Will Scotland Leave the UK?

Originally Posted by jfman

You are the one who contested that Scotland has in the past benefitted from the Union. I simply agreed with you, I fail to see how that can be considered “rhetoric”.

I’m asking someone to make a 21st century case for one.

“Once in a generation, once in a lifetime“ was an obvious error to say, as it has no legal standing and you cannot reasonably bind those joining the electorate to the decisions of the past for longer beyond the point where it is no longer democratically tolerable. Politicians got caught up in some grandiose rhetoric to underline the historic occasion upon them, but it’s demonstrably ridiculous to bind a country to a decision for “a lifetime” considering tens of thousands die, and join the electorate, each year - never mind some change their mind.

On the contrary, major constitutional issues are decided on a generational basis because of the profound upheaval they cause. Constant tinkering is a recipe for instability. Salmond - and Sturgeon, who nodded along enthusiastically and even put her signature to the Edinburgh Agreement for a “decisive” referendum - were correct (for once). You may deeply regret their words, but passing them off as heat of the moment, overcome with emotion and therefore to be set aside is, once more, silly. Even you acknowledge the event was historic. On that, at least, we agree.

Parliamentary elections and constitutional referendums are not remotely similar in the issues they address or the consequences of their outcomes, and it is a futile exercise is false equivalence to use the parliamentary electoral timetable as an argument in favour of repeated constitutional referendums.

[jfman]

There’s no legislative or constitutional basis for that claim. It’s simply a personal preference from those who are terrified of asking the question again.

The use of the word “decisive” is doing some heavy lifting. The matter was decided then. That doesn’t bind future Parliaments or Governments to not review the constitutional settlement as it sees fit.

When the next referendum happens, I can guarantee it will be in my lifetime and before the “generational” limit that some seek to falsely apply. That Michael Gove, Andrew Neil and others are already engaging conversation about who should be entitled to vote accepts that there is the possibility of a vote.

Likewise, your arguments are those of the side that was happy with the rules of the contest when it thought it would win. You seek to delegitimise a process devised and deployed entirely by your ideological fellow travellers because it backfired, and now resort to playground taunts of feart! feart! to try to bounce those who won the decisive victory into giving you a rematch you certainly wouldn’t agree to were the position reversed.

[jfman]

I don’t have to agree. All that would be required would be the people to elect a Government that seeks to rejoin the UK. That’s how our democracy works. Elected representatives get mandated to carry out policies - until such times as the electorate gets bored and votes for someone else.

Had the Liberal Democrats won the UK general election (no laughing at the back) they could have revoked article 50 or held a second referendum. As it stands the public got bored of their campaign and they paid the price. However, that’s the mechanics of democracy in the UK.

The SNP will get their referendum if they decisively win next years SP elections.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that the reason you don’t want a further referendum is lack of confidence in winning. If there was any confidence you’d welcome it, as losing the next referendum is about the only thing that looks to break SNP dominance of Scottish politics in the near/medium term.

Again though this is the kind of debate that isn’t going to sway the 50% of SNP voters. They believe Scotland has a right to choose its own destiny and vote for them on that basis.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't need to explain because I'm not making the case for it. But even if you're making the case for something, you don't necessarily need to go into exquisite detail at the pitch stage. You leave that for someone else to sort out at the delivery stage.

That being said, I'm sure there's nothing unique about Scotland that would prevent it from being a successful independent country.

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t have to agree. All that would be required would be the people to elect a Government that seeks to rejoin the UK. That’s how our democracy works. Elected representatives get mandated to carry out policies - until such times as the electorate gets bored and votes for someone else.

Had the Liberal Democrats won the UK general election (no laughing at the back) they could have revoked article 50 or held a second referendum. As it stands the public got bored of their campaign and they paid the price. However, that’s the mechanics of democracy in the UK.

The SNP will get their referendum if they decisively win next years SP elections.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that the reason you don’t want a further referendum is lack of confidence in winning. If there was any confidence you’d welcome it, as losing the next referendum is about the only thing that looks to break SNP dominance of Scottish politics in the near/medium term.

Again though this is the kind of debate that isn’t going to sway the 50% of SNP voters. They believe Scotland has a right to choose its own destiny and vote for them on that basis.

A referendum will only be held if it clear that it can be won.

50/50 won’t cut it and there would have be a clear margin of error. To lose a second referendum would indeed end it for a generation or more.

There may well be a 2nd referendum in our lifetime but it is a joker to be played wisely as it would be The last time It’s played for a long Long time.

[nomadking]

It's valid question to ask "In an independent Scotland, where is the money going to come from?", when they are carrying such a large deficit that by itself would be unsustainable. And that's without even paying back their share of the UK debt. At the moment Scotland benefits from lower borrowing rates because of England. How is that holding back Scotland? If England's deficit levels were the same as Scotland's, it would be very expensive for the UK government to borrow.

Denmark and Sweden don't have the Euro because their politicians have this crazy notion of actually respecting the results of a referendum.

