- #36
Zarqon
- 216
- 30
There was a recent NY times editorial from Paul Krugman where he indicated he thought the scots would be clearly on the losing side of a split, at least economically. Here is the article.
Zarqon said:There was a recent NY times editorial from Paul Krugman where he indicated he thought the scots would be clearly on the losing side of a split, at least economically.
Ken Natton said:Yes, very telling. I think the comparison with the Canadian relationship with the US is a very interesting one. Canada clearly has a very distinct identity from the US and no-one doubts how important that is to them. Clearly Canada does very well economically on its own. Perhaps the on-going comparison between Canada and independent Scotland might prove a very telling measure of the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of independent Scotland. For certain, when we are all trying to crystal ball gaze about what is going to happen, actually the best we can do is look at history and even current affairs elsewhere in the world. It does seem to me that if Scotland is to make a real success of independence they are going to have to buck all the current trends and defy all of the history.
Ken Natton said:The kind of condescension you displayed in your previous post rather undermines that argument.
SteamKing said:As far as I'm concerned, the Scots have to decide who is being more truthful: their own lying Scottish politicians, who promise eternal prosperity and happiness after independence, or the liars from Westminster. Not a choice I envy them. The fact is, whatever choice the Scots make, there are tough times ahead, for Scotland, for the UK, and for Europe as a whole.
Dotini said:I enjoy reading this statement. But could I ask you for examples of how Westminster is lying, please?
SteamKing said:...the question on the upcoming referendum is whether Scotland should make a political break with the rest of the Kingdom.
Dotini said:Thanks for those links and insights. I'm in touch with some Scots and Brits on another forum. One of their big concerns is of an economic nature, seemingly being more important to them than the political. Even little things like the infamous Nick Robinson BBC 20 seconds on social media provoke some strong reactions.
SteamKing said:...it was under Labour governments in the 1970's that this 'devolution' process began of making Scotland more independent of the United Kingdom. ... The matter simmered throughout the 1980's and early 1990's as the Tories held power, only to come alive again after Tony Blair and Labour took control of the government.
...
After a referendum in Scotland in 1997 gave sufficient support for a devolved Scottish parliament and executive, the Blair government passed the Scotland Act of 1998, codifying the results of the referendum into law. Now some 16 years later, the UK has reached the logical conclusion of 'devolution', which is why the question on the upcoming referendum is whether Scotland should make a political break with the rest of the Kingdom. Now, there is the spectacle of former leaders of the Labour party which encouraged 'devolution', leaders like Gordon Brown, advocating against the culmination of what they set in motion when in power. ...
Ken Natton said:Well, again SteamKing, my understanding and recollection of events differs markedly from yours. I do not see a vote on the independence of Scotland as being the logical consequence of the devolution of powers that has been an on-going process over several decades in British politics. Devolution is something I have always wholeheartedly supported and understood the need for. Far from being a progression towards the break-up of the United Kingdom, it is clear to me that its purpose was always to preserve the unity. Devolution was conceived in answer to the belief that one of the causes of disenchantment among the British electorate, particularly in farther flung parts of the UK, was excessive centralisation of powers in Westminster that left many thinking that their vote made no difference and their voice was not really heard. Devolution was never just for the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, it always included the English regions. But it was always important to draw the distinction between the powers that needed to be devolved that had greater relevance to people at a local level and little or no effect on Britain’s position in the wider world, and those powers that needed to remain under the domain of strong central government. The break-up of the UK is something else altogether and was the avowed purpose of the Scottish National Party long before anyone thought of devolution.
North sea *oil* production is in decline. Gas production is not, at least not for the Norwegian side.SteamKing said:...
With oil and gas revenue from the North Sea in decline, ...
Ryan_m_b said:...
What will be interesting in event of a yes vote (other than the 18 months minimum of negotiation) is how the EU and countries within it will react. The Spanish government is said to be quite against the referendum as it may set a precedent for Catalonia to exploit, there have been further [ur;l=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/10/catalonia-independence-day-vote-scotland/15381099/]protests this week over Catalonian independence[/url].
WhatIsGravity said:Compared to what's going on in the rest of the world, I don't think Scotland should secede. In my opinion, the UK is like the United States in that regards. We all have our differences and opinions, and histories... but still. The word 'country', even union, seems kinda loose these days.
mheslep said:North sea *oil* production is in decline. Gas production is not, at least not for the Norwegian side.
Czcibor said:1) I find some irony in position of more nationalistic leaning British people. I mean all their stories how everything would be better when they leave the EU, with outrage that Scottish think that everything would be better when they leave the UK.
