It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

See ya Scotland, now please go before influencing our EU referendum for the UK

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

The nation of the UK is better together due to the current economic climate but it has got to the point that getting rid of the deluded Nationalist Scotland, and Wales and NI if they want to, is a good idea. Enough of the blame and Braveheart threats, costly referendums and special advantage terms. Go make your own mess and blame yourselves.




posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth & grainofsand



If oil revenues are included in GDP figures, Scotland is shown to generate more per head of population than the UK as a whole. For Scotland, it is £26,424 per head compared with £22,336 per head for the UK, according to Scottish government estimates. If you do not include oil and gas revenues then there is little difference in the figures - GDP per head in Scotland was £20,571 in 2011 and for the UK it was £20,873.


Link



Scotland accounted for 9.3% of UK public spending between 2008-09 and 2012-13, while generating 9.5% of tax receipts - it put in more than it got out. It suggests that tax receipts are currently 14% higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK


Link

ONS Website - link


Listen we pay in more per person that England, Wales, and Ireland, we can fend for ourselves, we take our oil and will go and leave England, see how long it takes for them you lot to start bitching and moaning, a bit like you are doing now. please stop swallowing the daily mail propoganda, come up and see us, we are not the devil, or the maurading hauls that you are being told of. Panaorama ran a program yesterday and it was full of this nonsence.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: weemadmental
a reply to: theabsolutetruth & grainofsand



If oil revenues are included in GDP figures, Scotland is shown to generate more per head of population than the UK as a whole. For Scotland, it is £26,424 per head compared with £22,336 per head for the UK, according to Scottish government estimates. If you do not include oil and gas revenues then there is little difference in the figures - GDP per head in Scotland was £20,571 in 2011 and for the UK it was £20,873.


Link



Scotland accounted for 9.3% of UK public spending between 2008-09 and 2012-13, while generating 9.5% of tax receipts - it put in more than it got out. It suggests that tax receipts are currently 14% higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK


Link

ONS Website - link


Listen we pay in more per person that England, Wales, and Ireland, we can fend for ourselves, we take our oil and will go and leave England, see how long it takes for them you lot to start bitching and moaning, a bit like you are doing now. please stop swallowing the daily mail propoganda, come up and see us, we are not the devil, or the maurading hauls that you are being told of. Panaorama ran a program yesterday and it was full of this nonsence.





I have to smile at a Scot with "eddie" as an avatar and a mood as "drunk" claiming not to be the devil.

Not disagreeing with you but just finding the humour in that.

Good luck with changing opinions that have been 300 years in the making buddy.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: weemadmental

There is the fact that the oil isn't Scotland's, oil prices are volatile, SNP calculations are bunk, and the Barnett Formula.

news.sky.com...


It's been used to distribute UK wealth across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for 35 years. Faisal Islam explains.

What is the Barnett formula?

It's a system of grants for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that's based partly on which powers they have devolved to them, and partly on population.

What does it do?

The formula, strictly speaking the Barnett settlement, allocates state spending between the nations of the United Kingdom. The end result is wide disparities between the per-person spending of up to £2,000 a year in those nations.

Who wins from Barnett?

Scotland wins versus England and Wales. Northern Ireland does best. Average UK per capita spend on "geographically identifiable" things is £8,788. England is 3% less, Scotland 16% more (a 19% differential with Scotland), Wales 10% more and NI 24% more. That is just the basic numbers.

Some politicians argue a fairer funding formula would reflect "need" ie. poverty, ageing etc in each country. On this measure Wales is very hard done by, and Scotland does spectacularly well.

What is its relevance to the Scottish independence referendum?

If you aren't Scottish and you think the settlement is iniquitous, you might welcome Scottish independence. At that moment Scotland's higher level of public spending will have to be raised from Scotland's own tax base. The SNP's calculation is that oil and other revenues will cover it. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and the respected Barnett expert Iain Maclean disagree. The real relevance is that a maintenance of the formula was promised in Tuesday's three party "vow". That is highly controversial with politicians in England and Wales.