England voted for clear Conservative majorities in 1964, Feb 1974, and 2010. Ended up with Labour ruling or a coalition with the Lib-Dems. Also because of by elections after Oct 1974, by 1977, England had a Conservative majority.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t have to agree. All that would be required would be the people to elect a Government that seeks to rejoin the UK. That’s how our democracy works. Elected representatives get mandated to carry out policies - until such times as the electorate gets bored and votes for someone else.

Had the Liberal Democrats won the UK general election (no laughing at the back) they could have revoked article 50 or held a second referendum. As it stands the public got bored of their campaign and they paid the price. However, that’s the mechanics of democracy in the UK.

The SNP will get their referendum if they decisively win next years SP elections.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that the reason you don’t want a further referendum is lack of confidence in winning. If there was any confidence you’d welcome it, as losing the next referendum is about the only thing that looks to break SNP dominance of Scottish politics in the near/medium term.

Again though this is the kind of debate that isn’t going to sway the 50% of SNP voters. They believe Scotland has a right to choose its own destiny and vote for them on that basis.

Another big assumption you have made against someone who disagrees with you.

It is difficult to deny that referendums are very divisive and create tensions, even within families. The Brexit referendum and its immediate aftermath was extremely damaging and the last Scottish independence referendum was equally damaging.

Those people who are demanding another referendum will never accept the result if it goes against them. Win it, and that's it, no further discussion!

This is such a childish wheeze and everyone can see through it for what it is. I was quite happy to have the Scottish and Brexit referendums at the time, but I am dead against repeating them over and over until the 'right' result is obtained, which of course, would then be 'final'. My opposition to further referendums, and I suspect most people of common sense, is nothing to do with any fear of losing. What I cannot abide is this cynical manipulation of democracy, which is what this is, and you know that.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's valid question to ask "In an independent Scotland, where is the money going to come from?", when they are carrying such a large deficit that by itself would be unsustainable. And that's without even paying back their share of the UK debt. At the moment Scotland benefits from lower borrowing rates because of England. How is that holding back Scotland? If England's deficit levels were the same as Scotland's, it would be very expensive for the UK government to borrow.

Denmark and Sweden don't have the Euro because their politicians have this crazy notion of actually respecting the results of a referendum.

England voted for clear Conservative majorities in 1964, Feb 1974, and 2010. Ended up with Labour ruling or a coalition with the Lib-Dems. Also because of by elections after Oct 1974, by 1977, England had a Conservative majority.

The same place any Government gets its money from - taxation. It’s entirely speculative to say that Scotland would automatically have an unsustainable deficit or be unable to borrow. It’s also speculative to say that Scotland couldn’t reform it’s taxation system to make it more competitive against other countries (including the EU countries) to facilitate investment.

I agree it’s less than ideal for England to be governed in such a way. English independence would be an excellent idea - win win for everyone. Unless of course, there’s more to it and all is not as it seems with the figures given by London.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's valid question to ask "In an independent Scotland, where is the money going to come from?", when they are carrying such a large deficit that by itself would be unsustainable. And that's without even paying back their share of the UK debt. At the moment Scotland benefits from lower borrowing rates because of England. How is that holding back Scotland? If England's deficit levels were the same as Scotland's, it would be very expensive for the UK government to borrow.

Denmark and Sweden don't have the Euro because their politicians have this crazy notion of actually respecting the results of a referendum.

England voted for clear Conservative majorities in 1964, Feb 1974, and 2010. Ended up with Labour ruling or a coalition with the Lib-Dems. Also because of by elections after Oct 1974, by 1977, England had a Conservative majority.

And that is a question that remains unanswered. All they prat on about is 'their' North Sea oil, completely ignoring the fact that not only is this a diminishing resource, but the demand for oil is also reducing as green energy takes over. It simply won't be economic to extract North Sea oil soon, as prices they can get for it tumble due to falling demand.

If the SNP think they can manage outside the UK, maybe they should show us this faith they have in themselves by not accepting any more Barnett formula subsidies.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Another big assumption you have made against someone who disagrees with you.

It is difficult to deny that referendums are very divisive and create tensions, even within families. The Brexit referendum and its immediate aftermath was extremely damaging and the last Scottish independence referendum was equally damaging.

Those people who are demanding another referendum will never accept the result if it goes against them. Win it, and that's it, no further discussion!

This is such a childish wheeze and everyone can see through it for what it is. I was quite happy to have the Scottish and Brexit referendums at the time, but I am dead against repeating them over and over until the 'right' result is obtained, which of course, would then be 'final'. My opposition to further referendums, and I suspect most people of common sense, is nothing to do with any fear of losing. What I cannot abide is this cynical manipulation of democracy, which is what this is, and you know that.

The good news is Old Boy you’re exactly part of the problem I describe for unionism in Scotland. Unionists howling into an echo chamber of unionism. Fundamentally, as a resident of England and presumably someone born there, you seek to deny the people of Scotland their right to choose their destiny.

Democracy cannot be cynically manipulated if people consistently vote for Governments on a mandate to do something. In 2021 this wouldn’t be a one of wheeze, it would follow the mandate from 2017, and independence would require a mandate of its own following that.

