obstacle-second-6685837 "The figures are dry and complicated but their message is undeniable ? independence would have cost billions. If Swinney had been on the winning side of the referendum, he would currently be preparing the first budget of an independent Scotland. It would have involved a lot of pain. His stark choice would have been to slash spending, hike up taxes or borrow vast amounts of cash at artificially high interest rates on the international money markets. He would probably have had to do all three." They also assume that all other factors remain the same. It doesn't factor in all the financial institutions (ie Standard Life, RBS, BoS) that would have been heading south with all their jobs if we'd voted yes. The defence jobs (ie Selex, BAE Systems etc) that would have lost all future investment from its biggest customer the MoD. FREE-DUM !
Rousset1 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I like Sturgeon because she reminds me of one of my childhood heroes, Wee Jimmy Krankie. Fandabidozi!
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Previous post referred to myself, that post was referring to the public. That's why I started one with 'I' and other with 'they'. I get that but now you're talking for millions of people?
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 As above, why would it based on current population when they've been obtained and developed over 300 years? You've lost any credence with the anti-English rhetoric. I'm half-English, my family all stay in Peterborough as well. Just a lazy, stereotypical argument as always. Why would 10 per cent of the current population get 25 per cent of current assets? Is this how the SNP's idea of a fairer society works?
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Don't be silly. I was talking from experience over 10 years of working with poor families, the disabled, the elderly etc. and seeing first hand their perilous life position forced upon them by an overzealous UK government. I'm not being silly. You're coming over as making flippant comments which seem to have little basis. Even working with poor families, how many can you honestly say you speak on behalf of? I'm not trying to be a smart arse here however it really shouldn't be a case of independence at any cost, regardless of what that cost might be. I do agree that most people struggling to make ends meet or have very little have nothing to lose. That said nobody can honestly say that these people will have all voted yes or will do so again.
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 I'll use 45% of the country as and when I choose to do so. Just like you lot continuing to say that more than half the country voted to stay in the union. Works both ways. I've not offered any calculations, it's outwith my remit. I only offered the point that we're entitled to 1/4 of UK assets. 1. Where is it written down that we are entitled to 1/4 of the assets ? 2. What about the debt 3. If the economic argument is cut and dried then why didn't the SNP make it and secure a yes.. This is a key argument - 1 page in the independence manifesto - 1 page on the biggest issue of the lot, why ?
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 Ask the SNP, I've never voted them. Why would you base it on todays population? Has the historical percentage population always been 90/10? Why would assets accrued over 300 years suddenly be split on a factor that bears no significance? It's never been a quarter has it?
reaths17 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 and still none of our seperatists has broken down that bastion of truth, the DR's report and destroyed its points, ITS ONLY THE RECORD, c'mon, it's surely easy
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 I'm not being silly. You're coming over as making flippant comments which seem to have little basis. Even working with poor families, how many can you honestly say you speak on behalf of? I'm not trying to be a smart arse here however it really shouldn't be a case of independence at any cost, regardless of what that cost might be. I do agree that most people struggling to make ends meet or have very little have nothing to lose. That said nobody can honestly say that these people will have all voted yes or will do so again. Is there arguememt those struggling to make ends meet have the most to lose, the U.K. Benefit system isn't a "typical" example, despite the "perceived" injustices it could be so much worse.. And those will be the first people to suffer. Those who are not dependent on the state have the leverage to take decisions or change direction which mitigate change which isn't beneficial to them.
reaths17 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I'm not going to reply on your previous post, it's like stepping back 12 months in time. Why would you base it on todays population? That's venturing on idiocy. You obtain and grow something over 300 years and then split and divide the assets on the basis of a inconsequential population that happened to exist on the day of separation. It'd be 1/4. by the time you've compensated those historically entitled, like the highland clearences, as it was their descendants that helped garner the uk's historical wealth and all the emigrated scots since, as all their historical family will be entitled to a historical cut whats the percentage ?
Boris Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 so all you've got to refute these claims are a derisory comment and a ****in smiley, about sums up the seperatists, not a clue about what happens after, they just want FREEDOM.............to be ruled by Scottish idiots and have poverty back. Poverty back? It's never been away....
reaths17 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Poverty back? It's never been away.... to true boris, but its getting worse under the control of our very own Scottish politicians
Phil Dunphy Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 So you're saying that we wouldn't be entitled to one quarter of home/overseas assets if we were independent. Last figure I had for overall value was trillions rather than billions by the way. Financial black holes are based on current Westminister spending plans. I'd rather be poor and happy, than comfortable and miserable. Who's we? I thought you gave up your citizenship?
Boris Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 and still none of our seperatists has broken down that bastion of truth, the DR's report and destroyed its points, ITS ONLY THE RECORD, c'mon, it's surely easy It seems to blur the SNP and YES. One could vote YES and demand a socialist republic, for example, so the article is immediately irrelevant. I won't say that had Scotland become an independent nation that there wouldn't have been economic implications and that, in the short term, people may well have been worse off. But for me, at least, voting YES wasn't about the short term implications, but rather the long term and I felt that an independent Scotland would grow into a better society for my son and any potential grandchildren to grow up in. A year on and still in the Union, with a majority Tory government at Westminster, I must admit that I don't feel particularly better off.
