Interesting piece by Prof. Simon Wren-Lewis, economics professor at Oxford University, and a fellow of Merton College.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... s-and.html
Quote:
Scotland and the SNP: Fooling yourselves and deceiving others
There are many laudable reasons to campaign for Scottish independence. But how far should those who passionately want independence be prepared to go to achieve that goal? Should they, for example, deceive the Scottish people about the basic economics involved? That seems to be what is happening right now. The more I look at the numbers, the clearer it becomes that over the next five or ten years there would more, not less, fiscal austerity under independence.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies is widely respected as an independent and impartial source of expertise on everything to do with government spending, borrowing and taxation in the UK. It has produced a detailed analysis (recently updated) of the fiscal (tax and spending) outlook for an independent Scotland, compared to what would happen if Scotland stayed in the UK. It has no axe to grind on this issue, and a considerable reputation to maintain.
Their analysis is unequivocal. Scotland’s fiscal position would be worse as a result of leaving the UK for two main reasons. First, demographic trends are less favourable. Second, revenues from the North Sea are expected to decline. This tells us that under current policies Scotland would be getting an increasingly good deal out of being part of the UK. To put it another way, the rest of the UK would be transferring resources to Scotland at an increasing rate, giving Scotland time to adjust to these trends and cushioning their impact. Paying back, if you like, for all the earlier years when North Sea oil production was at its peak.
There are many laudable reasons to campaign for Scottish independence. But how far should those who passionately want independence be prepared to go to achieve that goal? Should they, for example, deceive the Scottish people about the basic economics involved? That seems to be what is happening right now. The more I look at the numbers, the clearer it becomes that over the next five or ten years there would more, not less, fiscal austerity under independence.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies is widely respected as an independent and impartial source of expertise on everything to do with government spending, borrowing and taxation in the UK. It has produced a detailed analysis (recently updated) of the fiscal (tax and spending) outlook for an independent Scotland, compared to what would happen if Scotland stayed in the UK. It has no axe to grind on this issue, and a considerable reputation to maintain.
Their analysis is unequivocal. Scotland’s fiscal position would be worse as a result of leaving the UK for two main reasons. First, demographic trends are less favourable. Second, revenues from the North Sea are expected to decline. This tells us that under current policies Scotland would be getting an increasingly good deal out of being part of the UK. To put it another way, the rest of the UK would be transferring resources to Scotland at an increasing rate, giving Scotland time to adjust to these trends and cushioning their impact. Paying back, if you like, for all the earlier years when North Sea oil production was at its peak.
Quote:
This is certainly the impression I get from reading a lot of literature as I researched this post. The arguments in the Wee Blue Book are exactly that: no sustained economic argument, but just a collection of random quotes and debating points to make a problem go away.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/ ... s-and.html
SNP talk of 'nationalising BP' and 'boycotting John Lewis' as businesses daring to speak out against Yes:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3539754
If that doesn't send a shiver down the spine, nothing will.
Quote:
Scottish independence: FORMER SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars has claimed there will be a “day of reckoning” for major Scottish employers such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life after a Yes vote.
Speaking from his campaign vehicle the “Margo Mobile”, Mr Sillars insisted that employers are “subverting Scotland’s democratic process” and vowed that oil giant BP would be nationalised in an independent Scotland.
Earlier this week, a number of banks, including Lloyds Banking Group and RBS, said they would look to move their headquarters south of the border in the event of a Yes vote.
Mr Sillars, who earlier this week claimed he and First Minister Alex Salmond had put their long-held personal differences behind them to campaign together for independence, also revealed that he would not retire from politics on 19 September but said he would be “staying in” if Scotland became independent.
He claimed there is talk of a “boycott” of John Lewis, banks to be split up, and new law to force Ryder Cup sponsor Standard Life to explain to unions its reasons for moving outside Scotland.
He said: “This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
“The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.”
He added: “BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors.”
Mr Sillars, whose wife, MSP Margo MacDonald died earlier this year, said that under an independent Scotland, Standard Life would be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies - and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland.
“What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out,” he added.
Speaking from his campaign vehicle the “Margo Mobile”, Mr Sillars insisted that employers are “subverting Scotland’s democratic process” and vowed that oil giant BP would be nationalised in an independent Scotland.
Earlier this week, a number of banks, including Lloyds Banking Group and RBS, said they would look to move their headquarters south of the border in the event of a Yes vote.
Mr Sillars, who earlier this week claimed he and First Minister Alex Salmond had put their long-held personal differences behind them to campaign together for independence, also revealed that he would not retire from politics on 19 September but said he would be “staying in” if Scotland became independent.
He claimed there is talk of a “boycott” of John Lewis, banks to be split up, and new law to force Ryder Cup sponsor Standard Life to explain to unions its reasons for moving outside Scotland.