It's all about oil though, isn't it?

No, it isn't. The "tartan top-up" on public spending goes back more than a century, well before the oil industry, let alone North Sea Oil. In the 1880s Chancellor Viscount Goschen was essentially trying to buy off home rule in Ireland and Scotland.

It failed in Ireland but in Scotland the so-called "Goschen Proportion" channelled £11 to Scotland for every £80 spent in England and Wales. This continued even as Scotland's population fell: effectively a windfall for Scottish spending. Barnett was meant to equalise spending levels through a careful "squeeze". But it was never allowed to bite.


www.ft.com...


Scotland’s North Sea revenues would have slumped to one fifth of Holyrood’s preferred forecasts in its first year of independence if Scots had voted Yes in September, according to an Office for Budget Responsibility simulation using current oil prices.

The OBR projections, which take into account a dramatically lower oil price than the one used in Scottish government forecasts, highlight how the nation could have been saved from a crisis in its public finances by voting No in the referendum.

Had Scotland voted Yes to independence, it would now be looking at oil revenues of £1.25bn instead of £6.9bn in 2016-17 — its first year as a new country — while facing a deficit of close to 6 per cent of national income, compared with a UK forecast of 2.1 per cent.


www.telegraph.co.uk...< br />


Much overlooked in all the glad handing on Friday, however, is that the fiscal case for independence has weakened even further since the referendum. Thanks to the plunge in the oil price, the economic arguments for independence are pretty much toast, or in any case would be unless Scots are prepared to tolerate further massive cuts in public expenditure.
Since June this year, the oil price as measured by the Brent benchmark has collapsed from $115 to just $78 today, a fall of nearly a third. This doesn't quite translate to a reduction in North Sea tax revenues of the same order of magnitude, but there is no doubt that they are going to take a big hit.
This won't much matter for the UK as a whole; North Sea revenues are only 2pc of total government revenues. But for an independent Scotland, where they would be nearly 20pc, it would matter a lot.

Even before the recent precipitous fall in the oil price, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that in the event of independence, Scotland would need a further significant fiscal tightening on top of that announced by the UK government in order to put the country's long-term public finances on a sustainable footing.
As it is, North Sea revenues are highly volatile, sometimes fluctuating from one year to the next by as much as 30pc, and they are also in long-term decline. Had Scotland voted for independence, this latest fall in the oil price would have been a body blow to the new nation's ambitions.


www.heraldscotland.com...


SCOTTISH ministers' plans to take ownership of the bulk of North Sea oil in the event of independence would set a "truly dangerous precedent" around the world, says a leading economist.

Sir Paul Collier, Professor of Economics at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, said an independent Scotland would be entitled to only its UK population share of North Sea oil and gas revenue - 8% - and not its geographical share of 90% which the SNP Government insists it would be entitled to.

Prof Collier, who is also director at the college's Centre for the Study of African Economies and a former director of the Development Research Group at the World Bank, noted how in the 1960s Britain like almost every other country established a "very sensible" rule that when a natural resource was found, it belonged to everyone.

"Once it's found, resource-rich regions can't turn round retrospectively and say - ah, forget about that, it's ours, we're off; resource secession can't be allowed. I work in Africa, where, if this precedent was set, it would be catastrophic."

On the issue of North Sea oil and gas, he said: "Scotland is legally entitled to 8% of the UK's oil. This is not a theoretical issue; it's a very important principle in international energy law. Scotland cannot be allowed to set a precedent that elsewhere in the world would be truly dangerous."

Prof Collier cited the example of coal. "Coal is a non-renewable resource. Most of Britain's coal is in Yorkshire. The coal from Yorkshire benefited everybody in the country. The profits from Yorkshire's coal accrued to Scotland as well as Yorkshire.

"The idea that suddenly Scotland is entitled to run off, retrospectively, with oil is a dangerous precedent that will be resisted internationally because it will produce conflict and inequality in very poor countries around the world."

edit on 12-5-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
England needs Scotland far more than Scotland needs England. There's oil, nuclear weapons and critical pipelines for healthcare and military fuel supplies. They have the power here.

