Scotland after the vote

[Rollin]

pcvdriver said:

AstonZagato said:

Does it not worry you in the slightest that the majority of economists (and virtually every economist who is not being paid by the SNP) is predicting that Scotland will have a more difficult time succeeding economically with independence than without?

How will the Scottish government avoid austerity if this turns out to be the case?

Q. How many of you have ever set up your own business?
Q. It's tough in the beginning isn't it?
Q. But it's worth it in the long run isn't it?

A. Yes
A. Yes
A. Yes

If you're answering Yes to the last question - then I'd suggest that deep down in your heart you know it's going to be good for Scotland in the long run. Stop thinking short-term profits for yourself and start thinking long-term prosperity for your children and their children.

Please don't use that comparison unless you know the percentage of businesses that fail i.e go bust.

[///ajd]

pcvdriver said:

Of course Scotland doesn't have a lender of last resort YET. It hasn't required one, has it?.... and won't require one until it becomes independent.

...but then will require one as soon as it becomes independent? Quite probably, yes, after the run on the banks from all the cash being taken out of Scottish banks.

But how will you create a LOLR with the ability to whistle up the required £100Bn+ to prop up your banks?

[blinkythefish]

pcvdriver said:

HenryJM said:

pcvdriver said:

We have a currency - it's called the Pound. Ok there is some debate over how long we'll continue to use it for. As for a lender of last resort, the reason we don't have one, is we haven't required one, as quite sensibly a country doesn't need TWO lenders of last resort - does it now? How it will be set up - is a matter for discussion and negotiation between Westminster and Holyrood.

We have a currency, we have a lender of last resort. You don't. Quite simple really.

Of course Scotland doesn't have a lender of last resort YET. It hasn't required one, has it?.... and won't require one until it becomes independent.

In that case, the little point that I'd be grateful if you'd clear up is: how do you propose going from not having one, to having one. A lender of last resort is not something you can nip down to LIDL to pick up.

Perhaps if you could show even a basic plan you might win over people who care about more than flags.

Currently all we have is Alex has a mate in the treasury who says it'll be alright cause there'll be currency union, even though all three parties have said it won't happen.

Edited by blinkythefish on Thursday 31st July 23:00

[mcdjl]

pcvdriver said:

Now you're just simply being obtuse, I personally don't have 60 times the number of votes that you do personally, as well you know. For you to suggest otherwise is just doolally.
Scotland as a nation is only able to change 9% of the Westminster MPs. I'd rather Scotland was able to change 100% of it's representatives, come election time. I also think that the people of rUK would prefer being able to choose 100% of it's representatives, instead of the 81% that it currently does.

No you're being obtuse. Did to the way these democracys work, Scottish and UK parliaments, each one of us gets to elect 100% of our representatives. We are each represented by one mp, and in some cases by an smp as well. This will not change. By your definition I'm not represented at all as I didn't vote for any sitting MP.

[jimbop1]

Who cares whether Scotland will be a success or not after independence. Let's just just get rid of them so all the sponging off us stops.

[pcvdriver]

jimbop1 said:

Who cares whether Scotland will be a success or not after independence. Let's just just get rid of them so all the sponging off us stops.

It's a simple, undeniable fact that we in Scotland pay more tax per capita than rUK does...and have done for more than 30 years. This is a matter of fact, not SNP spin, as confirmed by official GERS figures (which can easily be referenced, if you choose not to take what I say at face value). So how you think we're sponging is beyond me.

[///ajd]

pcvdriver said:

It's a simple, undeniable fact that we in Scotland pay more tax per capita than rUK does...and have done for more than 30 years. This is a matter of fact, not SNP spin, as confirmed by official GERS figures (which can easily be referenced, if you choose not to take what I say at face value). So how you think we're sponging is beyond me.

False - you'll see that's not true. Take out the oil revenue, and Scotland generates a fair bit less tax.



The only bar that looks bigger is Alcohol and Cigeratte tax income which is higher in Scotland.