He said: “This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
“The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland’s poor, poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a Yes.”
He added: “BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to be. We will be the masters of the oil fields, not BP or any other of the majors.”
Mr Sillars, whose wife, MSP Margo MacDonald died earlier this year, said that under an independent Scotland, Standard Life would be required by new employment laws to give two years warning of any redundancies - and reveal to the trade unions its financial reasons for relocation to any country outside of Scotland.
“What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out,” he added.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3539754
If that doesn't send a shiver down the spine, nothing will.
Well, I would be very interested to see it happen, just not in my country first! So, "vote yes, for economic and fiscal experimentation!"
I would be interested in seeing how an independent Scottish government would go about nationalising multinational corporation BP.
I fear it would end better for BP than for Scotland.
I fear it would end better for BP than for Scotland.
BP could pretty much just buy Scotland.
Also, Sillars is a fucking lunatic.
Also, Sillars is a fucking lunatic.
What kind of dog do these oranges think they are?
That's some impressive frothing. It makes about as much sense as "When Scotland becomes independent, we'll move it to the moon!"
What type of emerald do these apostrophes think they are?
Actually sillars has a good shot at writing for clickhole if politics fails for him.
Actually sillars has a good shot at writing for clickhole if politics fails for him.
Has this been posted? Groundskeeper Willy's views on Scottish independence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk
Campaign now at unbearable fever pitch. Placard-waving loons everywhere. Can't wait for it to be over. I now suspect riots will occur in the event of a No vote.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
I now suspect riots will occur in the event of a No vote.
Was that ever in doubt, particularly over the last 6 months?
Those who have goaded the hitherto peaceful Scottish electorate and turned up the devisive hate to max will likely have much to answer for IMO.
I just spent the weekend at goodwood revival showing a car that the company I work for built. I was expecting to be questioned on the referendum what with it being a burning topic atm and so it was, despite my attempts to keep the chat about cars. Some observations: it quickly became apparent that there were two different types of people, one set would express genuine interest in the subject, offer their opinions and ultimately offer us good luck. The other set tended to be pretty confrontational about it, their argument being that we were greedily breaking up "the union" for our own benefit. Imo that's not a great argument, why on earth would a country not do something that it thought would benefit it in the long run? Another thing that struck me was quite how different the south of England is to the rest of the country, its obvious that there is a lot of money swirling around down there and that things are done quite differently than in backwater Scotland. Now there's nothing wrong with that of course but it reinforces my thoughts that if Scotland could look after its own interests it would, in the long run, be a nicer place to live. This has been written on the move and off the top of my head so might well have holes in it, pick away.
Study indicates that up to 60,000 Uk specific civil service jobs in Scotland could go post independence.
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.u ... erspective
(it's a bit of a read)
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.u ... erspective
(it's a bit of a read)
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Campaign now at unbearable fever pitch. Placard-waving loons everywhere. Can't wait for it to be over. I now suspect riots will occur in the event of a No vote.
I suspect there will be a similar reaction from some in the event of a Yes also.
I am trying to decide how late to stay up on Thursday night. Haven't taken Friday off, and annoyingly have meetings booked so can't 'work from home'.
Have we devised official BeeX Drinking Game rules for the results show yet?
Have we devised official BeeX Drinking Game rules for the results show yet?
Shame it isn't the cottage weekend!
I think the No vote will win, simply because of the sheer ridiculous TERROR AND DOOM mode that the No campaign has gone into, and I think enough people will be sufficiently scared by it to go for a No vote, and play it safe.
At the last count I believe I've heard that a No vote will result in all men north of the border immediately becoming sterile and also never being able to achieve a satisfactory erection again, plus a hostile fleet of UFOs will arrive over Edinburgh and systematically kill every Scottish person in a one hundred mile radius.
I think they're scared an independent Scotland would actually work and show that there's a better and more equal way to run a society than the shower of cunts we've had in Westminster since Thatcher took office decided is the way to go.
I realise that last sentence is massively inelegant in its construction but I can't be arsed to rewrite it.
At the last count I believe I've heard that a No vote will result in all men north of the border immediately becoming sterile and also never being able to achieve a satisfactory erection again, plus a hostile fleet of UFOs will arrive over Edinburgh and systematically kill every Scottish person in a one hundred mile radius.
I think they're scared an independent Scotland would actually work and show that there's a better and more equal way to run a society than the shower of cunts we've had in Westminster since Thatcher took office decided is the way to go.
I realise that last sentence is massively inelegant in its construction but I can't be arsed to rewrite it.
We should stop all this endless debate, the Yes vote will win.
Hearthly wrote:
I think the No vote will win, simply because of the sheer ridiculous TERROR AND DOOM mode that the No campaign has gone into, and I think enough people will be sufficiently scared by it to go for a No vote, and play it safe.
