Scottish Referendum - Part Deux

bompington

I could turn that on its head and ask: what is it about splitting the country up that appeals to you? How far would you go? Should Londoners drop the rest of the country because they think they subsidise it, or should the Tories drop London because it votes Labour? Should England drop Yorkshire, Yorkshire drop Sheffield and Sheffield drop Pitsmoor?

I'm one of those old-fashioned people who thinks it's more important to be together and connected than to say FU to anyone who disagrees, is inconvenient or different.

I know, how quaint and eccentric.

rick_chasey

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

Depends how much whiskey you buy right?

kingstongraham

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

The nuclear deterrent based at Faslane would need to be relocated, a proportion of the Royal Navy would be Scotland's (with no probable reduction in their mission), the oil industry, we'd be an 8% smaller country, we'd have another land border to worry about (especially if Scotland is in the single market and the UK isn't). Plus the reasons for not leaving the EU.

ballysmate

Or more pertinently, whisky.

solosuperia

bompington wrote:

I could turn that on its head and ask: what is it about splitting the country up that appeals to you? How far would you go? Should Londoners drop the rest of the country because they think they subsidise it, or should the Tories drop London because it votes Labour? Should England drop Yorkshire, Yorkshire drop Sheffield and Sheffield drop Pitsmoor?

I'm one of those old-fashioned people who thinks it's more important to be together and connected than to say FU to anyone who disagrees, is inconvenient or different.

I know, how quaint and eccentric.

First and foremost I have no particular axe to grind here. I am not fussed one way or another.
Scotland's Parliament want to leave, what is the point of staying together with them when they are quite vehement in their desire to leave. I was going to say if they are defeated(entirely the wrong word in this context) if they do not gain independence this time it will be on the table again in a couple of years.
Why don't the rest of the UK stay out of their campaign?
I reiterate my original question, What are the downsides for the rest of the UK?

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

The nuclear deterrent based at Faslane would need to be relocated, a proportion of the Royal Navy would be Scotland's (with no probable reduction in their mission), the oil industry, we'd be an 8% smaller country, we'd have another land border to worry about (especially if Scotland is in the single market and the UK isn't). Plus the reasons for not leaving the EU.

nuclear deterrent/RN - maybe we could use it as a chance to grow up about our position in the world
oil industry - we are a net contributor to Scottish economy
8% smaller - who cares unless in a willy waving competition - see above about being better off per head
land border - Boris can sort out a frictionless border like in Ireland
Re brexit - it helps put yourself in the shoes of the EU.

First.Aspect

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

Losing 10% of the UK economy would be damaging to the rUK. Think of it as like the biggest recession ever, like all in one go. Simple enough for you?

You appear to believe that somehow England pays for Scotland so you'd be better off if it left, yes? No, actually Scotland's ave income is surprisingly high and compares well to most of England, once you carve out London. You'd be losing that economic engine, contribution to the tax pot, etc.

One of my biggest complaints about nationalism is that "self-determination" does not account for the effect you have on other people; its intrinsically self-centred. The SNP seem to attribute absolutely none of Scotland's current relative wealth to the rest of the UK of which it is an intrinsic part, nor does it feel any responsibility for the upheaval it will cause for the rest of the UK from which it has benefited.

Its just a really ugly social attitude if you ask me.

wallace_and_gromit

First Aspect wrote:

You appear to believe that somehow England pays for Scotland so you'd be better off if it left, yes? No, actually Scotland's ave income is surprisingly high and compares well to most of England, once you carve out London. You'd be losing that economic engine, contribution to the tax pot, etc.

Scotland contributes as much tax per head to "pot" as does the rest of the UK on average. However, Scotland receives more public spending per head via Barnett than does the rest of the UK. So if Scotland goes, the UK loses 8% of its tax revenue and >8% of its public spending commitments.

All other things equal, losing Scotland is fiscally positive to the UK (and fiscally negative to Scotland).

wallace_and_gromit

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

You appear to believe that somehow England pays for Scotland so you'd be better off if it left, yes? No, actually Scotland's ave income is surprisingly high and compares well to most of England, once you carve out London. You'd be losing that economic engine, contribution to the tax pot, etc.

