How the Union benefits Scotland and the Scots.

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Oddquine, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    on that you have been defeated and that discussion is closed.

    I corrected your mistake.
     
  2. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Fred, the bank you are talking about went belly up and UK economy is up (*)(*)(*)(*) creek. We are not protected from the consequences of that by membership of UK. We are suffering economic deprivation.

    I don't see an independent country taking those risks and I don't see it bailing out a big bank. I see it biting the bullet and getting through it...not in the same way we're being told we are doing now within the UK shambles where the watchword is throw good money after bad.
     
  3. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Should Scotland vote for independence, it would be economically up sh*t creek very soon afterwards.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...ing-risks-scotland-independence?newsfeed=true


    He also feels the need to speak out now because he believes Salmond is deliberately refusing to debate how an independent Scottish economy would work. The master tactician, he feels, is playing for time as he tries to build and stoke resentment against the Tory-led government in England, knowing that if a vote were taken now he would lose.


    Is that really all it would take? I doubt it. I have more faith in the people of Scotland.
     
  4. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    From what I can gather Darling has been under some pressure to come out against Independence. He refused to be part of any big team but I think this sort of article is just him doing his bit.

    The previous leader of the Scottish conservative party herself said that Scotland contributed more than she was given.

    Really the money thing has been spent. We will likely begin with much the same money as we have now. The difference then is that we can choose how it is all spent and invested.

    Here are a couple of different views on the financial situation.

    http://fullfact.org/factchecks/scotland_independence_salmond_economy-3239

    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...-an-independent-scotland-be-financially-sound
     
  5. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh I doubt if you do.

    However, I also doubt the veracity of anything a Labour politician says on the topic of independence. We all know without the Scottish vote, Labour is who will be up (*)(*)(*)(*) creek without a paddle and that is the likely motivation for anything Darling says.
     
  6. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually, no it didn't......firstly it didn't go bankrupt..given that it had assets which could have been liquidated to pretty much cover its debt if it had been possible to liquidate them in an extremely short timescale and without bringing the whole UK economy down with it. That was what the UK bail-out was intended to prevent.....secondly, the problems of the bank was not a direct result of the takeover of ABN Amro.....it was a result of a takeover of ABN Amro at a time when the US sub-prime market, into which so many UK financial institutions had become involved like addicted gamblers was hitting trouble.

    Re the pointless comment re Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government..I responded to that here....
    http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/228976-scots-begin-struggle-independence-13.html#post1060815147
    and here
    http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/228976-scots-begin-struggle-independence-15.html#post1060821379

    I repeat, fredc, that £66 billion also bailed out the English subsidiaries of RBS in the UK...as well as the RBS in Scotland. All we would be obliged to do in an independent Scotland, if we believed that RBS was too big to fail, is support our Bank operations in our country. Whether that is all we would do would depend on the circumstances at the time.

    As at March 2011, the £123 billion presently in the loan packages were divided thus.....RBS Banking Group...£45.80 billion, Lloyds Banking Group...£20.53 billion, Northern Rock...£22.9 billion , Bradford and Bingley...£8.5 billion....plus a further £26.05 billion to other financial institutions.

    That £123 billion costs the UK between £4 and £5 billion a year in interest. Given that even if a Scotland which was independent right now could not borrow at the 4.2% rate the UK is paying, we would not be facing a £123 billion debt...and if we were to be really picky about it, not even the whole £45.8 billion which includes all the English based RBS subsidiaries. Even at current oil prices, and without the chunk of Scottish water stolen by England, Scotland would have oil revenue alone which would have comfortably repaid that level of government borrowing every year..£6.5 billion in 2008-09.

    Using the original immediate £66 billion figure, that would equate to a debt, due solely to the bank bailout, of 45% of GDP. Given that prior to the bank bailouts, the UK had, it appears, a debt to GDP ratio of around 48% and now appears to have one of around 148%...which country would have the problems....an Independent Scotland..or an England without the financial input from Scotland.
     
    alexa and (deleted member) like this.
  7. fredc

    fredc New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said, you are in denial.

    If it can happen to Ireland, if it can happen to Iceland, if it can happen to Greece it can happen to Scotland and it probably will.

    Already businesses are relocating south of the border just at the threat of Scottish independence. Already firms like SSE are stopping investment. So long as Nationalists stick their heads in the sand and deny the reality, so long as they let their hatred of the English override common sense then nobody will have any confidence in their ability to run an economy.
     
  8. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why?

    Not a very good response. Darling knows what he's talking about - and you don't.
     
  9. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's the reason no politician is saying much at the moment.

    The referendum is more than two years away and speculation now is doing nobody any favours.
     
  10. fredc

    fredc New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They had assets impossible to value hence impossible to sell. Nobody knew which or how many investments would turn out to be toxic so it was impossible to put a value on them. Without a bailout from the British government they were going bankrupt.