[Walford]

pcvdriver said:

It's a simple, undeniable fact that we in Scotland pay more tax per capita than rUK does...and have done for more than 30 years. This is a matter of fact, not SNP spin, as confirmed by official GERS figures (which can easily be referenced, if you choose not to take what I say at face value). So how you think we're sponging is beyond me.

RBS and HBOS being the main contributors

[pcvdriver]

///ajd said:

False - you'll see that's not true. Take out the oil revenue, and Scotland generates a fair bit less tax.



The only bar that looks bigger is Alcohol and Cigeratte tax income which is higher in Scotland.

So how come Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader has stated publicly that yes, we in Scotland do pay more tax per capita? Someone's telling porkies eh?




Apologies for not being able to find the graphs going further back at present,

Not that you'll pay any attention to an opposing view of your own

Edited by pcvdriver on Friday 1st August 02:24

[HenryJM]

The problem you have is that expenditure in Scotland is also higher.

In fact whilst population is 8.3% of the UK and revenue is 9.1%, expenditure is 9.3%.

Source

[pcvdriver]

HenryJM said:

The problem you have is that expenditure in Scotland is also higher.

In fact whilst population is 8.3% of the UK and revenue is 9.1%, expenditure is 9.3%.

Source

Whilst what you assert is correct, you fail to mention that rUK are also spending beyond it's means too, which is why we have the amount of debt we do. I'd gladly accept a situation where Scotland's debts are Scotland's alone and rUK's debts are rUK's debts alone.

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

HenryJM said:

The problem you have is that expenditure in Scotland is also higher.

In fact whilst population is 8.3% of the UK and revenue is 9.1%, expenditure is 9.3%.

Source

Whilst what you assert is correct, you fail to mention that rUK are also spending beyond it's means too, which is why we have the amount of debt we do. I'd gladly accept a situation where Scotland's debts are Scotland's alone and rUK's debts are rUK's debts alone.

Of course you would because you'd accept anything to get independence. The reality is that you are the highest spending area of the UK spending more than you earn by a higher proportion than the rest of the UK. But you are supported in that by an established and respected currency backed by a central bank. All of which you would lose on independence.

Meanwhile this is all on a context where the people you support don't even know, or won't explain, what currency they would use. It is a choice between sterling or another currency under a panama plan or try and establish your own. Both plans essentially mean no borrowing cutting Scotland's budget by about a fifth in one stroke.

The concept of independence on this point alone is so ludicrous in terms of the effect that the SNP must be hoping and praying that they don't win since they have no answer to it. That's unless they are stupid and can't see it coming.

[pcvdriver]

HenryJM said:

pcvdriver said:

HenryJM said:

The problem you have is that expenditure in Scotland is also higher.

In fact whilst population is 8.3% of the UK and revenue is 9.1%, expenditure is 9.3%.

Source

Whilst what you assert is correct, you fail to mention that rUK are also spending beyond it's means too, which is why we have the amount of debt we do. I'd gladly accept a situation where Scotland's debts are Scotland's alone and rUK's debts are rUK's debts alone.

Of course you would because you'd accept anything to get independence. The reality is that you are the highest spending area of the UK spending more than you earn by a higher proportion than the rest of the UK. But you are supported in that by an established and respected currency backed by a central bank. All of which you would lose on independence.

Meanwhile this is all on a context where the people you support don't even know, or won't explain, what currency they would use. It is a choice between sterling or another currency under a panama plan or try and establish your own. Both plans essentially mean no borrowing cutting Scotland's budget by about a fifth in one stroke.

The concept of independence on this point alone is so ludicrous in terms of the effect that the SNP must be hoping and praying that they don't win since they have no answer to it. That's unless they are stupid and can't see it coming.

OK let's look at borrowing for the last 5 years.

£0.62tn was our 2009 level of debt, £1.26tn was our 2014 level of debt, so the amount extra borrowed for whole of UK was an eye watering £640,000,000,000 (source - http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt...

Amount given to Scotland by Westminster over the same period was £40,000,000,000. (source: figures kindly supplied by Simoid, so you may need to check the veracity of his figures as he didn't provide me with a source).

