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.

 

Deputy Leader of UK calls Scots Extremists

page: 35
18
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
So your sure, what will this new state be called? It cannot be the united kingdom it cannot be Great Britain?
Again you are wrong,Scotland can still join the European market without taking the currency it is not a pre requisite you can opt out.

The 3 country's left lets call them Toryland
can also opt out of the European market as this seems to be the preferred option for the English/Torys..... Everyone's a winner

edit on 15-1-2012 by clanger because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Jan 15 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
[BIG QUOTE REMOVED]

If the majority of the people of the UK want to get out of the EU if Scotland gained independence then the UK should leave the EU. It's called "democracy".

I also find it hypocritical for someone to support Scotland's independence from the UK who then attacks those who want UK independence from the EU.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Jan 15 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
And something that rarely gets mentioned in this debate that some in Scotland might want to consider....

Even if it is true that Scotland is subsidised (and we all know that the figures are seriously disputed - amazes me that people on here will disbelieve every word Govt says but will believe them on this), has worse health and is generally claimed not to be in a fit financial state to stand on its own....even if you believe this to the depths of your being.....

THIS ALL HAPPENED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT UNION THAT THEY CLAIM HAS SERVED SCOTLAND SO WELL....

Something wrong with those two positions, wouldn't you say?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso
And something that rarely gets mentioned in this debate that some in Scotland might want to consider....

Even if it is true that Scotland is subsidised (and we all know that the figures are seriously disputed - amazes me that people on here will disbelieve every word Govt says but will believe them on this), has worse health and is generally claimed not to be in a fit financial state to stand on its own....even if you believe this to the depths of your being.....

THIS ALL HAPPENED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT UNION THAT THEY CLAIM HAS SERVED SCOTLAND SO WELL....

Something wrong with those two positions, wouldn't you say?


The Union has served Scotland well. Before Union Scotland was an economic and cultural backwater. Once in the UK it became a very wealthy nation with the Scots bringing home many of the spoils of the Empire.

The Union also bailed out the failed Scottish banks RBS and HBOS. If Scotland were independent it would have been unable to bail out those banks. For this reason Scotland can thank the Union.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sicksicksick

The Union has served Scotland well. Before Union Scotland was an economic and cultural backwater. Once in the UK it became a very wealthy nation with the Scots bringing home many of the spoils of the Empire.

The Union also bailed out the failed Scottish banks RBS and HBOS. If Scotland were independent it would have been unable to bail out those banks. For this reason Scotland can thank the Union.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)


I'm actually going to let 'economic and cultural backwater' slide. That actually says more about you than it does about Scotland pre-Union.

And then it became a 'very wealthy nation' - and how was that wealth frittered away or leached away and by whom?

And an independent Scotland, alone, wouldn't have had to bail out those banks. This is one of the great myths. Don't get hung up on the names. Both are international banks (indeed HBOS is Halifax Bank of Scotland - clue is in the name) and were given bail outs according to losses in all countries in which they operated. This is the reason the US Government gave bail out money to European banks.
edit on 15-1-2012 by YeshuaPiso because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sicksicksick

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso
And something that rarely gets mentioned in this debate that some in Scotland might want to consider....

Even if it is true that Scotland is subsidised (and we all know that the figures are seriously disputed - amazes me that people on here will disbelieve every word Govt says but will believe them on this), has worse health and is generally claimed not to be in a fit financial state to stand on its own....even if you believe this to the depths of your being.....

THIS ALL HAPPENED UNDER THE BENEVOLENT UNION THAT THEY CLAIM HAS SERVED SCOTLAND SO WELL....

Something wrong with those two positions, wouldn't you say?


The Union has served Scotland well. Before Union Scotland was an economic and cultural backwater. Once in the UK it became a very wealthy nation with the Scots bringing home many of the spoils of the Empire.

The Union also bailed out the failed Scottish banks RBS and HBOS. If Scotland were independent it would have been unable to bail out those banks. For this reason Scotland can thank the Union.
edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)



As has been stated these were international banks not Scottish,and how do you know they would have needed to be bailed out in the first place if they were wholly Scottish? run by a Scottish .
Government
Perhaps the Scottish Government wouldn't have allowed them to gamble unhindered in the first place?
We will never know as it was the Tory s that allowed deregulation of the banking industry.
If you new your history you will know there were riots in Scotland on the announcement of the union of the parliaments with the militia needing to be called out in various towns and city's in Scotland.
It was the Aristocracy who signed up to the union for Money and land,not the Scottish people.



edit on 15-1-2012 by clanger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by YeshuaPiso
I'm actually going to let 'economic and cultural backwater' slide. That actually says more about you than it does about Scotland pre-Union.