    Just how many times are the Nationalists thinking of spending this oil revenue? Apart from using it to buy votes with promises of investments and oil funds seems like their answer to everything is the £5 billion they are likely to get from oil.

    Unfortunately even taking in to account the oil revenue Scotland will still be running a deficit of well over £15 billion a year. Yet still their answer to everything in to pay for it with the oil money.
     
  11. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What is with you? Are you blind?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/weste...benefits-scotland-scots-4.html#post1060922400

    Totally different economies. OMG!! You are becoming farcical and as I have already said, Iceland has come out of the recession very well.

    No they haven't. Yet a third untruth in this post alone. However there is concern that England posing a concern to Scotland's economy

    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...uk-government-is-damaging-business-confidence

    Here we have a difficulty with the Conservative Westminster government going against it's election pledges. Very much an argument in favour of Independence.



    and yet you...where is it exactly you do live?... are the one found out time and again to be giving false information, no matter how often the reality is presented to you and it is you who continue to call people who argue the case for Independence as 'nationalists' when it has been presented to you till people are blue in the face that this is a political thing nothing to do with conventional Nationalism. If as you suggested in another thread you live in Scotland and are on the electoral registrar, then if Scotland votes for Independence you will be a Scottish citizen with exactly the same rights as everyone else and these rights will almost certainly be written into the new constitution giving you far more protection that you would have living in England.

    now who exactly is the person again and again and again showing hatred. It is yourself as seen just above and in thread after thread after thread and it is to all the people in Scotland whatever their place of birth who would vote Independence that you show this hate.

    You cannot answer the OP. You cannot provide one reason why Scotland benefits from the Union.
     
  12. fredc

    fredc New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Get your head out of the sand.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9104876/SSE-says-independence-referendum-is-creating-economic-uncertainty.html
     
  13. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It gives them good , close , role models to encourage them to find the perspective to explore their character and isolate the reasons that make them a butt of humour .
    Here is a gag which get to the heart of the problem , imo .A society built on coarse , big mouthed "Fishermen's wives"


    A Scots boy came home from school and told his father he had been given a part in the school play. "Wonderful," says his Dad , "What part is it?" The boy says "I play the part of the Scottish husband!" Dad scowls and says: "Go back and tell your teacher you want a speaking part."
     
  14. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  15. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    From your link:

    The development of SSE’s existing projects in Scotland will continue as planned. It does mean, however, that the additional uncertainty represents increased risk, of which SSE will have no alternative but to take account in making final investment decisions on those projects while that additional uncertainty remains.
     
  16. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes, that is true and we live in a time of great uncertainties. The SSC obviously has to factor in all risks when making their investment plans.

    Other things might be the position of the Euro, the continuing world wide economic uncertainty, the Westminster Governments about turn on Green Energy and so on.

    It is understandable that they would like to know as much as possible but even if we were to go for a Referendum today, these other situations would still remain unpredictable.

    Too much focusing on just one thing. The withdrawal of the Westminster Government from it's Green promises imo is much more of a threat and as I said an argument in favour of Independence.
     
  17. fredc

    fredc New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, unfortunately our government has to take into account that the most likely result of a referendum is that Scotland will remain part of Britain and try to limit the damage to the British economy.

    But I don't think there is too much to worry about, if even only half the prospects in the South Atlantic bare fruit the revenue will make the NS oil money look like peanuts. Wells just starting not past peak and fields with the license fee still to be paid. Plus the Falklanders are proud to be British and grateful for the help we gave them through the hard times.
     
  18. fredc

    fredc New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female


    Your claim was an exaggeration which took one issue without looking at the complexity of issues and tried to make the suggestion that having an election in 2014 was risking Scotland financially.

    The SSE have the right to address concerns and these have already been replied to by the Scottish Government.

    Wow they are so scared of investing, this is what they are up to

    http://www.energylivenews.com/2012/02/16/sse-plan-major-hydro-storage-scheme/

    We should soon start a thread 'England after Scottish Independence' because that is where the difficulties lie.

    Now do you as yet have any benefit you can say there is for Scotland to stay in the Union because I have not as yet seen one.
     
  20. fredc

    fredc New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/environment/environmentalists-dismiss-white-elephant-hydro-electric-scheme.1329447834

    You are unlikely to see anything you don't want to see.
     
  21. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    They were saying it's not knowing whether they will be dealing with Britain or Scotland.

    But they will know whether they are dealing with Britain or Scotland, which is what is worrying them.

    That's not what they said.
     
  22. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Technically, that is correct....going bankrupt, perhaps...not were bankrupt as you said. However, their assets were not impossible to value, while their debts may have been. To value their assets, all they had to do was sell them....as they have been doing since, after all, with the sale of its aircraft leasing division, its corporate broking arm,and its wealth management business (plus an RBS wealth advisory franchise in England and Wales)..and set the proceeds against their accumulated debt.