So Holyrood got £40bn and Westminster gave themselves £600bn, hardly a proportionate split by population percentage is it? Like I said I'd much prefer Scotland was able to pay it's share of the debt and rUK pay it's share - but no, it's all lumped together and Scotland is made to pay circa 9% of the entire debt, which is hardly fair now is it?

Edited by pcvdriver on Friday 1st August 07:22

[arp1]

Oh ffs, toys back in the pram please...there must be an undeniable reason why they want to keep Scotland part of the union, and it can't be just because 'we love you' because clearly that is not the case. If we are sponging wasters then get shot of us and if we go bust then you can laugh and say 'we told you so' but if we make a success out if it, we can laugh and say 'we told you so' whilst you are wallowing in your self pity and privatised country ruined by the Tory party...

Food for thought?

[pcvdriver]

arp1 said:

Oh ffs, toys back in the pram please...there must be an undeniable reason why they want to keep Scotland part of the union, and it can't be just because 'we love you' because clearly that is not the case. If we are sponging wasters then get shot of us and if we go bust then you can laugh and say 'we told you so' but if we make a success out if it, we can laugh and say 'we told you so' whilst you are wallowing in your self pity and privatised country ruined by the Tory party...

Food for thought?

Don't you find it ironic that Obama has tried to make America's health service like our's, whilst Cam the Bam is rushing headlong to try turn the NHS into an American style service.

[McWigglebum4th]

pcvdriver said:

OK let's look at borrowing for the last 5 years.

£0.62tn was our 2009 level of debt, £1.26tn was our 2014 level of debt, so the amount extra borrowed for whole of UK was an eye watering £640,000,000,000 (source - http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt...

Amount given to Scotland by Westminster over the same period was £40,000,000,000. (source: figures kindly supplied by Simoid, so you may need to check the veracity of his figures as he didn't provide me with a source).

So Holyrood got £40bn and Westminster gave themselves £600bn, hardly a proportionate split by population percentage is it? Like I said I'd much prefer Scotland was able to pay it's share of the debt and rUK pay it's share - but no, it's all lumped together and Scotland is made to pay circa 9% of the entire debt, which is hardly fair now is it?

Edited by pcvdriver on Friday 1st August 07:22

You really are a fking retard

NOT ALL MONEY SPENT IN SCOTLAND COMES FROM THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

DON'T FORGET WE SPEND 28 TRILLION GILLION POUNDS A SECOND ON TRIDENT

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

So Holyrood got £40bn and Westminster gave themselves £600bn, hardly a proportionate split by population percentage is it? Like I said I'd much prefer Scotland was able to pay it's share of the debt and rUK pay it's share - but no, it's all lumped together and Scotland is made to pay circa 9% of the entire debt, which is hardly fair now is it?

All of which tells anyone Scottish, don't vote yes, they can't do economics.

[Art0ir]

pcvdriver said:

Now you're just simply being obtuse, I personally don't have 60 times the number of votes that you do personally, as well you know. For you to suggest otherwise is just doolally.
Scotland as a nation is only able to change 9% of the Westminster MPs. I'd rather Scotland was able to change 100% of it's representatives, come election time. I also think that the people of rUK would prefer being able to choose 100% of it's representatives, instead of the 81% that it currently does.

How many MEPs will a future iScotland have and what percentage of the EU circus will they make up?

pcvdriver said:

So Holyrood got £40bn and Westminster gave themselves £600bn, hardly a proportionate split by population percentage is it? Like I said I'd much prefer Scotland was able to pay it's share of the debt and rUK pay it's share - but no, it's all lumped together and Scotland is made to pay circa 9% of the entire debt, which is hardly fair now is it?

I was going to let you sink yourself with that one, but how much of the £600Bn is to pay off previous debts?

Edited by Art0ir on Friday 1st August 07:55

[HenryJM]

pcvdriver said:

Don't you find it ironic that Obama has tried to make America's health service like our's, whilst Cam the Bam is rushing headlong to try turn the NHS into an American style service.

Doesn't understand the NHS either, it seems.

[McWigglebum4th]

Art0ir said:

How many MEPs will a future iScotland have and what percentage of the EU circus will they make up?

EASY

135% of all MEPS will be scottish

including the welsh ones