That is, unfortunately, democracy in action.

You believe England bankrolls Scotland, yet want to continue to do so against the will of the people of Scotland. Please come up to Scotland and campaign on this basis. I’ll even pay you. It’ll be hilarious.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The same place any Government gets its money from - taxation. It’s entirely speculative to say that Scotland would automatically have an unsustainable deficit or be unable to borrow. It’s also speculative to say that Scotland couldn’t reform it’s taxation system to make it more competitive against other countries (including the EU countries) to facilitate investment.

I agree it’s less than ideal for England to be governed in such a way. English independence would be an excellent idea - win win for everyone. Unless of course, there’s more to it and all is not as it seems with the figures given by London.

I'm sure the Scots would welcome a massive increase in their taxes! And it would have to be massive just to keep their budget balanced as it is now.

God, there would be even more economic migrants, this time from Scotland, if the SNP gets their way.

---------- Post added at 14:23 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The good news is Old Boy you’re exactly part of the problem I describe for unionism in Scotland. Unionists howling into an echo chamber of unionism. Fundamentally, as a resident of England and presumably someone born there, you seek to deny the people of Scotland their right to choose their destiny.

Democracy cannot be cynically manipulated if people consistently vote for Governments on a mandate to do something. In 2021 this wouldn’t be a one of wheeze, it would follow the mandate from 2017, and independence would require a mandate of its own following that.

That is, unfortunately, democracy in action.

You believe England bankrolls Scotland, yet want to continue to do so against the will of the people of Scotland. Please come up to Scotland and campaign on this basis. I’ll even pay you. It’ll be hilarious.

So you think it's ok to repeat referendums time and again until you get the result you want? That is what is cynical. Don't you think we can see through that?

The people of Scotland have already chosen, so I am not denying them anything. You are seeking to trample all over the wishes of a democratic vote, just as the remainers attempted to do over Brexit.

I notice that you haven't denied that England 'bankrolls' Scotland, because you can't, it's a fact.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm sure the Scots would welcome a massive increase in their taxes! And it would have to be massive just to keep their budget balanced as it is now.

God, there would be even more economic migrants, this time from Scotland, if the SNP gets their way.

You’re speculating that reforming the tax system would cause an increase in taxation to individuals. It may not - the aim is to get total tax up - getting investment from overseas by having lower corporate taxes would theoretically increase investment, employment and tax revenues and lower social security spending.

Of course, it suits England to ignore this and stick to the “too wee, too poor, too stupid” mantra. 50% of the Scottish people see right through it.

I have denied that England bankrolls Scotland. The GERS figures are manipulated and not representative of the rational choices that an independent country would make. Ironically the figures show the economic situation worse in all other parts of the UK except England. I also therefore what’s in it for England?

If you are right - why does it bother you so much?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

The same place any Government gets its money from - taxation. It’s entirely speculative to say that Scotland would automatically have an unsustainable deficit or be unable to borrow. It’s also speculative to say that Scotland couldn’t reform it’s taxation system to make it more competitive against other countries (including the EU countries) to facilitate investment.

I agree it’s less than ideal for England to be governed in such a way. English independence would be an excellent idea - win win for everyone. Unless of course, there’s more to it and all is not as it seems with the figures given by London.

You are saying Scotland should increase it taxes? They have control over income tax. Their problem is the amount of spending. They've become too used to the free money from England, just as East European EU countries would struggle without EU funding. Eg Around 4%(net) of Hungary's and Lithuania's economies are funded by the EU. Even Poland gets a net 2.5% boost.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You’re speculating that reforming the tax system would cause an increase in taxation to individuals. It may not - the aim is to get total tax up - getting investment from overseas by having lower corporate taxes would theoretically increase investment, employment and tax revenues and lower social security spending.

Of course, it suits England to ignore this and stick to the “too wee, too poor, too stupid” mantra. 50% of the Scottish people see right through it.

I have denied that England bankrolls Scotland. The GERS figures are manipulated and not representative of the rational choices that an independent country would make. Ironically the figures show the economic situation worse in all other parts of the UK except England. I also therefore what’s in it for England?

The left wing orientated SNP would never agree to help business with tax breaks! Good luck with your view that the Scots would come out of separation smelling of roses simply by tinkering with the tax system.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You are saying Scotland should increase it taxes? They have control over income tax. Their problem is the amount of spending. They've become too used to the free money from England, just as East European EU countries would struggle without EU funding. Eg Around 4%(net) of Hungary's and Lithuania's economies are funded by the EU. Even Poland gets a net 2.5% boost.

No I’m saying that the whole system could be reformed to increase investment. The problem with having control of only income tax is that you don’t control other taxes - on dividends for example, or corporation tax, that restricts your ability to meaningfully reform the whole system.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The left wing orientated SNP would never agree to help business with tax breaks! Good luck with your view that the Scots would come out of separation smelling of roses simply by tinkering with the tax system.

An independent Scotland wouldn’t necessarily vote SNP. It’d actually create an interesting situation as it’d force Labour and the Tories to come up with policies for a change.