At the last count I believe I've heard that a No vote will result in all men north of the border immediately becoming sterile and also never being able to achieve a satisfactory erection again, plus a hostile fleet of UFOs will arrive over Edinburgh and systematically kill every Scottish person in a one hundred mile radius.
I think they're scared an independent Scotland would actually work and show that there's a better and more equal way to run a society than the shower of cunts we've had in Westminster since Thatcher took office decided is the way to go.
I realise that last sentence is massively inelegant in its construction but I can't be arsed to rewrite it.
At the last count I believe I've heard that a No vote will result in all men north of the border immediately becoming sterile and also never being able to achieve a satisfactory erection again, plus a hostile fleet of UFOs will arrive over Edinburgh and systematically kill every Scottish person in a one hundred mile radius.
I think they're scared an independent Scotland would actually work and show that there's a better and more equal way to run a society than the shower of cunts we've had in Westminster since Thatcher took office decided is the way to go.
I realise that last sentence is massively inelegant in its construction but I can't be arsed to rewrite it.
Two points:
1) Why would people vote No if the UFOs will kill them? Is this some mass suicide cult?
2) Whilst cutting themselves off from Westminster and that shower of cunts may be good for them, I hardly think that they're proposing anything particularly different or revolutionary in its place; it'll just be another group of rich wankers like Salmond eating cake. There won't be any unicorns on bikes doling out cash to the poor and needy.
Curiosity wrote:
Two points:
1) Why would people vote No if the UFOs will kill them? Is this some mass suicide cult?
2) Whilst cutting themselves off from Westminster and that shower of cunts may be good for them, I hardly think that they're proposing anything particularly different or revolutionary in its place; it'll just be another group of rich wankers like Salmond eating cake. There won't be any unicorns on bikes doling out cash to the poor and needy.
1) Why would people vote No if the UFOs will kill them? Is this some mass suicide cult?
2) Whilst cutting themselves off from Westminster and that shower of cunts may be good for them, I hardly think that they're proposing anything particularly different or revolutionary in its place; it'll just be another group of rich wankers like Salmond eating cake. There won't be any unicorns on bikes doling out cash to the poor and needy.
1) Yeah I meant the other way round lol.
2) I'd argue the alternative could hardly be much worse.
I'm watching with interest, I'm hoping Yes can swing it, but I think No will win.
Quote:
I'm watching with interest, I'm hoping Yes can swing it, but I think No will win.
I doubt that the IOM will be paying anything towards the billions this exercise will cost if there is a Yes vote
I must admit I'm very intrigued by this planned fair socialist utopia which so far doesn't show any trace of existing in manifestos or the like, just some assumed result of independence.
Cras wrote:
I must admit I'm very intrigued by this planned fair socialist utopia which so far doesn't show any trace of existing in manifestos or the like, just some assumed result of independence.
And then one day, they start walking on their hind legs.
Oh, I've done that gag.
Cras wrote:
I must admit I'm very intrigued by this planned fair socialist utopia which so far doesn't show any trace of existing in manifestos or the like, just some assumed result of independence.
Except that the pigs need the extra milk and apples.
Saw a poll in the Grauniad just now claiming that around 65% of people in England and Wales would not want a currency union with Scotland were the Scots to embark on a solo career. Backs up my view that there would be a popular appetite for a harsh final settlement, but at the same time the most interesting figure was 55% who said they would feel sad at their departure.
I don't think anyone in England has ever had to think about the Union before: we've just seen it as always having been there and the idea that it could end frightens and confuses us.
I don't think anyone in England has ever had to think about the Union before: we've just seen it as always having been there and the idea that it could end frightens and confuses us.
Like one half of a marriage asking for a divorce and the other saying "I had no idea. I thought we were happy"
DavPaz wrote:
Like one half of a marriage asking for a divorce and the other saying "I had no idea. I thought we were happy"
Heh. In a way, yes.
A couple of quick questions from a foreigner that doesn't know anything about this issue:
1) Why did Cameron, or the Queen, or whoever is in charge gave legality to the referedum?
2) why now?
3) is the uk flag going to change in case of a "yes" win?
1) Why did Cameron, or the Queen, or whoever is in charge gave legality to the referedum?
2) why now?
3) is the uk flag going to change in case of a "yes" win?
RuySan wrote:
A couple of quick questions from a foreigner that doesn't know anything about this issue:
1) Why did Cameron, or the Queen, or whoever is in charge gave legality to the referedum?
1) Why did Cameron, or the Queen, or whoever is in charge gave legality to the referedum?
