What is Westminsters Plan B

a reply to: mclarenmp4

It wasn't a deflection, but rather a retort to the oft quoted "if we had all our Oil blah blah" nonsense.

You cannot say Scotland would be great based on figures from the last 40 years, while ignoring the whole period of the Union.

Had there been no Union at all, Scotland would have been a dire place - it would not have benefited at all from the British Empire like they did and as a result they wouldn't have undergone the manufacturing boom during the industrial revolution which led Scotland to even greater riches (as you only managed that because of access to markets) - much less even make it to the 1970's.

You took a snippet of a much longer history to try and prove a point - and failed. I would love for you to explain how Scotland would have managed sans Union as the industrial revolution would have passed you by.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Bottom line is, if you want to bring up history, then lets do, but in it's entirety.

If you want to deal with the facts now, not some "what if" bullcrap, then you have to explain how Scotland hopes to overcome an 8% budget deficit while still providing the level of services you seem to expect, much less improve on them.

a reply to: stumason
Sorry but the industrial revolution want a purely UK affair it happened across europe. Also a lot industrial and technological changes within the UK originated from within Scotland.
As much as certain historians a imperial bent would like to pretend that only England saved the world from being cave dwelling savages Tha is simply not the case.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I didn't say it was a solely UK thing - I clearly said without the access to markets being in the Union provided, Scotland would have lost out. It is no coincidence that the UK was the leading industrial power because of our huge Empire and others could not hope to match us on industrial power simply because we refused access to markets..

As for the (again) oft quoted "!it was invented in Scotland" - so? Without any markets to make use of it, it would simply have been done somewhere else. The Scottish inventors did very nicely out of being positioned within the dominant industrial power. Had they not, they would have simply moved. You cannot make the argument that Scotland would have developed any meaningful industry outside the Union, because what would they make, out of what and sell to whom?

a reply to: stumason
If Westminster is perceived as meaning English bastard then what does it mean when someone english uses the term? Freeborn I believe has been fairly critical of Westminster is ge anti English or is only when Scots use the term.
The vast and I mean vast majority of obsession with making this a ethnic issue comes from the no campaign. Almost every bitter together leaflet goes on about being a proud Scot and every criticism of the UK is painted as being anti English.

a reply to: stumasonit is entirely possible for a country to be successful out with the glorious empire you know. Most are. And as you are acknowledging yourself the main reason Scotland economy was struggling was due to an economic blockade by England. It is impossible to say if Scotland would be mire ir less successful now if had not been in the union ir had left before now.
What is important is can Scotland be a successful independent nation now. With a third of the UK land mass 90% the oil and a well educated population why the fell not. There are many smaller nations with less resources doing very well.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I made it quite clear last time you asked - the same people now saying "Westminster" were, a few years ago, quite happy to make the same complaints about "The English". Same complaint, different word. It seems they have changed their tack in the last 6-12 months and now just say "Westminster" instead - but it is clear from the replies in this thread that the English are to blame for everything, after all, we took all your Oil and robbed you of gold-plated toilet bowls...

What Freeborn says and does is entirely different and in no relation whatsoever to the point I was making. I actually agree with him that Parliament is a mess and needs sorting out, but we have always said "Westminster" or Parliament. We haven't changed our terminology in the previous year to dodge accusations of blaming it all on someone.

a reply to: stumason

Ok.

We have established by looking at the 2011/12 independent Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report that Scotland generated 9.9% of UK tax revenue but received in return only 9.3% of UK spending. If we had received 9.9% of the spend we would have been £4.4bn better off last year alone.

We only have 8.4% of the UK population but we generate 9.9% of the taxes. We then only get 9.3% of that to spend on our economy.

However, when Scotland runs a deficit the UK treasury does not send the extra money we need wrapped up in a pink ribbon with a card saying ‘Dear Scotland, here is a gift.’ Its is a loan with interest that needs to be repaid by Scotland. What the Treasury does is borrow from the international money markets on behalf of the whole of the UK (which needs relatively more borrowing than Scotland) and then guess what – Scotland gets 9.3% of that borrowing but has to contribute 9.9% of the tax revenues to pay the debt back which now has roughly 3% compound interest! Scotland as part of the UK has to pay more to borrow, than the rest of the UK. So once again Scotland gets a raw deal.

Looking at Scotland’s national accounts (GERS) you can see that there is an expenditure line labelled “Public Sector Debt Interest” in 2011/12. This amounts to £4.1 billion.

So without the need to pay interest on servicing the debt and the interest on the loans the UK give us along with the removal of Trident and having a smaller defence force. Then I'm sure we would manage to balance our budget.

Link
Link

a reply to: stumason

Get over yourself and stop trying to make this an anti-english debate because if you lived here you would know that's simply not the case. If anything we have solidarity with you because we know you are in the same position as us but with less possibility for changing the current status quo.

But you are also bringing on the anti-english sentiment because you are marginalising us and trying to make it sound like that without us English you would be nothing and that is what is very annoying to us, we are treated like 2nd class citizens in our own country ffs.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Again, you make out like it was a blockade by the English against the Scots.