Scotland contributes as much tax per head to "pot" as does the rest of the UK on average. However, Scotland receives more public spending per head via Barnett than does the rest of the UK. So if Scotland goes, the UK loses 8% of its tax revenue and >8% of its public spending commitments.

All other things equal, losing Scotland is fiscally positive to the UK (and fiscally negative to Scotland).

Of course, Scotland and the UK may be economically less efficient collectively following independence e.g. due to trade barriers, in which case the UK might end up worse off than now.

Garry H

I just wish that all the spongers and the bone idle would declare independence from rUK. And Piers Morgan.

surrey_commuter

First Aspect wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

Losing 10% of the UK economy would be damaging to the rUK. Think of it as like the biggest recession ever, like all in one go. Simple enough for you?

You appear to believe that somehow England pays for Scotland so you'd be better off if it left, yes? No, actually Scotland's ave income is surprisingly high and compares well to most of England, once you carve out London. You'd be losing that economic engine, contribution to the tax pot, etc.

One of my biggest complaints about nationalism is that "self-determination" does not account for the effect you have on other people; its intrinsically self-centred. The SNP seem to attribute absolutely none of Scotland's current relative wealth to the rest of the UK of which it is an intrinsic part, nor does it feel any responsibility for the upheaval it will cause for the rest of the UK from which it has benefited.

Its just a really ugly social attitude if you ask me.

Scotland is a net beneficiary of approx £10bn pa. Why would it cause a recession?

Stevo_666

Sturgeon put back in her box by TM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Quite right, there are more important things to focus on just now.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sturgeon put back in her box by TM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Quite right, there are more important things to focus on just now.

If only they were...

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sturgeon put back in her box by TM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Quite right, there are more important things to focus on just now.

If only they were...

What's she going to do about it? Stamp her feet and scweam maybe.

bompington

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Scotland is a net beneficiary of approx £10bn pa. Why would it cause a recession?

Interesting to observe that London is the only English region that comes close to Scotland in terms of spending per head.
FWIW the higher spending in Scotland is largely geographical - it's expensive to provide services to a country that has 94 inhabited islands and sparsely spread rural population through most of the mainland.

That said, the Scottish government is not known for the efficiency or competence of its service provision.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sturgeon put back in her box by TM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Quite right, there are more important things to focus on just now.

If only they were...

What's she going to do about it? Stamp her feet and scweam maybe.

Sturgeon? Yes.
May? She should be doing something. 9 months and? Nothing.

socrates

Was the last referendum on Scottish independence not supposed to be a once in a generation vote and the Scottish Nats agreed to this?

wallace_and_gromit

bompington wrote:

Interesting to observe that London is the only English region that comes close to Scotland in terms of spending per head.

FWIW the higher spending in Scotland is largely geographical - it's expensive to provide services to a country that has 94 inhabited islands and sparsely spread rural population through most of the mainland.

That's what I've read but post independence, no-one is going to give them any free money to fund their expensive public services like the rest of the UK currently does.

bompington

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

bompington wrote:

Interesting to observe that London is the only English region that comes close to Scotland in terms of spending per head.

FWIW the higher spending in Scotland is largely geographical - it's expensive to provide services to a country that has 94 inhabited islands and sparsely spread rural population through most of the mainland.

That's what I've read but post independence, no-one is going to give them any free money to fund their expensive public services like the rest of the UK currently does.

True. That's just one of the reasons why I, like the majority of Scots, don't want independence.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sturgeon put back in her box by TM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Quite right, there are more important things to focus on just now.

If only they were...

What's she going to do about it? Stamp her feet and scweam maybe.

Sturgeon? Yes.
May? She should be doing something. 9 months and? Nothing.

May has done the only thing she needed to - tell Sturgeon she can't have another referendum for now.

First.Aspect

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

Losing 10% of the UK economy would be damaging to the rUK. Think of it as like the biggest recession ever, like all in one go. Simple enough for you?

You appear to believe that somehow England pays for Scotland so you'd be better off if it left, yes? No, actually Scotland's ave income is surprisingly high and compares well to most of England, once you carve out London. You'd be losing that economic engine, contribution to the tax pot, etc.

One of my biggest complaints about nationalism is that "self-determination" does not account for the effect you have on other people; its intrinsically self-centred. The SNP seem to attribute absolutely none of Scotland's current relative wealth to the rest of the UK of which it is an intrinsic part, nor does it feel any responsibility for the upheaval it will cause for the rest of the UK from which it has benefited.