Boris Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 to true boris, but its getting worse under the control of our very own Scottish politicians Then it is up to the electorate to charge the politicians with making it better. As an electorate we should demand it. From all parties.
reaths17 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 It seems to blur the SNP and YES. One could vote YES and demand a socialist republic, for example, so the article is immediately irrelevant. I won't say that had Scotland become an independent nation that there wouldn't have been economic implications and that, in the short term, people may well have been worse off. But for me, at least, voting YES wasn't about the short term implications, but rather the long term and I felt that an independent Scotland would grow into a better society for my son and any potential grandchildren to grow up in. A year on and still in the Union, with a majority Tory government at Westminster, I must admit that I don't feel particularly better off. not feeling any better off might be caused in part by the current incumbents at holyrood withholding large chunks of the budget and then having Westminster claw back the underspend which highlights the quality of public servant we would have with independence.
Jambo_Gaz Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Yes voters slating the Daily Record when they quote their own fanzine, that National, at any opportunity.
Phil Dunphy Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I'm still Scottish. I want a passport adorned with the saltire, until then I'll refrain from renewing my passport for the UK. I like having the option, whereas you're stuck in a undemocratic cesspit. I seem to have struck a nerve. Enjoy your hypocrisy mate [emoji4] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
cuthy2k Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Why would you base it on todays population? That's venturing on idiocy. You obtain and grow something over 300 years and then split and divide the assets on the basis of a inconsequential population that happened to exist on the day of separation. It'd be 1/4. Surely you cannot be serious? So if you sold your house, you should split the asset value between each previous owner?
reaths17 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Surely you cannot be serious? So if you sold your house, you should split the asset value between each previous owner? he's wanting his ancestors cut along with his wee saltire
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 It seems to blur the SNP and YES. One could vote YES and demand a socialist republic, for example, so the article is immediately irrelevant. I won't say that had Scotland become an independent nation that there wouldn't have been economic implications and that, in the short term, people may well have been worse off. But for me, at least, voting YES wasn't about the short term implications, but rather the long term and I felt that an independent Scotland would grow into a better society for my son and any potential grandchildren to grow up in. A year on and still in the Union, with a majority Tory government at Westminster, I must admit that I don't feel particularly better off. Compared to?
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 First, comparing the accumulation of 7.3trillion of assets obtained over a 300 year period to a house sale... Second, if you sold your house to an individual, you relinquish your right of ownership. The UK is a partnership, we as a partnership have developed the assets. To use your analogy. Scotland and England have jointly owned a house for 300 years, they break-up and decide to sell the house, they get 50%. It doesn't matter on the size of their respective families on date of sale. So why don't the SNP share the view that if we were independent we'd be like a northern outpost of Qatar ?
Thunderstruck Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I have no idea why they never, but it's grated on me that it was rarely discussed during the referendum. No doubt Westminster would have retorted with the usual 'no you won't' but there is a legal basis that 1/4 of assets are ours, sorry yours. I don't think you responded on taking a share of the accumulated national debt. Nothing to say on that? In the meantime, perhaps you could tell us exactly when, since the Union, that Scotland's population was ever 25% of that of the rest of the U.K. 8% is GDP ratio, 9% is popoplation ratio so where does 25% come from? Landmass?
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 I have no idea why they never, but it's grated on me that it was rarely discussed during the referendum. No doubt Westminster would have retorted with the usual 'no you won't' but there is a legal basis that 1/4 of assets are ours, sorry yours. It was rarely discussed because it's not true mate - ... There is no legal basis anywhere .. You think we'd take a quarter of the assets destroying the value of sterling and the U.K. Economy in the process.. Dream on buddy, that's absolute fantasy I'm afraid.. If it weren't fantasy you'd have heard heard all about it..
Boris Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 not feeling any better off might be caused in part by the current incumbents at holyrood withholding large chunks of the budget and then having Westminster claw back the underspend which highlights the quality of public servant we would have with independence. Perhaps, although the tax credit farce being played out at Westminster has hee haw to do with Holyrood. Regards public servants, or representatives rather, SNP, Labour, Tory....none really stand out at Holyrood. Doesn't mean that this would always be the case.
Boris Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Compared to? Independence = worse off Therefore remaining "better together" = no worse off. Tory majority at Wesminster = worse off. Therefore "better together" = worse off too.
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 I've explained it 3 times on this thread, read the posts if you want an explanation. You really really haven't..go find an economist, a politician a legal expert ... anyone of note or significance who shares that view - at best you'll find nationalist blogs based on nothing written by nobodies. have you ever heard of Occam's razor ?
Mr Brightside Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I've explained it 3 times on this thread, read the posts if you want an explanation.Sorry but you haven't. It appears that this 25% has been plucked out of thin air and you say that it has been previously discussed/ explained, despite nobody else on the thread ever recalling a 25% share of assets being discussed. Any link to support the argument that Scotland would get a 25% share of assets and what these assets are would be greatly appreciated.
kingantti1874 Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 Independence = worse off Therefore remaining "better together" = no worse off. Tory majority at Wesminster = worse off. Therefore "better together" = worse off too. So we wouldn't have been worse off with 10% addition cuts in spending? Likely combined with higher taxes? It's all relative..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.