Edit: very interesting post above, was under the opinion Scotlands share was far higher.
edit on 12-5-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

It doesn't. Most of the wealth in the UK is in London, from foreign investors. Nuclear weapons could easily be relocated to England, the oil is UK oil, military is UK military, pipelines aren't much of a factor.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Scotland is voting for fiscal austerity, it just doesn't know it
An independent Scotland would lose free university education, medical prescriptions, the triple lock on pensions and high levels of social care for the elderly.

In a speech this week, Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, will warn of what he thinks of as the “myths” that surround the ideal of independence.
Many Scots assume that they will keep the pound, even though all three main parties at Westminster have said they will not allow it. Membership of the EU, together with Scotland’s share of the UK rebate, is also taken for granted, despite the fact that the European Commission has questioned both assumptions. One obvious spanner in the works is that EU accession states are obliged to have their own currency, progressing to membership of the euro. Where does that leave retaining the pound?
If not allowed to retain the pound on equal terms, says Mr Salmond, then Scotland may refuse its share of the national debt. Good luck with that one. Any country that begins its existence by defaulting on its debts is toast in international markets. There could be no surer way of destroying both the Scottish and the remainder of the UK economies, forced as the rest of us would be to shoulder the weight of Scotland’s debts on a smaller national income.
And, finally, they assume that North Sea oil will cushion the Government’s expenditures, even though these revenues have been falling for years. All credible independent forecasts are that they will continue to do so. Updated figures due to be published this week by HMRC, show such income sinking to as little as £4.7bn in 2013-14, from £6.1bn in 2012-13 and £11.1bn the year before. Admittedly, these falls are partially due to relatively high investment expenditure by producers, which creates jobs and other forms of tax revenue. But the long-term direction of travel is clear. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an “independent Scotland would face unsustainably [high] levels of public sector debt over the next 50 years unless further tax increases or spending cuts were announced”.
In the event, proponents of independence pledge the reverse. The Scottish government has already promised to cut corporation taxes and air passenger duty to stimulate investment. There is no chance of the UK ignoring tax competition of this sort. Both countries would therefore raise less tax than if they set rates in co-operation, again a pretty good outcome if, like me, you believe in low taxes but wildly at odds with the Nats’ policy goals. The facts are very different from the rhetoric.
All this would seem bad enough; unfortunately, it gets worse. IFS research finds that if Scotland were to replicate the tax rises and spending cuts pencilled in for the UK as a whole for 2016-17 and 2017-18, this would require an additional £2.5bn (in today’s money) of measures on top of the ones already announced. If it also wanted to offset the decline in North Sea revenues by 2017-18 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, it would require a further £3.4bn, making £5.9bn in total. For a small country, these are very big numbers. Undue dependence on North Sea oil would meanwhile introduce considerable volatility into the Scottish tax base, resulting in repeated rounds of stop/go fiscal policy.

edit on 12-5-2015 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Further facts.

www.dailymail.co.uk...


English money is propping up the most welfare, drink and drug-addicted nation in Europe.
Nowhere is public spending per head higher in the UK than in Scotland — where new road schemes, libraries, schools, hospitals and other state-of-the-art publicly-funded institutions are in an abundance rarely spotted in England.
Also, Scots receive a range of services free of charge, including prescriptions, long-term care for the elderly and university tuition — all of which attract hefty charges in England.

It is hard to compute exactly how much the Scots cost the English. But according to figures published today by the
Institute of Fiscal Studies, total public spending was around 11 per cent higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole in 2011-12.

Official figures from the previous year suggest Scotland spent £62 bn but raised just £45 bn — an annual subsidy from the English taxpayer of at least £17 bn.

Also, research in 2007 showed almost one in three Scots workers had a taxpayer-funded job.

The Scottish Nationalists complain about North Sea revenues going straight to the Treasury in London: but, by the same token, hand-outs from Westminster means Scotland has no debt of its own. What it owes after its annual spending binge and by living well beyond its means is included in the United Kingdom’s national debt.
Scotland’s welfare bill alone is huge, and utterly unsustainable without some form of external funding. Its pensions bill is £13.3 bn a year, health care costs £11 bn and social security £8 bn.

