UKH

Mary Lou McDonald has not wasted any time in demanding a referendum on Irish Unity following the elections on the 12th. Any takers? Curious to see if those strongly opposed to a referendum on Scottish Independence feel similarly about self determination in Ireland?

In reply to alastairmac:

The one part of 'being British' I don't have in my blood is Welsh, I reckon we might see the disintegration of the UK which would make me sad, but it's their democratic right to have one. 

In reply to alastairmac:

Is this an all-ireland vote, or just in Ulster?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I'm not sure if that's been determined yet. I suspect Sinn Fein  mean an all -Ireland vote as the Republic would need to accept the six counties ....but I'm not that close to it.

In reply to alastairmac:

It's a completely different situation for NI with an existing prosperous EU country to join. If Scotland could join Ireland I'd have far fewer qualms about leaving the UK!

In reply to Timmd:

Yes a good 70 to 80% of the regular posters on this forum say the EU referendum should never have happened. How come it's okay for Scotland, Ireland and Wales to have an independence referendum but not okay for the UK to have one about leaving the EU and for that matter where is the option for an English referendum for independence from Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Maybe we could afford free education and prescriptions if we were not subsidising theirs. 

In reply to alastairmac:

Surely it would need separate votes in NI and the Republic.

In reply to Dax H:

This kind of nonsense will just add coal to the furnace of UK disintegration. After decades of prioritising the economic wellbeing of London and the SE, to the clear detriment of much of Scotland, Wales, NI and many poorer regions of England, to then imply that such home nations and regions are a drain on the UK economy must be a particularly hard pill to swallow for those in the regions affected.

In reply to john arran:

Okay maybe the finance side was a bit tongue in cheek but I maintain that England should have the right to independence if the rest of the UK do. 

Not that I want an independent England, I live Wales and Scotland (never been to Ireland) but it should be the same rule for all. 

In reply to Dax H:

Actually, I was for a referendum, but one that asked actionable questions and gave specific options.  It wasn't about independence anyway.  We already had independence.

In reply to Dax H:

What's stopping you or anyone from asking for a referendum on England getting independence from the United Kingdom? Lobby and campaign for it, and if enough people supports it then it is what it is

In reply to Robert Durran:

You might be right with reference to separate votes....I quite like the idea of a celtic/nordic union of nations.....shared values and all that.

In reply to Dax H:

I have long said that after the Brexit referendum England (and maybe Wales) should have gone independent from the UK, and left the UK in the EU without them. It's the end result that will be achieved long term anyway!

In reply to alastairmac:

I think arrangements for a possible border referendum (NI only) are part of the commitments the UK has signed up to. 

Wiki - The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

Poll: 51% of Northern Ireland voters back united Ireland, according to Lord Ashcroft survey

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-51-of-northern-...

In reply to alastairmac:

I think there would be no attempt to stop Irish reunification by other parts of the UK, it is surely logical, would almost certainly be advantageous for NI (and possibly rUK) after Brexit, and something may well cover it in the Good Friday agreement.

However I would imagine few, including the Republic, would want to push too hard or quickly as the backlash from more extreme Unionists might cause conflict. Actually eventual long term Irish reunification with EU membership might be an advantage of Brexit. An additional factor might be that Roman Catholicism no longer has the same influence  in the Republic.

Incidentally I'm English and know little about Ireland.

In reply to alastairmac:

What do you think?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Have you seen this quiz about Scotland's economy?  It's quite illuminating:

https://www.businessforscotland.com/take-the-scotland-the-brief-quiz

In reply to Removed User:

I think reunification is probably inevitable and there will be a border poll at some point. I'd like to think that when a poll is held there would be a majority for a united Ireland in all 32 counties, and the mainstream unionist community is fully engaged and involved. No easy task. So I don't think Dublin will want to move quickly and some deft and sensitive politics are required prior to any vote. I do like Mary Lou McDonald as a leader. A similar figure from the Unionist community would make a big difference....cometh the hour and all that.  I saw a quote yesterday from a leading Unionist politician that suggested they had more to fear from Westminster than from Dublin. On personal level I've always supported the idea of a united Ireland, but ultimately it's a matter for the Irish people, North and South.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Sorry to be cynical, but where have you hidden the other ten questions which balance things out by making us look more like Somalia rather than the UAE? Given that most experts think independence would mean soaking up an economic hit, I can only assume the questions are cherry picked to make the future look rosy - which of course is what I would expect from a transparently partisan pro-independence website.