Its just a really ugly social attitude if you ask me.

Scotland is a net beneficiary of approx £10bn pa. Why would it cause a recession?

Pretty sure its not a simple as that - I mean there's not a direct link between GDP per capita and public spending per head, is there? I

I totally agree that the SNP currently operate an essentially consequence free budgetary deficit, which lets them get away with Greek finances, and free everything. However I think its simplistic to assume that by shelling out 10% of your economy and about 10% of your tax income rUK wouldn't save the ca. 11% of overall tax spending this analysis suggests.

I'm trying to think of an analogy - perhaps its like sharing a house. You share the rent and pay your share of the electricity bill. If one of your housemates doesn't pay their share, and moves out, you might save on electricity, but you'd still have to cover the whole rent instead.

Mmmm that doesn't quite work.....

surrey_commuter

bompington wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Scotland is a net beneficiary of approx £10bn pa. Why would it cause a recession?

Interesting to observe that London is the only English region that comes close to Scotland in terms of spending per head.
FWIW the higher spending in Scotland is largely geographical - it's expensive to provide services to a country that has 94 inhabited islands and sparsely spread rural population through most of the mainland.

That said, the Scottish government is not known for the efficiency or competence of its service provision.

Who cares what the reasons are - the fact is that for the man on the Clapham omnibus Scotland leaving the Union will most probably be beneficial

surrey_commuter

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

Losing 10% of the UK economy would be damaging to the rUK. Think of it as like the biggest recession ever, like all in one go. Simple enough for you?

You appear to believe that somehow England pays for Scotland so you'd be better off if it left, yes? No, actually Scotland's ave income is surprisingly high and compares well to most of England, once you carve out London. You'd be losing that economic engine, contribution to the tax pot, etc.

One of my biggest complaints about nationalism is that "self-determination" does not account for the effect you have on other people; its intrinsically self-centred. The SNP seem to attribute absolutely none of Scotland's current relative wealth to the rest of the UK of which it is an intrinsic part, nor does it feel any responsibility for the upheaval it will cause for the rest of the UK from which it has benefited.

Its just a really ugly social attitude if you ask me.

Scotland is a net beneficiary of approx £10bn pa. Why would it cause a recession?

Pretty sure its not a simple as that - I mean there's not a direct link between GDP per capita and public spending per head, is there? I

I totally agree that the SNP currently operate an essentially consequence free budgetary deficit, which lets them get away with Greek finances, and free everything. However I think its simplistic to assume that by shelling out 10% of your economy and about 10% of your tax income rUK wouldn't save the ca. 11% of overall tax spending this analysis suggests.

I'm trying to think of an analogy - perhaps its like sharing a house. You share the rent and pay your share of the electricity bill. If one of your housemates doesn't pay their share, and moves out, you might save on electricity, but you'd still have to cover the whole rent instead.

Mmmm that doesn't quite work.....

How about buying pints in a round. A couple of your mates earn less so you pick up an extra round now and then. As you get older you grow apart and one of the poorer guys moves away. Yes he is not there to buy any rounds but he was drinking more than he was buying so you are better off.

Or Scotland is the guy at the communal meal where the bill will be split equally who drinks more than anybody else, has a starter, steak for main course and then a dessert before a couple of coffees and a liquor. Next week Scotland does not turn up and whilst you have less in the kitty you have a smaller bill so everybody pays less

surrey_commuter

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

SoloSuperia wrote:

As an English male what do I lose out on if Scotland leave the UK.
Surely we will save money in the long run..........
Why do we have to fight a stay campaign?
Am I being naive? What don't I understand?
Nice simple concepts please.

Losing 10% of the UK economy would be damaging to the rUK. Think of it as like the biggest recession ever, like all in one go. Simple enough for you?

You appear to believe that somehow England pays for Scotland so you'd be better off if it left, yes? No, actually Scotland's ave income is surprisingly high and compares well to most of England, once you carve out London. You'd be losing that economic engine, contribution to the tax pot, etc.

One of my biggest complaints about nationalism is that "self-determination" does not account for the effect you have on other people; its intrinsically self-centred. The SNP seem to attribute absolutely none of Scotland's current relative wealth to the rest of the UK of which it is an intrinsic part, nor does it feel any responsibility for the upheaval it will cause for the rest of the UK from which it has benefited.