A series of bad harvests and Scotland's lame and failed attempt to create a Scottish Empire in Central America - the Darien Venture - led to Scotland becoming bankrupt and internationally isolated. This led to Scotland appealing to the English parliament for financial aid. That aid arrived in the form of the Act of Union.


And an independent Scotland, alone, wouldn't have had to bail out those banks. This is one of the great myths. Don't get hung up on the names. Both are international banks (indeed HBOS is Halifax Bank of Scotland - clue is in the name) and were given bail outs according to losses in all countries in which they operated. This is the reason the US Government gave bail out money to European banks.


In the good times the Scots consider RBS to be Scottish. In the bad times the Scots consider RBS to be "international", despite the fact that the bank is .quarted in Edinburgh and most of its branches are in Scotland.

In 2008, Alex Salmond hailed RBS as the pride of the "Celtic Lion" economy that he envisaged for an independent Scotland. Then the bank collapsed and suddenly Salmond is adamant that an independent Scotland would not assume the liabilities run up the bank. So now, very conveniently, he and many Scots don't consider RBS to be Scottish anymore but "international."

When RBS needed to be bailed out, its balance sheet assets were equivalent to 2,500% of Scottish GDP. If Scotland had been independent at the time it would not have been able to bail out RBS.

It was British taxpayers - 90% of them being English - which bailed out the Scottish banks.

When is a Scottish Bank not a Scottish Bank?

Posted by Rafael Behr - 12 January 2012

In 2008, Alex Salmond hailed RBS as the pride of the "Celtic Lion" economy that he envisaged for an independent Scotland. Then it collapsed.

Is the Royal Bank of Scotland a Scottish bank? The answer, you might think, is in the question.

Technically, of course, RBS is a British bank, majority-owned by UK taxpayers, although the shareholding is kindly managed on our behalf by something called UK Financial Investments Ltd, which is, according to its founding mandate, run "at arm's length" from the Treasury.

In more buoyant economic times, however, when RBS was a private sector champion, it was a potential source of pride and financial clout for Scotland, should it decide to dissolve its union with England. (This was back when Scottish Nationalists looked westward to the dynamic performance of Ireland and considered whether there wasn't a "Celtic Lion" economy ready to be unleashed in imitation of the big cat over the sea. People don't talk so much about the Irish "Celtic Tiger" model these days.)

Channel 4's Faisal Islam published an interesting document on his blog last night showing how Alex Salmond cheered Fred Goodwin on in his takeover bid for ABN Amro - the a deal that ultimately broke the bank. As late as March 2008, Salmond was still selling Edinburgh's financial services buccaneers as evidence that Scotland could stand on its own as part of an "arc of prosperity" alongside Ireland, Iceland and the Nordic countries. The SNP leader told an audience in Harvard:




With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's largest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.


Or not, as it turned out. When RBS needed bailing out by the UK government, its balance sheet assets were equivalent to 2,500% of Scottish GDP. So the question naturally arises, how would an independent Scotland have coped? The SNP answer is to blame Westminster (naturally) and the Labour government for the regulatory failure that allowed the crisis to build in the first place. In that respect, I supposed he agrees with David Cameron.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor who oversaw the bail out (and a Scot who will be playing a lead role in Labour's anti-independence campaign) has attacked Salmond today for being "slippery" on the issue of RBS exposure. Why should the SNP claim Scotland's oil revenues, Darling asks, but not its share of debt incurred to keep his former financial champion afloat? It is a decent question.

Meanwhile, RBS has announced 3,500 job losses as part of plans to shrink its investment banking operations. That is partly because the bits being scaled down weren't making enough money and partly in anticipation of restructuring to be enforced by the government over the next five years. Under proposals set out by the Vickers Commission on banking reform, high street and retail functions (the bits ordinary people use and trust) must be separated from investment functions (the dodgy casino bits everyone blames for impoverishing us all).

The Treasury had initially resisted the idea of enforcing separation too rigorously on the grounds that it would be a complex, time-consuming procedure that would necessarily delay the process of re-privatising UKFI's banking shares. George Osborne would have liked to sell a few tranches of RBS a. of the next election to build up a war chest for a populist pre-polling day budget. That doesn't look too likely now. A source inside RBS tells me that this time last year, the bank was fully expecting to see some of its government shares floated in 2012, but the downturn in the economic outlook in the second half of 2011 killed that idea. Now everyone is resigned to the fact that HM Government is the boss for a long time to come.

Eventually, the reformed and restructured banks will be sold off. Then a whole new question arises. How much of the proceeds of that sale belongs to Scotland?

www.newstatesman.com...
edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Act of union from the Scottish side,note it was the aristocracy who were the inverters in the darian scheme and bribery was also used.

