The SNP says the UK (not Scotland) is on “borrowed time”

[Isitmebut]

A SNP needing oil over $100 a barrel to even hope to balance its annual budget, apparently needing to be in a low growth uncompetitive Europe, want more UK national debt they previously threatened to walk away from, not using the devolved powers they already have, and no longer wants a Trident deterrent - as will somehow be safe from the blasts/fallouts when the rest of the UK gets nuked – says that if their 5 million citizens can’t decide what the other 60 million want, they want to leave the UK.

Goldman Sees 15 Years of Weak Crude as $20 U.S Oil Looms
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/goldman-sees-15-years-of-weak-crude-as-20-u-s-oil-looms-on-glut

A glut of crude may keep oil prices low for the next 15 years, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

There’s less than a 50 percent chance that prices will drop to $20 a barrel, most likely when refineries shut in October or March for maintenance, Jeffrey Currie, head of commodities research at the bank, said Wednesday in an interview in Lake Louise, Alberta. Goldman’s long-term forecast for crude is at $50 a barrel, he said.

The people of Scotland who appear to be encouraging the SNP to take this continual threatening stance, really needs to be better informed by the SNP on the financial prospects of an independent Scotland – which in reality is the ONLY SNP short, medium and long term objective.

Nearly 60 Scottish Westminster MP’s especially with a single purpose, should be fully capable of negotiating with the government.

Specifying exactly WHAT powers they additionally want the current ones already given don’t cover – rather than offering this continual mono bluster pissing off the vast majority within the UK including many Scots – as it is surely counter productive for practical and good will reasons, when all parties really know Scotland can’t economically afford the SNP's objective.

Anyone, especially the SNP, who can show a Scotland can afford to be without the current Barnett Formula, please show the independence projected finances - as if I am wrong, I will be happy to say so.

If you honestly haven't heard anyone cmplaining harassed then I don't know where on earth you have been looking, or who you have been talking to! This is a long, recogniongoing int one I have been very aware of in my (almost) thirty years of voting.

Leaving that to one side, even you must acknowledge that the number of seats to votes that the SNP has beggars belief in a democracy. If she's so keen on Westminster recognising the will of the Scottish people, perhaps she could start to lead by example instead of posturing endlessly about indepedence

Bloody phone - hopefully you can understand all that!

even you must acknowledge that the number of seats to votes that the SNP has beggars belief in a democracy. No, actually I dont. These are seats that were previously occupied by Labour, Tory and Lib Dems, and when occupied by them, there was no objection or claims of 'unfairness' or being 'undemocratic'.

As a SNP supporter, PR is not particularly high on my list of priorities but NS has said she would vote for PR in Westminister. However SNP are only 56 of 650 MPs and the real objection to PR lie with Tories and Labour, so surely these are the parties you should be attacking re PR instead of criticising the SNP who are only working within the constraints of a system controlled primarily by Labour and Tories.

As a SNP supporter, PR is not particularly high on my list of priorities but NS has said she would vote for PR in Westminister.

The Conservatives ham(pig?)-strung by dodgy English boundaries and a right wing party of fruit cakes taking most of their 4 million votes from them - and several socialist parties in opposition, that bar one, would love to tax and spend England to death - and Ms Sturgeon would be FOR that just in Westminster?

No shit Sherlock.

Ms Sturgeon really would 'like her (Dundee) Cake and eat it'.

Ahh, but the difference is that neither Labour nor Conservative has ever got that number of seats on that number of votes in Scotland while complaining about Westminster not repeesenting Scotland. It's an inherently unjust snd undemocratic system which suits the SNP - on many levels, given that's how they operate.

So if you're not interested in an elecorate system which is democratic and reflects the true will of the Scottish people, do tell - what is your priority? Aside from indepndence of course - that surely can't be overule everything else.

Ahh, but the difference is that neither Labour nor Conservative has ever got that number of seats on that number of votes in Scotland With respect, your speaking shit, a quick check shows that Labour has gained 56 seats in the past with even less percentage of the votes than SNP. And there was no public outrage of democratic unfairness then. Its just that now the seats have transferred to SNP its become an issue.

Isitbutme, im not sure what your point is? You've made clear your disdain at fptp, and ive said that snp as policy would vote for PR. If you cannot accept that, or refuse to believe it, there is not much point in discussing it any further. It is publicly declared SNP policy.

Labour won 56 out of the 59 seats in Scotland with less than 50% of the vote under FPTP? When was that then? And your continued assertion that FPTP continues to be factually incorrect.

And your priority?

That FPTP has not been considered unfair

If I understand correctly, 1997, Labour won 56 seats with 41% of the vote, 2001 56 seats again with 44% of the vote. I assume these GE Elections were FPTP.

What part of my assertion re FPTP is factually incorrect?

Personally my priorities are independence/Devo Max, so Scottish MPs have full/nearly full control over Scotland's interests without the interference from MPs south of the border who know little of us and care even less. (Not that I would expect them to anyway).

There were no public outcries that Labour did not fairly win those seats.

Ill concede that FPTP has its critics but no more or less than any system be it AV or PR. The fact is the general public cared so little about the unfairness of FPTP only 28% of the voting public turned out to vote against it, which wasnt enough in 2011. What has changed since then, other than the majority of Scottish seats switching from Labour to SNP?

Don't think that was put of 59 seats, was it. 2001 and 1997 they got 56 seats out of 72 - so with due respect etc.

Yes, I thought you might say that. Fortunately for Scotland, the majority of us want (and got) better for our country. The SNP is a one trick pony that cares less about making Scotland a better place and democracy and more about independence at any cost

Actually, there are far more representative and democratic systems than FPTP....