The SNP won a majority in the 2011 Scottish election with a manifesto commitment toh old on. Whilst Holyrood did not have the power to hold such a referendum, it would have been politically untenable for Parliament not to temporarily grant it that right, especially as it would be another example of 'evil Tories ignoring the Scottish people'.
Cameron thought that he could put the issue to bed for another generation, that the result was in no real doubt. He misjudged the situation hugely, though. Offered the referendum on the condition that it was simply in/out with no third option for more powers for the Scottish parliament.
RuySan wrote:
2) why now?
3) is the uk flag going to change in case of a "yes" win?
3) is the uk flag going to change in case of a "yes" win?
2) Salmond wanted a two-year campaign.
3) No idea. Personally, I think we should keep it, just to really annoy them.
Fuck that - we should scrap the blue bit and put a FUCKING DRAGON in the background.
Grim... wrote:
Fuck that - we should scrap the blue bit and put a FUCKING DRAGON in the background.
that's what i thought. Put the dragon in middle, on top of the english cross, and whatever there's in the northern irish flag serving as a hat to the dragon.
I wsa wondering the other day if I'd feel the same way if Northern Ireland left. I used to joke that I studied British politics, not UK, as I could never get my head around the politics, history, and issues in the other bit of the Union. But that is for another thread, I suppose.
Why is no one thinking of the Australian and New Zealand flags! This could be a worldwide calamity! The calamity I tells ya! CALAMITY.
Time to invest in flag making companies?
Personally, I'm looking forward to see all those newly minted Scottish coins in the unlikely event of a Yes vote?
I mean, I used to love old school British 10p and 50p pieces; big, heavy chunks of metal that they were, you knew you had change for a round in your pocket merely by weight. Those big coins are long gone now - but Scotland would have no choice but to reintroduce something similar. No other way of getting Salmond's face on one side.
I mean, I used to love old school British 10p and 50p pieces; big, heavy chunks of metal that they were, you knew you had change for a round in your pocket merely by weight. Those big coins are long gone now - but Scotland would have no choice but to reintroduce something similar. No other way of getting Salmond's face on one side.
Good ol' SNP - banging on about Scots NHS whilst apparently holding secret meetings re. slashing £400 million over the next 2 years, to be kept under wraps until after the Referendum.
Tchoh! Those chirpy little SNP bods and their jolly little japes, eh!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416
Tchoh! Those chirpy little SNP bods and their jolly little japes, eh!
Quote:
Confidential papers passed to the BBC suggest a radical cost-saving plan will be implemented in the Scottish NHS after the referendum.
The papers were presented to a meeting of health board chief executives and civil servants last month.
They suggest the NHS is facing a £400m funding gap, and sweeping changes will be needed for boards to break even.
The Scottish government said it was committed to "protecting and increasing the NHS budget".
The papers were passed to the BBC and The Herald by a senior NHS whistleblower, who said they had become frustrated by the argument of the "Yes" campaign that the biggest threat to the NHS comes from the UK government.
“The current pattern of services is underpinned but short-term money and fixes won't stack up going into next year”
NHS whistleblower
The documents state: "The status quo and preservation of existing models of care are no longer an option given the pressing challenges we face."
The whistleblower has alleged that pressures on the NHS come from Scottish government policies.
The papers were presented to a meeting of health board chief executives and civil servants last month.
They suggest the NHS is facing a £400m funding gap, and sweeping changes will be needed for boards to break even.
The Scottish government said it was committed to "protecting and increasing the NHS budget".
The papers were passed to the BBC and The Herald by a senior NHS whistleblower, who said they had become frustrated by the argument of the "Yes" campaign that the biggest threat to the NHS comes from the UK government.
“The current pattern of services is underpinned but short-term money and fixes won't stack up going into next year”
NHS whistleblower
The documents state: "The status quo and preservation of existing models of care are no longer an option given the pressing challenges we face."
The whistleblower has alleged that pressures on the NHS come from Scottish government policies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29213416
Grim... wrote:
Fuck that - we should scrap the blue bit and put a FUCKING DRAGON in the background.
A DRAGON RIDING A DINOSAUR.
Cras wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Fuck that - we should scrap the blue bit and put a FUCKING DRAGON in the background.
A DRAGON RIDING A DINOSAUR.
ON FIRE.
FLYING A SPACESHIP
All that but people would still fly it upside down.
If the spaceship was in space, that wouldn't matter.
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
FLYING A SPACESHIP
In an inverted 4G dive.
Cras wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
FLYING A SPACESHIP
In an inverted 4G dive.
With unlimited data
How's this for size?
Might just as well be, in the event of 'Yes'...
Might just as well be, in the event of 'Yes'...
I can't remember how or why it came up, but I think it may have been on a TV programme I was watching once where one of the most important things about flag design was cited as the ease with which children can draw it, so complex figures such as dragon are thought to make an unsucessful flag.