Its just a really ugly social attitude if you ask me.

Scotland is a net beneficiary of approx £10bn pa. Why would it cause a recession?

Pretty sure its not a simple as that - I mean there's not a direct link between GDP per capita and public spending per head, is there? I

I totally agree that the SNP currently operate an essentially consequence free budgetary deficit, which lets them get away with Greek finances, and free everything. However I think its simplistic to assume that by shelling out 10% of your economy and about 10% of your tax income rUK wouldn't save the ca. 11% of overall tax spending this analysis suggests.

the link is between Govt income per head (or overall) and total Govt spending or per head.

On any measure Scotland is a ligger

I'm trying to think of an analogy - perhaps its like sharing a house. You share the rent and pay your share of the electricity bill. If one of your housemates doesn't pay their share, and moves out, you might save on electricity, but you'd still have to cover the whole rent instead.

Mmmm that doesn't quite work.....

pblakeney

socrates wrote:

Was the last referendum on Scottish independence not supposed to be a once in a generation vote and the Scottish Nats agreed to this?

IIRC, then yes.
But there was caveats which get conveniently snipped.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sturgeon put back in her box by TM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Quite right, there are more important things to focus on just now.

If only they were...

What's she going to do about it? Stamp her feet and scweam maybe.

Sturgeon? Yes.
May? She should be doing something. 9 months and? Nothing.

May has done the only thing she needed to - tell Sturgeon she can't have another referendum for now.

My point was that she should be doing more than focusing.
Time will become an issue that won't be overcome.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

How about buying pints in a round. A couple of your mates earn less so you pick up an extra round now and then. As you get older you grow apart and one of the poorer guys moves away. Yes he is not there to buy any rounds but he was drinking more than he was buying so you are better off.

But you've got one less friend.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

How about buying pints in a round. A couple of your mates earn less so you pick up an extra round now and then. As you get older you grow apart and one of the poorer guys moves away. Yes he is not there to buy any rounds but he was drinking more than he was buying so you are better off.

But you've got one less friend.

he was getting a bit tiresome. Initially the constant moaning about the pub was part of his charm but in the end it had worn a bit thin and his constant threats to go to another pub unless we stumped up some bar snacks meant we really did not care.

apreading

Ms Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, told BBC Scotland: "It is an argument for independence really in a nutshell, that Westminster thinks it has got the right to block the democratically elected mandate of the Scottish government and the majority in the Scottish Parliament."

Isnt that how democracy works? The party in power govern constituencies that dont always want what the party in power chooses, but the country as a whole have elected them to do just that.

The same way that not all of Scotland would want many of the things that the Scottish Parliament choose on their behalf, even when the local council is made up of members from other parties, Ms Sturgeon & SNP still makes decisions against the mandate of those councils.

Somebody needs to teach her how democracy works and what it means...

First.Aspect

apreading wrote:

Ms Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, told BBC Scotland: "It is an argument for independence really in a nutshell, that Westminster thinks it has got the right to block the democratically elected mandate of the Scottish government and the majority in the Scottish Parliament."

Isnt that how democracy works? The party in power govern constituencies that dont always want what the party in power chooses, but the country as a whole have elected them to do just that.

The same way that not all of Scotland would want many of the things that the Scottish Parliament choose on their behalf, even when the local council is made up of members from other parties, Ms Sturgeon & SNP still makes decisions against the mandate of those councils.

Somebody needs to teach her how democracy works and what it means...

And also what a mandate is. She runs a minority government. Not sure if the Greens had indyref2 in their manifesto.

They mentioned "material changes" in their manifesto, without saying what that might be. Retrospectively, they've cited brexit, but even this week the SNP has conflated staying in the EEA and staying in the EU as their reason for calling another referendum. Truth is there isn't a policy on that, because - you may not be surprised to find - they want their cake and eat it here too - i.e. EU membership without the Euro. How's that going to happen?

And no one seems to have noticed that in the last referendum, we already knew that the EU referendum was going to happen, and it was one of their campaigning points then. So, in effect the material change they are citing now was already voted on. Okay, no one thought we'd actually leave, but that's not the point.