All nations had restrictions on foreign trade back then, to protect their own markets. Granted, some gave others preferential treatment, but on the whole, protectionism was the name of the game.

I only brought up history because another poster claimed that outside the Union since the 70's, Scotland would be awesome, but you cannot be so selective with your history.

If you want to discuss an independent Scotland going forward from now, regardless of History, then do answer my other question.

You have an 8% GDP budget deficit - this would make it the worst in the EU (if you even are allowed to join) and among the worst in the world. Explain how Scotland would be "successful" without massive changes, such as no more free tuition, or prescriptions, or generous benefits?

a reply to: stumason

And there you go again with the pompous attitude and condescending tone, no wonder you get an anti-english sentiment. it's you that's perpetuating it.

a reply to: stumason
If you think someone north of the border saying Westminster really means "bastard English" then I am afraid the problem us with your own insecurities not what others mean.
Many yes supporters were born in England (and many other places) it is not about ethnic origin it is about changing how we are governed for the better.
The only anti English post I have seen lately was from a Welshman who subsequently gave full apology. If there are any anti English posters I think they should be treated with the same contempt as the anti Scots/welsh/black/muslim/women/gay posters.
Anti Italian is obviously ok ( bastards don't they know we only let them play rugby with the big boys so Scotland don't finish last)

a reply to: stumason
Can you link a source for your budget deficit figure? Unless I am mistaken this is the figure that includes Scotland's per capita share of all existing UK expenditure so includes trident hs2 and others.
Scotland has more natural resources per capita than almost any other European country, if the economy isn't prosperous with that then surely the blame lies with the existing union and is a reason for change?

a reply to: ScepticScot

I already have - the Scottish Government itself. Look back.

The figures include only Scottish Government expense - not UK Government. Nice try, but no fly...

EDIT: Because the figures are buried within a spreadsheet, here they are in black and white:

Scottish Government Expense: £65 Billion
Scottish Government revenue (including Oil): £53,147 Billion
Difference: £12 Billion
Scottish GDP (including Oil): £144,672 Billion
Deficit: £12 Billion/£144 Billion = 8% GDP

a reply to: mclarenmp4

And again, you have failed to even try and disprove what I have said, instead attacking the poster.

And how exactly is pointing out the simple facts "pompous and condescending"?

You have an 8% GDP budget deficit - how do you propose dealing with it?

a reply to: stumason

I've already answered that question, look above.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Ah yes - I see that now. Forgive me if the first thing I saw when scrolling up after coming back from lunch was you performing an ad hominem....

Now, as for your figures, that is at odds with the Scottish Governments own figures! It agrees with the 9.3% spend, but with regards to a % of total UK revenue (including Oil) it is 9.1%... - at least in FY 12/13

(Hint, look at table E.1 for revenue on that link I gave you - if you even looked at the figures)

Ah, I see what someone has done... They have selectively picked FY 11/12 as an example, which almost jives as it has expense at 9.3% but revenue @ 9.8% - despite for 3 out of the 5 years shown on the Scottish Governments own figures show revenue as less than expenditure!

So it seems this myth of the UK being subsidised by Scotland is actually total bullcrap.

The truth is actually more like "From time to time, sometimes, the revenue in Scotland exceeds the spend by a little bit, but more often than not that isn't the case".

a reply to: stumason
The Scottish government expenditure figure includes the Scottish share of nations expenditure so defence, UK infrastructure ( such as hs2) etc
So my "nice try" was actually correct.
Scotland will need to borrow, as does almost every nation but within perfectly normal range.
Do you have anything else from the too wee, too poor to stupid playbook?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Quite - you are right - diving into the various different worksheets it is buired within...

But wouldn't Scotland have to pay for it's own Defence, or infrastructure?

When you delve into the figures, the total allocated to "defence" amounts to 4% of the total expenditure - or £3 Billion. The Scottish Government is proposing a defence budget post-independence of....wait for it.... £3 Billion... So we're arguing semantics. You still have the 8% deficit to deal with.

EDIT: It's not a case of being "too wee/too poor" - I am simply trying to point out the fact that the vision of an independent Scotland painted by the YES crowd (and the SNP in particular) is one of plentiful cash. This is clearly not the case. You will have an enormous deficit in relation to GDP and no track record when it comes to borrowing, not to mention a failure to get a currency Union would expose you even more and probably lead Scotland to being labelled as "junk" in the bond markets - good luck with borrowing then.

a reply to: [post=18405402]stumason[/post
defence is a great example as Scottish share of defence is as you say around 3 billion. However scotlands share of expenditure in Scotland is less than 2 billion. So if Scotland uses more of its budget in Scotland then that in turn boosts the economy and tax receipts. Economics is not a zero sum game and governments don't need to balance their budgets like households.
You are building a rather wobbly straw man, the SNP nor yes Scotland don't claim there will be plentiful cash just that things will be better than they are now. They may be right they may be wrong but no claims of land of milk and honey. That is a biased media myth.
Final point even without a CU (which I don't favour at least in long run) there is no reason for Scotland to have anything other than a good credit rating. International credit ratings don't work the same way personal ones do. Scotland doesn't need to run a wee catalogue for a couple of years to build up a score to get a credit card.