Which party do you suggest I, as a Scottish SAHM parent to a disabled child who studies part time, should vote for. Who has my interests more than the SNP?

And on that note I'm away to do the youngest's bath and bedtime.

It's an inherently unjust snd undemocratic system which suits the SNP - on many levels, given that's how they operate

I'm confused. Exactly how are the SNP responsible for the Westminster voting system being FPTP? And exactly how are they meant to change it? The SNP may not be your cup of tea, but I don't see how the blame for the undemocratic voting system used at Westminster can be laid at the feet if the SNP...

Itsallgoingtobefine, if its raining, must be the fault of the SNP

No suggestions as to who I should vote for then? Would anti-SNP voters prefer if i cant bring myself to vote UKIP/Tory/Labour/Lib Dem to fuck me over, then just not to vote at all?

harrasseddotcom ..... re your Which party do you suggest I, as a Scottish SAHM parent to a disabled child who studies part time, should vote for. Who has my interests more than the SNP?

Is paying the national bills or nationalism more important to your 'interests'?

It is clear from earlier in this thread that there would be a Scottish financial black hole from Year One, they'd be a more volatile national currency putting up prices of goods, much higher interest rates than in the UK (costing the government and mortgages more to fund) many big businesses would leave reducing tax revenues to the government - so generally speaking much tougher times for every citizen in Scotland.

And while you totally diss the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems, may I just remind you WHERE the money comes from to protect the citizens of Scotland basic national spending security - that does not fluctuate whether the price of oil in $110 or $20 a barrel???

”The Barnett Formula Explained”
news.sky.com/story/1336911/the-barnett-formula-explained

”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.”

England gets £8,500 Per Head.

Scotland gets £10,100 Per Head.

So that is the real world, and why the citizens of Scotland probably don't pay for their meds or Uni education etc.

Now you can continue to think what you want who has your interests at heart, but at least understand how and who CURRENTLY substantially helps pay the bills.

And Northern Ireland gets even more per head than Scotland.

You are aware of course that this isn't "free" money - just Westminster retuning some of the Scottish tax receipts?

if its raining, must be the fault of the SNP

No, if it's raining - or snowing, or a bit windy, or too hot, or too cold then it's the fault of Westminster. If only we had an independent Scotland we could continue on a downward trajectory.

And thank god for the Barnett formula - because that economic black hole which is the real alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine ..... the Barnett Formula as the link says is a UK earnings distribution system, I have no more issue with the citizens of Northern Ireland than I do Scotland for getting more per head than England as I guess that it reflects their needs, versus what their economy produces.

And I have no doubt some of Scotlands tax receipts are being returned, but take the Barnett Formula away on independence, what does it leave when nationalists like to tell everyone Scotland will be better off - a surplus or a deficit?

I guess the current price of oil and current near term price projections would be lower than those used nearly a year ago below;

December 2014; “Oil rout would have wrecked an independent Scotland’s finances”

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d97d49ce-877d-11e4-bc7c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Mci5L4Nj

”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.”

”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.”

”Angus Armstrong, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that in these circumstances, a newly independent country would struggle to issue debt in capital markets. “The volatility absolutely kills you. Having to raise an additional £5bn of debt just because the oil price drops in the past five months would have been very serious.”

“It is very hard to see how Scotland could have raised those levels of debts in year one of independence,” he added.”

This isn't "free" money - just Westminster retuning some of the Scottish tax receipts?

Despite it being trotted out every time, that assumption only works if you include all the oil revenue - or in other words, if you regard all the oil as belonging to Scotland

But as Scotland is still part of the UK, it owns national assets like this only as part of that union. Of course, if independence ever happens the whole thing will have to be negotiated ... and I've no doubt Scots will claim they're hard done to then as well

P.S. And may I suggest that the increased activities/taxes of the private sector is DUE to Scotland staying in the UK, not leaving the UK as this is maybe what they could expect;

“Big business warned of 'day of reckoning' if Scots vote Yes”

“Jim Sillars, Alex Salmond's former mentor, says the nationalists will have their revenge by nationalising BP, breaking up the banks and boycotting John Lewis”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html

Still not answered my question huh. If not the SNP, who should I vote for? SNP have been running Scotland for years now and personally im quite happy so far with their performance. My SN child goes to a lovely school and my DS goes to the local Academy, and Im happy with it. Ive had to use NHS for SN child and again, have had no problems with it. SNP are against privatisation of NHS, and I back this. All this SNP baaaaad makes me laugh, its all very well going on about how you don't like SNP policy, why you think its bad blah blah, i dont like the policies of most of the other parties, such is political life.

At the moment i dont give two shiny shits about national debt, I didn't run it up, and I dont think you can hold the SNP completely at fault for running it up, although im sure you may try. Although I do note that the debt has risen substantially under the current government. Its not my top priority. What Im interested in, and who I am going to vote for, depends entirely upon who will ensure that as a SAHM to a SN child amongst others I can put food on my table and keep a roof over my children's head. It really is that simple. So if your really want SNP out of the picture, instead of attacking them and repeating the same old SNP baaad mantra id suggest trying to promote your own parties policies to entice SNP voters to switch. So i will ask again *Which party do you suggest I, as a Scottish SAHM parent to a disabled child who studies part time, should vote for. Who has my interests more than the SNP? Are you capable of answering that?

I see your point harrassed about the SNP policies working in your interest now. However do you think an independent Scotland would be as well placed financially to support your familiy's needs?