    If the UK had followed the Scandinavian models of the 1990s, that kind of sale would have happened before any bailout..rather than do it the way we did with the usual UK Government knee-jerk reaction of throwing money at a problem and expecting that uncontrolled handouts would solve everything. Sweden made the banks write down their losses, before coming cap in hand to the state, they made the banks hit on the shareholders, who had benefited in the good years, for share capital before injecting cash...and they liquidated or sold off insolvent banks. They saved the banking system....but,in the process, punished the banks and reminded the shareholders that there was no such thing as a free lunch.

    Now, now fredc...if you can count, which I am now begging leave to doubt...... in the hypothetical situation I was discussing, and which you are stirring with a red, white and blue stick, I used the oil revenue only once....count the incidents.

    Could you please actually show some figures and give some links to prove the assertion in your second paragraph re the 15 billion deficit.

    But perhaps you went into GERS on the Scottish Government site and used the figures there as opposed to pulling the info out of thin air.

    I prefer to link to the conclusion of the GERS report, btw, as opposed to simply using a single figure abstracted from it....because it puts the whole Scotland/UK situation into perspective.

    And I assume a geographical share of North Sea Revenue on the assumption that, on independence, we would be entitled to that same rights over our waters as every other independent country has over theirs.

    For 2009-2010....compare a current budget deficit of £9.0 billion (6.8 per cent of GDP) including a geographical share of North Sea revenue for Scotland....with a UK current budget deficit of £107.3 billion (7.6 per cent of GDP), which includes 100% of North Sea revenue.

    Or for the same period, a Scottish net fiscal balance deficit of £14.0 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) including a geographical share of North Sea revenue....with the UK net fiscal balance (net borrowing) deficit for the same period..which included 100% of North Sea revenues..and £156.5 billion (or 11.1 per cent of GDP)

    Conclusions

    Running deficits do not equate to economic meltdown, fredc......particularly in a country, like Scotland, which has minimal ability allowed it by the UK and can do nothing but suffer the consequences of UK policy which is aimed predominantly at supporting London and the South East of England..and their capitalist cronies. If we were independent, we would be in a position to produce our own policies for our own situation, but it is more than a little stupid, don't you think, to be using a situation which is solely due to the effect of UK policies on Scotland in a thread which is asking for good reasons to stay in the Union?

    By the way, can you name more than a very few countries which are not running current budget and/or net fiscal balance deficits?

    For the same period as above......Danny Alexander has said that Scotland's share of National Debt was £65 billion, and given that, including a geographical share of North Sea revenue and including our population share of the financial bailouts, the Scottish GDP was £131,163 million.....that would equate to a National Debt of around 49.7%..which compares very favourably with the UK figure you will find.

    You can find his speech here
     
  23. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Nor is it what I said they said. It was what I said.

    Selective choosing is easy. For instance Cameron said that Citigroup had said that the delay in the Referendum was causing people to be hesitant in making financial decisions - a claim which no one else upheld but which you are right SSE in it's communications to the Scottish Government also said was some cause for concern.

    That is all that is reported. Not all the other factors which will be causing SSE concern, the Euro, the Global Economic Situation and the Westminster Government going back on it's green pledges. All these things will doubtless be factors which SSE will be taking into consideration when making it's plans for the future...but the only one to be talked about is a communication about the Referendum, which I understand has already been responded to by the Scottish Government.

    What I was saying is that you need to look at the whole situation. If we go back to Citigroup saying that a delay in the Referendum was creating financial uncertainty as Cameron decided to bring in on about his third day of saying he wanted an early Referendum, you would think then that when this very same group says on the 20th January
    But no, when Citigroup, that group held in such high esteem by David Cameron says that an Independent Scotland would likely have a slightly better financial situation than the rest of the UK it is reported absolutely nowhere except briefly in a day long thread on the Telegraph.

    I got the information from here

    http://albamatters.blogspot.com/2012/01/fao-anyone-who-thinks-bbc-scotland-are.html

    as she says this was big news, she went home expecting to see it on Reporting Scotland but she has heard no word of it since.

    You will actually find it on the Telegraph on 15.59 on this link.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...bt-crisis-as-it-happened-January-20-2012.html

    It is selective reporting that is what I was saying. Not a benefit for Scotland remaining in the Union.
     
  24. fredc

    fredc New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You may base your figures on what the politicians say, I go by what the experts at Glasgow University say.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/7338683/Independent-Scotland-142-billion-in-the-red.html

    Yes other countries do run deficits. However Scotland will be running a deficit over 10% of GDP, higher than Greece had in 2009 and that is before they start diverting money to oil funds, investing in renewable energy, improving services and bailing out any failed banks.
     
  25. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    and as your link says that think tank was just making suggestions...so I will go with Citigroup one, post 49 above, which has us doing financially better than yourselves, as indeed does your own article.

    Can't manage our deficit huh

    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...ionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

    Anyone found anything beneficial in the Union for Scotland yet?
     

Share This Page