Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

Pretty much however you cut the data, it's clear that Wales and Northern Ireland are consistent net recipients of additional cash.

As is London.

Based on what you've posted about the Coatbridge Museum poll, the sample size is great but that's about it. It didn't obtain a representative sample, control for bias, etc. Based on how it was run it presumably could have been swayed by people posting in other groups saying 'quick fill out this poll'.

Any market researcher would have a fit if asked to endorse that poll finding.

With London you can cut the data either way - net contributor versus net recipient - depending on which indicators you use.

You didn't answer my question about Wales and Northern Ireland though.

I actually don't mind that we subsidise Wales and N Ireland, or the poorer parts of England. But I do get pissed off at paying a share of vanity (or even essential structural) projects in one of the wealthiest cities on the planet on the grounds that they're a "national asset".

It does seem "grabby" somewhat - at least some of the arguments do.
The ones that boil down to "Its our oil and Westminster have been stealing the money for years".
I mean, for example, if Shale Gas is massive in the Lancashire area, and a few years down the line someone realises that theres a lot of tax money could be spent purely in Lancashire instead of spread around the UK and campaigns for independence - what would the rest of the UK think the motive is?
If the Orkneys suddenly decided that actually they aren't really even Scottish, their root are Norse or whatever, and went independent because its "their Oil" and "those idiots in Holyrood spend it all on Tram systems in Edinburgh", what would the people in Glasgow or the Western Isles think of them ?

I do think that you haven't seen anything yet from the English press (and I include the Welsh and N. Irish in that too). I think the Narrative on rUK side in the mass media at least will turn pretty hostile.

I'd be very surprised if Scotland really has been putting more into the UK economy than it takes out. Even if the revenue from oil has been more than the Scottish percentage of uk spending I still don't think that's a reason to feel hard done by. We've only had the oil for the last forty years out of the three hundred we've had a union and we are past the point of peak production.

wtf shouldn't we say it's our oil, fish stocks etc - because it's more mature and reasonable to pool our resources.

If Scotland is just being "grabby" and viewed as wanting to govern itself, you've got to wonder why parts of England have started to consider devolution.

The belief that WM is failing us is a valid one, I'd rather have a Government where my vote will actually make a difference. Then if the Scottish Government fails us, we will actually be able to change it come the next election day and our votes will all count. Not having to subsidise the House of Lords would also be a bonus.

But iScotland will be a brand new country, why would be be "mature and reasonable"?

Haven't you heard about the massive investments going into the Atlantic fields, Clair Ridge et al? The fields off the west coast yet to be explored? There's lots and lots more oil to be had; why do you think WM are so very keen to keep us?

I don't see how you can just dismiss all those extremely valid points Itsallgoing.

If only they had spent it on a tram system! Rather than a glorified airport shuttle bus that lacks the ability to be diverted or steer round obstacles in the road.

You do realise Scotland, Wales (and I presume Northern Ireland) get a proportion of the money spent elsewhere?

Actually I wonder if the rest of Scotland get fed up paying for things in the central belt?

There's more poor people living in London (2.1 million / 28%) than there are in Scotland (820,000 / 16%).

Numbers from here.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24517391
and
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28106456

I'd be very surprised if Scotland really has been putting more into the UK economy than it takes out

Including oil it has www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

because it's more mature and reasonable to pool our resources

The only reason resources are brought into this argument is to show that Scotland has enough resources to be successful on its own. Yes voters don't want a Yes vote because we feel Westminster has been stealing our fish! They want a Yes vote because they want Scotland to govern itself.

Sorry that's 28% and 16% of the population of London and Scotland respectively. Not a fair comparison to make in comparing one city against a country but I do find the comments about the wealth of London a bit misplaced sometimes.

There's loads of money in London but there's way more poor people.

I don't see how you can just dismiss all those extremely valid points Itsallgoing.

I didn't dismiss them. They are all questions I have considered, and arrived at my own answers.

If the Orkneys suddenly decided that actually they aren't really even Scottish, their root are Norse or whatever, and went independent because its "their Oil" and "those idiots in Holyrood spend it all on Tram systems in Edinburgh", what would the people in Glasgow or the Western Isles think of them ?