2) I think that there is one more aspect that was ignored concerning Scotland - EU relations. What with treaties where the UK has their opt-out? I mean for example 0% VAT rate for food. (112nd Directive says it is supposed to be at least 5%) Old countries that created the rules, usually left for themselves many peculiarities and exemptions. New countries usually were given uniform laws to be implemented. It's not a real tragedy, but I think that no one so far mentioned here this incomming face slap.
4) Currency union with UK and EU accession - In optimistic scenario they end up where they are now, in bad something fails because of silly technicalities / petty quarrel.
5) At least my impression is that there is an awful amount of overpromise on Scottish side, including both outstanding increase of social spending and moderate tax cut. It would end up with disillusionment, even if there is actually a net gain (indeed some money from natural resources, plus hard to quantify satisfaction from turning a bit left according to local expectations.)
Czcibor said:OK, but it means that first decision of independent Scotland is to invade Norway, to get the fields that you mentioned here. :D
Ken Natton said:I have expressed by concern about the result of this vote and my belief that no-one’s best interests would be served if Scotland votes for independence. But now I find myself wondering what is going to happen if the result is not for independence. For sure, it is going to be one hell of an anti-climax. But then what? Carry on as before? I’m not sure that is going to be possible. Yeah, sure the dust will settle and the campaign leaflets will be disposed of. But will even a No vote leave a lasting legacy on Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK?
There's a lesson to be learned here from Quebec, but no one seems to have learned these lessons. Quebec regularly has referendums on withdrawing from Canada. This regularly causes economic harm to Quebec and to Canada as a whole.Ken Natton said:But now I find myself wondering what is going to happen if the result is not for independence. For sure, it is going to be one hell of an anti-climax. But then what? Carry on as before? I’m not sure that is going to be possible.
D H said:There's a lesson to be learned here from Quebec, but no one seems to have learned these lessons. Quebec regularly has referendums on withdrawing from Canada. This regularly causes economic harm to Quebec and to Canada as a whole.
Losing such a referendum is but a minor setback for the pro-separatists. Some set of events will eventually result in the general Quebecois populace once again being upset with being Canadians. Another referendum is just a downturn away; maybe the separatists will win the next time around. They only need to win once. I suspect it would be very hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after a separatist win, even if the Quebecois find that living separately from their former countrymen turns out to be a bed of thorns rather than a bed of roses.
Czcibor said:OK, but it means that first decision of independent Scotland is to invade Norway, to get the fields that you mentioned here. :D
The UK oil and gas production is in decline.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=uk
CWatters said:Westminster have offered Scotland more powers if they vote no. My concern is that they might be offering too much given that public spending is already higher in Scotland than in England by quite a margin. This may lead to considerable resentment in the rest of the country.
There is also the issue that Scottish MPs can vote on all legislation that affects England but English MPs can't vote on all Scottish legislation.
As a a person who finished a postgraduate course in monetary policy, I see it a bit differently. Real independence of monetary policy is hard nowadays. Already before euro Holland has a policy of "German shadow" when they were mimicking policy of Bundesbank.CWatters said:I can't see how you can have real independence over economic policy without your own currency or interest rates. In recent years the Bank of England has switched to using interest rates to control inflation. If you cannot use that mechanisim you better be careful what you do with public spending as that also affects inflation. In short everything is linked.
So why UK exploitation is in decline while Norwegian is growing? (not challenging, just start being curious) I assumed the simplest solution that's just matter of amount of untapped reserves. Possibly I'm wrong - do you have any data here, more explanatory than just the trend I linked?mheslep said:I believe the UK and Norway share the same hydrocarbon bearing geology in the North Sea. If this is in fact the case, then before invading Norway the UK/Scotland might consider drilling some more wells out there.
It may surprise you to learn that the Scots pay income tax, Vat (sales tax) and other taxes that go directly to the UK Government. There are people like you who hold the bizarre belief that all this taxation is rightfully English and that any money put back into Scotland is purely through the generosity of the English. It's pure hokum. If England really was subsidising Scotland in its entirety would it not be glad to get rid of its leeching neighbour?SteamKing said:I think the English are learning belatedly what 'Taxation without representation' really means. The English get to pay for the party in Scotland, but the English don't get much a say in who gets the party favors.
PeroK said:It may surprise you to learn that the Scots pay income tax, Vat (sales tax) and other taxes that go directly to the UK Government. There are people like you who hold the bizarre belief that all this taxation is rightfully English and that any money put back into Scotland is purely through the generosity of the English. It's pure hokum. If England really was subsidising Scotland in its entirety would it not be glad to get rid of its leeching neighbour?
SteamKing said:Well that's an interesting question. The English politicians are apparently hoping beyond hope that Scotland stays, which is why you see all the pandering going on. But the question in this referendum is not being put before the average Englishman in the street, so to speak. What would happen if this referendum were truly national, where all UK voters got to decide: Scotland, in or out? Would Scotland get voted off the island, so to speak?