Now, instead, the Scots plot a separate existence that appears not merely financially unviable — given the heavily subsidised style to which they are accustomed — but is ill-thought out in other respects, too.

What, for example, would their currency be? Mr Salmond has said he would keep sterling, but its status would have to be similar to how banana republics in the Caribbean use the US dollar — with no say over the economic policy that affects the value of that currency. A separate Scottish currency — (the bawbee, perhaps) — would be an immediate target for predatory international financial markets, which would smell its inherent weakness a thousand miles away and speculate on it. Very soon, the independent nation producing it would become bankrupt.

And, having seen the horror that other basket-case continental economies have gone through in trying to stay in the euro in recent years, joining the single currency would not be an option for the Scots either.

Brussels says an independent Scotland would have to re-apply to join the EU. Given how many struggling countries the EU already has to carry, it is far from certain it would get back in.

Just as importantly, what would the Scots do if there was another financial crisis, like the one when its native banks, RBS and HBOS, almost went under in 2008?

Until then, Mr Salmond had boasted how Scotland’s banks would make the country a great dollar-earning financial centre — but like so many other Scottish dreams, that one exploded, and the banks were rescued with billions of pounds of English taxpayers’ money, which, of course, would not be available again under independence.

What Scotland is most short of, sadly, is hard-working, wealth-creating Scots. Those with drive and determination seem mostly to be in England, where they can escape the various degrees of state socialism that pass for government in today’s Scotland.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

England doesn't "need" Scotland in the slightest.

Oil - England probably has far larger untapped reserves than anything that is left in the North Sea, which only contributes about £6 Billion per annum to the Treasury in any case.

Nuclear Weapons - The MoD is looking at relocating them to Gibraltar, failing that they can move to Devonport. They are actually made in Berkshire, England (about 10 miles from my house) and only stationed in Scotland owing to access to the Northern Atlantic. It's not like they have Nuclear bomb mine!

Pipelines - What the hell are you chatting about? If Scotland leaves the Union, then the rUK doesn't need whatever pipelines are in Scotland. We do have pipelines in England you know along with some of Europe's largest refineries.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
fanstastic! If most of the wealth of the UK is in London then nobody should care when Scots become free again and take their near worthless nukes, subs, jets, tanks, oil, land and sea. The wealth is mostly in London as you say.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: stayinglowkey

fanstastic! If most of the wealth of the UK is in London then nobody should care when Scots become free again and take their near worthless nukes, subs, jets, tanks, oil, land and sea. The wealth is mostly in London as you say.


Seeing as Scotland would have no claim to the Nukes, the Subs, the Jets, the Tanks and a good chunk of the Oil (almost 50% of the current fields are actually off the coast of England), then crack on!



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Agreed.
I say go soon as and quit the whinging. I don't see any particular loss to the UK or my life personally, much as the average Scot appears to wish we actually need them, we don't as far as pretty much all studies conclude, so yeah, do one sooner than later if you don't want to be in the UK.
Why drag it out? Waiting for the price of oil to rise or something?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Personally, I think the UK will - and should - remain in the EU, subject to some changes. Daily Mail readers aside, the opinion polls are not overly negative to membership and a half decent debate would be helpful anyway.

I also would like Scotland to remain in the UK.

I think that the Scots are being cleverly manipulated by nationalistic politicians who are not honest. The SNP want a socialist country akin to the Scandinavians, but the Scots are not Swedes and the cultural changes are just not going to happen - there is no evidence that the Scots are more Swedish than British, although it does help with the anti-English undertones.

That said, if the Scots leave the Union that's their business and I am sure Scotland will recast itself as the land of the free, wrapped in the Saltire and beholden to tourism, based on a selective history that scrubs the beneficial Union, but concentrates on victimhood. After all, this has already happened.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Whatever happens The Scots will still be loved and respected by all bar the English, The English will continue to be loved by America alone.