Scottish perspective

In Scotland, it was claimed that union would enable Scotland to recover from the financial disaster wrought by the Darien scheme through English assistance and the lifting of measures put in place through the Alien Act to force the Scottish Parliament into compliance with the Act of Settlement.[20]

The ultimate securing of the treaty in the unicameral Scottish Parliament is attributed by some[who?] to the weakness and lack of cohesion between the various opposition groups in the House, rather than to the strength of pro-incorporationists[citation needed]. The combined votes of the Court party with a majority of the Squadrone Volante were sufficient to ensure the final passage of the treaty through the House.

Personal financial interests were also allegedly involved. Many Commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses; Article 15, the Equivalent granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. In essence, it was also used as a means of compensation for investors in the Darien Scheme.

Even more direct bribery was also said to be a factor.[21] £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, the majority of the funding. (Some contend that all of this money was properly accounted for as compensation for loss of office, pensions and so forth not outwith the usual run of government. It is perhaps a debate that will never be set to rest. However, modern research has shown that payments were made to supporters of union that appear not to have been overdue salaries. At least four payments were made to people who were not even members of the Scottish Parliament.) Robert Burns referred to this:

We're bought and sold for English Gold,
Sic a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.

Some of the money was used to hire spies, such as Daniel Defoe; his first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind," he reported, "for every Scot in favour there is 99 against". Years later John Clerk of Penicuik, originally a leading Unionist, wrote in his memoirs that,

(Defoe) was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would pull him to pieces.

Defoe recalls that he was hired by Robert Harley.

The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom". Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?[22] There were also massive protests in Edinburgh and several other Scottish burghs on the day it was passed by Parliament,[citation needed] as threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom". Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?[22] There were also massive protests in Edinburgh and several other Scottish burghs on the day it was passed by Parliament,[citation needed] as threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law.

Union was never wanted by the people.It was forced on us by tomb tabards



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by WeissRitter
 


Give me examples of where I've been 'banging the drum' against The Scots or where I've been anti-Irish.

Also, it seems it's perfectly ok to show Scottish, Irish or any other nationalism but the minute anyone shows any sort of English nationalism they are immediately condemned.

Hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order.
edit on 13/1/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)


The very second ireland rules over england your statement would be valid, since that's unlikely to happen anytime soon your accusations of double standards and hypocrisy are ridiculous

If you cant see the difference between fierce nationalism over your own country ruling over other countries and simply wanting your own freedom then you're beyond any sense or logic.

But I'm sure I'm an "extremist" for not wanting england raping and murdering my people again. And you'll say "that's the past" as your troops continue to carry out atrocities in the east. But if you need that level of denial to be proud of your imperialism then go for it bro, you're just proving my point. Hilarious that you call yourself Freeborn but want to deny others that right really.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by WeissRitter
 


Good grief - go take a chill pill. If we all adopted your attitude no-thing would be discussed or resolved. I do hope you're not a politician to trade.

I was raised on Scottish nationalism...it didn't long to suss it wasn't the English people | had anything against but a British government that failed to account for disparity in population numbers and therefore thrust unwanted policies on us (usually first e.g. poll tax).

Even during nu labour's farcical boom years the north east of England saw no such benefit. While property prices escalated beyond most peoples' means in the south - in the north east they were knocking streets of houses down due to lack of demand.

We are all ruled by government - and other than that one day every 4 or 5 years we are ALL subject to their whims where decisions, under the current lobbying system, can often be made simply for personal gain. Take the threatened ID cards under nu labour. Why keep pushing such an unwanted policy? Just look at the board members of the company awarded the contract to supply these id cards - Neil Kinnock (our 'brother') had a rather prominent position.

It is for this reason that I have a burning desire to find out who owns the blasted wheelie bin manufacturers, who sits on the boards of the cctv camera companies etc.

Direct your hiss at those who deserve it - tptb - not their victims.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WeissRitter
 


So you can't provide any evidence at all to support your claim that I am anti-Scottish or anti-Irish.

I have stated my support for Scotlands inalienable right to self-determination.
You obviously haven't bothered to try to find out about my opinions on Ireland.

Seems to me that you've made a great number of assumptions about me based on your own bigotted pre-conceived ideas.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by WeissRitter
 


And I really fail to see why a persons pride in being Irish / Scottish / Welsh etc is viewed as a noble thing and to be commended whilst pride in being English is to be condemned and ridiculed.
I am also immensely proud of The UnIon.
Not the governments and the public school old boy network that dictates policy but the people and their resolve, determination, humour, diversity and resiliance etc.

I think it's up to us break down the barriers and the status quo and be a force for positive change.
We'll be more able to do that united rather than divided.

