To think Scotland has a better future than England

[hadenough]

The state of the UK today makes me utterly depressed. A Brexit voted for on the basis of lies, an anti-immigrant rhetoric, and a general attitude of unwelcome.

But yet, in Scotland, the message is very different - a focus on welcoming people to the country, an opposition to Brexit, and a real debate about the future.

It genuinely saddens me to be part of a wider country that appears intent on going back, but never forward.

Scotland would never be able to remain in the arrival. They would need to reapply as an independent country and they do not meet the criteria.
The Oil is running out!!!!
I love the romantic notion of an independent Scotland but that’s all I think it should be at the moment.

That may change in the future but now is not the time to go it alone

Remain in the EU even

You don't know if Greece would have been better off staying in the Ottoman Empire? I suspect you don't. Why don't you ask Greeks if they want 'union' with Turkey? (As it happens, Armenians were the other big Christian minority, they stayed in the Ottoman Empire and were subjected to genocide.)

Have to correct you on another thing, Scotland doesn't benefit from Barnett just now. The UK as a whole is running a huge deficit due to suicidal economic policies like austerity. Every bit of that we'll need to pay back. Yes, the nature of political secession is that they often happen at bad points, often during wars. Ireland began its secession during World War One as one of the poorest countries in Europe. Maybe Scotland's economy will need more decades of strangling before we see sense? Listen, I know these arguments make sense to you, but they only make sense because of an underlying theology whereby every bit of uncertainty is always interpreted in way that means Scotland needs the beneficence of generous England, as if our rulers in London would actually help us if they weren't forced to temporarily by calculations of greater benefit for themselves.

@Luckymummy22 Romantic for many, but not merely romantic. Also the best and safest way to secure our prosperity for the future. But we in Scotland need to get our eyes beyond the London-centric world of the BBC and English tabloids and open our eyes to the wider world. Lesley Riddoch is doing a series of documentaries about the various small countries near us. This is on the Faroes, a virtually independent country with a population the size of Cumbernauld and no natural resources except fish:

we're talking about economic factors, not genocides. It's not feasible to have a reasoned debate with someone that likens Scotland being in Britain to Greece being in the Ottoman empire - Britain hasn't committed any genocides against Scotland in the last 100 years. The past needs to stay there.

Your assertion that Scotland doesn't benefit from Barnett is just wrong - Scotland would have a deficit the size of greece if it were independent, correct me as much as you like but maybe look into the details a bit more:

www.heraldscotland.com/news/13189107.Scotland_is___1bn_a_year_better_off_due_to_Barnett_funding__says_IFS/

The OP is not being unreasonable. I have long supported an independent Scotland, thinking that it is culturally and educationally different from the other countries in the UK, and with a better legal system.

Ronatheseal said "When you are someone else's distant resource-rich province, you DON'T ever benefit the way an independent country does PLUS you don't get to manage your economy in your own interest." and I couldn't agree more.

Scotland absolutely needs to be independent. The'union' is a joke, and it's on us. Currently the whole principle of devolution is being trampled on in Westminster.

@cornishstripes The bracketed comment about the Armenian genocide was a quiet and polite way of getting you recognize the absurdity of the comment about Greeks and the Ottoman Empire.

Regarding Barnett, the money is debt borrowed by the United Kingdom and spent on the UK, it is meaningless to say Scotland benefits more than the UK because all the expenditure relies on debt and is calculated differently from revenue, and it may be that Scotland pays 'its share' back when its revenues have risen. Remember even the dodgy GERS stats made Scotland a net loser for decades until fairly recently. If what you are saying is that Scotland will pay back less than it would if it were independent, that is meaningless. Scotland as an independent country would not have the same expenditure and revenue as it would in the UK, it would have the choice of raising revenues from other sources (large estate taxes) or cutting non-beneficial expenditure (like Trident) rather than simply selling more debt. When you say Scotland 'benefits' your are just relying on the old unionist theology I described above. You are not calculating for the plus side of independence. It's a circular way of thinking that guarantees you the conclusion you want whatever the evidence happens to be.

All interesting comments, and I have RFT. The big point no one is making is that the UK is the second largest contributor to the EU's coffers. And a major contributor (second or third largest?) to NATO. And that is why Germany doesn't want the UK to leave, so is encouraging the Brussels sock puppets in their intransigence.

In a future EU, delivering the bounty to Scots, it will mainly be Germany that has to stump up, because that will be the only country with a balance of payment surplus. I don't think most Scots would relish Berlin government.

If Scotland qualifies for EU, it will - like most small countries - expect to be a beneficiary of the EU gravy train, rather than a payer-in.

This reminds me vividly of the pre-Indy Ref threads. I read them all; I read a variety of newspapers/news sites; I even read the white paper. And then I voted Yes, and I’ll do it again. I believe that Scotland needs to be able to manage its own affairs. I also think Wales, NI, northern England, Cornwall etc should be able to decide for themselves too.

(Half English, I work in the arts and nearly all our 50-strong office voted Yes, nobody made the people in the team who voted No feel bad and nobody I know recognised the accusation of being anti-English or horrible to No voters. Yes, it’s a small liberal bubble, but it’s a highly educated one with lots of people who read lots of research. And I started off as a No voter.)