The Shetland Islands already have a separate oil fund (the Shetland Dividend, I think it's called), which is a portion of oil revenue which is spent exclusively by and on the Shetland Islands. There hasn't been any great public uproar of which I'm aware.

You see, that argument that rUK will be hostile towards an iScotland somehow just doesn't make me want to stay in the union. I know people don't like the "divorce" analogy, but that really does smack of abusive ex to me; if you leave me I'll make your life intolerable, trash your economy, and no-one else will ever want you. Hmm, yeah, OK, I'll stay...

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Scotland has a slightly bigger public sector - that's not good for the Scottish economy.

We can't hope to compete with other countries who build commercial ships. We're too expensive.

At the moment there are shared admin costs eg HMRC, Passport Office and loads of others - we would have to set these up from scratch at an extra cost.

The renewables are subsidised by UK.

We will have less revenue from oil - whether or not it is "needed in the long term".

Moving trident isn't going to save much is anything as the money will be spent on setting up Scottish defences - which we must have as a condition of being an EU member.

We have an older and fatter population than rUK with the resulting extra costs.

If the Orkneys suddenly decided that actually they aren't really even Scottish, their root are Norse or whatever, and went independent because its "their Oil" and "those idiots in Holyrood spend it all on Tram systems in Edinburgh", what would the people in Glasgow or the Western Isles think of them ?

Then I think Orkney and Shetland should have a referendum and let their population decide if they want to be independent.

It's like it's some people's full time job to keep these threads going.

Re: current interest rate decisions taking Scotland's interests into consideration- don't make me laugh! Scotland is statistically and politically insignificant within the UK establishment, they make decisions based on what London needs and wants.

Childcare is not something that costs money- it generates income and cuts costs elsewhere both in the short and long term.

MN team no keep asking questions but never answer them.

Why should Scotland pay for Crossrail?

Why should Scotland pay for HS2 when it will damage the economies of Dubdee and Aberdeen?

Why should Scotland have had to pay for the Olympics?

It's all much closer than predicted. So anyone keen on independence is probably in with a chance people never thought they would have. All to play for.

Scotland has a slightly bigger public sector - that's not good for the Scottish economy.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

We can't hope to compete with other countries who build commercial ships. We're too expensive.

With proper investment we can compete. Again, look at Ferguson's - if shipbuilding is such an unprofitable industry why were there 4 bidders for the yard. Surely better to let it fail?

At the moment there are shared admin costs eg HMRC, Passport Office and loads of others - we would have to set these up from scratch at an extra cost.

We wouldn't have to set them up from scratch (although that might be a good idea) eg we already have a passport office in Glasgow, and also I think HMRC based in Scotland.

The renewables are subsidised by UK.

We already produce more electricity than we need. Why would we need to subsidise building more? Also lots of private firms involved in tidal energy which Scotland is a world leader in.

We will have less revenue from oil - whether or not it is "needed in the long term".

I have never understood this argument. Scotland does not need the oil, it is a nice bonus. Since when has having oil been such a burden to a country?

Moving trident isn't going to save much is anything as the money will be spent on setting up Scottish defences - which we must have as a condition of being an EU member.

Standard defence forces are much cheaper than Trident, and it is likely we would get some existing MOD personnel/equipment in the negotiations.

We have an older and fatter population than rUK with the resulting extra costs.

Which is why we need full control to increase immigration and make our economy more productive.

I'd be happy for the islands to be independent and keep their oil for themselves.

It doesn't make a difference to the argument for independence. Oil money is a bonus, not a prerequisite.

What does anyone think will happen to political parties in Scotland in the event of a Yes vote? Will new ones emerge representing Left, Middle and Right?

If the government can subsidise the banks why can't we subsidise the shipyards.

Personally I'd rather we didn't build warships. I'd rather we built the ferries (which Scotland needs a lot of) or cruise ships or tankers.

The Tories may well rebrand and have a successful reboot.

Labour are Unite where I am.

Lib Dems seem hated at the moment, especially by their voters!

SNP look competent administrators but have one goal really..

Anyone disagree ? I don't claim to spend too long looking at party politics..