You may prefer to wallow in that which divides us, I prefer to concentrate on the many things that unite us.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by clanger
Act of union from the Scottish side,note it was the aristocracy who were the inverters in the darian scheme and bribery was also used.

Scottish perspective

In Scotland, it was claimed that union would enable Scotland to recover from the financial disaster wrought by the Darien scheme through English assistance and the lifting of measures put in place through the Alien Act to force the Scottish Parliament into compliance with the Act of Settlement.[20]

The ultimate securing of the treaty in the unicameral Scottish Parliament is attributed by some[who?] to the weakness and lack of cohesion between the various opposition groups in the House, rather than to the strength of pro-incorporationists[citation needed]. The combined votes of the Court party with a majority of the Squadrone Volante were sufficient to ensure the final passage of the treaty through the House.

Personal financial interests were also allegedly involved. Many Commissioners had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses; Article 15, the Equivalent granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. In essence, it was also used as a means of compensation for investors in the Darien Scheme.

Even more direct bribery was also said to be a factor.[21] £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, the majority of the funding. (Some contend that all of this money was properly accounted for as compensation for loss of office, pensions and so forth not outwith the usual run of government. It is perhaps a debate that will never be set to rest. However, modern research has shown that payments were made to supporters of union that appear not to have been overdue salaries. At least four payments were made to people who were not even members of the Scottish Parliament.) Robert Burns referred to this:

We're bought and sold for English Gold,
Sic a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.

Some of the money was used to hire spies, such as Daniel Defoe; his first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind," he reported, "for every Scot in favour there is 99 against". Years later John Clerk of Penicuik, originally a leading Unionist, wrote in his memoirs that,

(Defoe) was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would pull him to pieces.

Defoe recalls that he was hired by Robert Harley.

The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom". Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day?[22] There were also massive protests in Edinburgh and several other Scottish burghs on the day it was passed by Parliament,[citation needed] as threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law.


Funnily enough, the Act of Union is now popular in Scotland, with most Scots wanting to be in the United Kingdom.

Of course, most Scots want to keep riding England's coat-tails rather than becoming independent and having to pay their own way in the world.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeissRitter

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by WeissRitter
 


Give me examples of where I've been 'banging the drum' against The Scots or where I've been anti-Irish.

Also, it seems it's perfectly ok to show Scottish, Irish or any other nationalism but the minute anyone shows any sort of English nationalism they are immediately condemned.

Hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order.
edit on 13/1/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



The very second ireland rules over england your statement would be valid, since that's unlikely to happen anytime soon your accusations of double standards and hypocrisy are ridiculous

If you cant see the difference between fierce nationalism over your own country ruling over other countries and simply wanting your own freedom then you're beyond any sense or logic.


England does NOT rule Ireland or Scotland or any other country. England doesn't even rule itself due to the fact that, unlike Ireland or Scotland, England doesn't even have its own parliament. Ireland and Scotland are more independent than England is.

Also, Ireland - unlike England - is an independent nation (or as independent as it can be within the stranglehold of the EU).


But I'm sure I'm an "extremist" for not wanting england raping and murdering my people again. And you'll say "that's the past" as your troops continue to carry out atrocities in the east. But if you need that level of denial to be proud of your imperialism then go for it bro, you're just proving my point. Hilarious that you call yourself Freeborn but want to deny others that right really.


Yeah. It's all English troops "carrying out atrocities in the east". There are absolutely no Scottish, Irish or Welsh troops involved in the War in Afghanistan.

(I'm being sarcastic again, by the way).
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
SUBSIDISED think again:
The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."
 
This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per . of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.
 
This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.
 
Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.
et's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.
 
Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.
 
Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.
 
For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.
But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.




www.newstatesman.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by clanger
SUBSIDISED think again:
The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."
 
This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per . of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.
 
This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.
 
Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.
et's tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.
 
Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.
 
Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.
 
For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.
But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.

www.newstatesman.com...


Government Expenditure and Review Scotland (GERS), which assesses the public purse north of the border, says the UK Treasury spent about £54bn on Scotland in 2008/09 and received only £43.5bn in revenue.

Scotland's deficit is 10.6% of GDP, just 0.5% lower than the UK as a whole.

Also, no pro-Scottish independence person here has yet come up with an idea of how an independent Scotland would have been able to bail out its failed banks.

fiscal-scotland.wikidot.com...
edit on 16-1-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Even your quoted source says, as part of the UK we are the 23 most indebted country in the world with 76% GDP.
Scotland independent would be 53 with 49% GDP.


keep up the good work



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
waiting for William Wallace to come on line ...FRRRREEEDOMMM!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
waiting for William Wallace to come on line ...FRRRREEEDOMMM!!!!!!



those days are past now and in the past they must remain.............you know the rest



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join