The UK as a whole is running a huge deficit due to suicidal economic policies like austerity

Surely we overspend hence austerity.

I totally understand why people in Scotland feel massively frustrated with the Tory brexiteer government - but loads of people in England (and Wales) do too! I think we are best fighting the hardline Tory brexiteers together rather than letting them divide and rule us.

And if you think Brexit will be a disaster what do you think dividing up the UK will be? It could take a century to recover. West and East Germany still aren't properly unified.

The independence referendum outcome was NO!

Scotland leaving the UK would be a huge economic shock, and an independent Scotland couldn’t meet the criteria to join the EU.

The Barnett formula gives way more funding per head to Scotland (and NI and Wales) than England.

the plus side of independence rona, like the plus side of brexit? no you're right, there are few upsides I can see. Yes the point is that scotland is no longer a loser under barnett, and likely to remain a beneficiary for some time.

Economics is not theology, you seem to be confusing the two, I think we're about to see exactly how conventional economics works when brexit hits the road soon.

All of the sneers about conventional economics are due to people having had a pretty good long run of stability thanks to it.

@cornishstripes 'a loser under barnett, and likely to remain a beneficiary for some time.'
People on jobseekers allowance are, technically, beneficiaries, that doesn't mean they are better off remaining unemployed. Throwing away power and freedom to run you economy in your own interests itself comes at great cost. How to you account for that?

In any case, I don't quite think you quite understood my post above, which was based on economics that are quite conventional. To put it another way. If a woman and an abusive partner fell unemployed and took out some credit card debt together, and he controlled the card, he might say that most of it was 'her share' because of nappies and baby food even though he spent most of it on 'family things' like a pool table and drink. He tells her shes ugly, she'll never make it without him, and so forth; she might feel she should be grateful and stay in the marriage, but then when they get jobs again and it comes to paying it back, she ends up earning more and pays more of it back while he spends all of his down at the bookies. Describing Scotland as a beneficiary is something between overly simplistic and nonsensical for the reasons I described above. Even if you accept that Barnett actually means Scots end up in reality getting more per head than English people, it doesn't account for revenue, opportunity cost, fiscal fairness (how fair is the spending), and so forth.

Just for clarity, the theology I criticized is NOT 'conventional economics'. Rather, the underlying belief system that causes unionists like yourself to interpret any and every bit of uncertainty and ambiguous data, automatically, as proof that Scotland is deficient and should throw away power and self-respect for some generous English beneficence; when, as often as not, it is just as rational or more rational to interpret the same information in the opposite way.

@Fflamingo 'Surely we overspend hence austerity.'
In part, yes, of course. But it is part of conventional economics that governments should overspend. British governments have always run huge deficits, but the theory (which has always in the past turned out to be true) is that economic growth offsets the accumulated debt relatively quickly. Austerity, on the other hand, reduces one of the principal causes of economic growth, government spending, slowing economic growth and making the debt worse. Paul Krugman's 'End this Depression Now' explains this pretty well.

goodness rona, so Britain is an abusive partner now? What makes you think I believe Scotland is deficient? I love Scotland, I merely am not convinced of the case that Scotland is better off outside of the UK, and certainly not whilst Brexit shocks are going on and whilst we are moving away from oil.

your posts drip with hatred for the English.

@cornishstripes Didn't take long to start hearing the 'anti-English' stuff, which appears to be the go-to smear whenever a unionist is losing an argument! Listen, sorry to sound unfair or unkind, but it's not my fault politicians, newspapers and the BBC are constantly telling us we are too small, too poor and too stupid to be independent. I'd rather they didn't, but they do...
...but yes, if Scotland's relationship with Britain is a 'marriage', as we're all being told, it is surely fair to say that there is a fair amount of psychological abuse in it. How else would you describe the 'too small, too poor, too stupid' stuff?

Cornish Rona's posts show no 'hatred for the English'. That's a ridiculous comment and looks like you are trying to shut down debate.

The “unionists” are not losing the argument. The referendum result was no. And citizens of Scotland have more representation, in the Parliament in Scotland and at Westminster, than other UK citizens.

The independence referendum result was no but look at the promises made by the unionists to gain that result - more powers, equal partners, lead not leave the UK etc. None of those promises have been kept. In fact yesterday they were rolled up and set on fire.

You don't get to demand the result is respected when the promises made to gain the result are broken and so spectacularly disrespectfully.

In politics we can’t attribute outcomes of a vote, eg independence for scotland, EU Exit, to specific factors. There is an outcome, which traditionally isn’t overturned until the next election/ referendum.

If you don’t like the result continue to campaign, or support any campaign, for independence. Don’t think this would be supported by the majority in Scotland.

What use is Scottish representation in Westminster when it is ignored and worse, abused? Devolution ripped up yesterday in Westminster after no meaningful debate, 15 minutes of filibustering and when Ian Blackford asked what options Scotland's MPs had to ensure their constituents voice was heard, a Tory shouted 'suicide'. Bercow did not say anything either.

Disrespect, abuse, yes definitely a marriage needing a divorce.