Never thought i would see grown men and woman shaking in their boots at the sight of a wee Scots Woman, formidable as she is....What a bunch of Fairies.
edit on 13-5-2015 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: stayinglowkey

fanstastic! If most of the wealth of the UK is in London then nobody should care when Scots become free again and take their near worthless nukes, subs, jets, tanks, oil, land and sea. The wealth is mostly in London as you say.


Seeing as Scotland would have no claim to the Nukes, the Subs, the Jets, the Tanks and a good chunk of the Oil (almost 50% of the current fields are actually off the coast of England), then crack on!

Keep yer Nukes, Subs, Tanks, Jets and 50% of nothing oil fields and all that Debt..1.5 trillion and rising...We will keep Forties, Captain, Foinaven, Alba, Don South west, Ninian, Harding, Machar, Schiehallion, and the New one they done their best to keep quiet about, not to mention the Clyde Basin....you know, the "Real" Oil Wealth.....seems like a deal to me.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Whatever happens The Scots will still be loved and respected by all bar the English, The English will continue to be loved by America alone.


Fortunately you are wrong. This is what you want to believe because it helps justify your anti-Englishness.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Whatever happens The Scots will still be loved and respected by all bar the English, The English will continue to be loved by America alone.

Never thought i would see grown men and woman shaking in their boots at the sight of a wee Scots Woman, formidable as she is....What a bunch of Fairies.


You really are delusional aren't you? It's posts like this that some on this thread should look at when they think the English hate the Scottish - it's much more like the other way around. If you are referring to Sturgeon, she doesn't even have a vote in the House of Commons, whose boots are shaking? What I find distasteful is the repeated mantra from her and the SNP MPs is that they are only in power for the interests of Scotland, whereas most other MPs say they are there for the interests of the UK (Plaid Cymru excepted of course, but then I wouldn't expect differently).



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Whatever happens The Scots will still be loved and respected by all bar the English, The English will continue to be loved by America alone.


Fortunately you are wrong. This is what you want to believe because it helps justify your anti-Englishness.


anti-Englishness..? In a thread littered with nothing but hateful, spiteful remarks about my country and it's people...This thread is a joke. Nothing more than a Scots Bashing exercise.

The sooner we break our chains from this despicable country and it's people the better...Rotten to the core, Scum of the Earth, Hated Worldwide England. Fortunately i'm Right...



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

You make unjust over statments when you say things like the the scots an respected and loved by all but the Engish. in effect you are saying all English love the scotts a you said yourself this thread has turned into a joke. I think if you look you will see you are a part of why this is.

There is a name for people that make deaming statements about other races of people..

purp..



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Soloprotocol

You make unjust over statments when you say things like the the scots an respected and loved by all but the Engish. in effect you are saying all English love the scotts a you said yourself this thread has turned into a joke. I think if you look you will see you are a part of why this is.

There is a name for people that make deaming statements about other races of people..

purp..

SCOTS.......At least try and make the effort. A Joke thread, by a Joke for a bunch of anti-Scots Jokers.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
All this thread shows me is that I am right in my belief that all nationalities have their fair share of dickheads.

The thread is divisive by nature and was always bound to attract both negative and aggressive comments.

As for the Scots; I don't blame them voting for the SNP in the election - all the major parties promised them the earth in the run up to the referendum.....and after the vote their silence was deafening.
They were ALL going to renege on their promises.
Now if I was a Scotsman that would have pissed me off well and truly.
How on earth did people expect them to react?

But Sturgeon isn't stupid - one of the few things the election campaign did show us - and she herself has readily acknowledged that this wasn't a vote for independence but rather a vote for Scotland's dissatisfaction with Westminster.

That dissatisfaction with Westminster and all it represents is something that many in the regions also feel strongly about, and it is growing in both strength and in numbers.

But I will say this; don't ever for one minute think the English are a nation of 'fairies' - they are far, far from it and are at least a match for their 'northern' brethren....underestimate them at your peril.


edit on 13/5/15 by Freeborn because: clarity



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join