I am already convinced by the political case for independence but I'll form an opinion on the economic case by listening to objective assessments thankyou.

(Oh, and I scored 1/10, though I could have easily scored more by simply playing the game of selecting the most positive options!)

In reply to alastairmac:

I don’t see much point in referendums. Recent history shows that they result in the wrong answer and then everyone is pissed off and grumbling and want another one.

In reply to birdie num num:

You're wrong I'm afraid, referenda are great so long as you put the effort in to get the result you want. Cameron thought he was the messiah and could carry it off, but he wasn't even a very naughty boy.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Hi Rob, Merry Christmas! 
I agree to a certain extent. Regarding effort at least, there didn’t seem to be much three years ago. I had the impression though, that Scottish independence was a fierce affair. Anyway, the true yardstick for avoiding the plebiscite...is Boaty Mc Boatface

In reply to oldie:

I'm Irish & know little about Ireland or England.  But I think you may be right on all counts.

In reply to :

At this precise time, it could be that the Republic wouldn't want Northern Ireland - at least not until it gets rid of its' medieval attitude towards contraception, abortion and homosexuality.

Strange isn't it, that the (almost completely) Catholic Republic has more modern and enlightened views on these points, compared to the (mainly) Protestant North.

In reply to birdie num num:

Ah, forget the boat. The Didi Hamann footbridge outside Wembley was much funnier. Campaigners for that name merely wanted the bridge to be named, very reasonably of course, after the last player to score a goal in the old stadium. No idea why the FA did not heed the outcome of that poll.

CB

In reply to fred99:

well, if you look at polling of people in NI, that medieval attitude pretty much only extends to the DUP politicians (Of which a number are very religious). In the general populace this would be a non issue.

I don't think the catholic Republic and protestant north really fits anymore, the north is more like 50/50 (with a big chunk considering themselves neither!) and the hold the Catholic church has on the republic is vastly reduced.

For a border poll there would need to be referendums on both sides (also once the first one is called, it's every 7 years), and both sides of the border would need to say yes for it to go ahead, however I think the work on how a new Ireland would look should be put forward before a referendum (to avoid Brexit style mess). The problem with this is how do you get a unionist political class, who are wholly against the idea, to engage and give their input to this? 

I'd imagine the unionist politicians regret the Brexit support, a united Ireland referendum was nowhere in the conversations up until this

In reply to Dax H:

Really. I think I'm one of the more rabidly anti brexit but I have no problem with the EU referendum in principal. I do think it was poorly conceived and poorly executed, essentially a staggeringly careless gamble to manage an essentially internal Conservative party problem that backfired spectacularly handing power to the worst in our society to do their worst, all built on lies. It needn't have been like that whichever way we voted.

Because brexit happened and they have the right to self determination. It happened against the wishes of those nations, their circumstances have been radically negatively altered by careless English nationalists inflicting their retrograde dogma. And again, there was no reason for us not to vote on UK membership of the EU, the problem lay in the careless planning of that vote and in the directionless execution of its mandate.

Campaign for it if you actually care. They're having to fight for their freedom from English dominance, it's hardly being offered up on a platter though nothing in the past few decades has done more for the cause of Scots independence and Irish reunification than the English nationalists and their glorious brexit.

jk

In reply to oldie:

Yes there is provision in the GFA but none the less, this Conservative government and the unionist militias will fight tooth and nail to block/derail it.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I'm not sure a UK government would fight too hard against reunification of Ireland. If it was the wish of the majority in NI it would probably be better for many including the UK economy. In fact the Brexit divorce deal would probably have been simpler, quicker and better for the UK if NI was not part of it. Absurdly in a few years NI could unite and regain the advantages of EU membership but leave rUK with an EU settlement where the NI situation had put them at a disadvantage when negotiating.

I would imagine all sides would want to avoid action by militias, and things would be very delicate at first, eg a high degree of autonomy for NI initially.

In reply to oldie:

Would be interesting to see how the UK government behaved in this - as part of the GFA they stated "no selfish interest in NI", i'd assume that would mean they'd have to  portray a neutral stance (how would that work for the Conservative and Unionist party?). As the SoS for NI holds the power to call the referendum, you'd guess the government of the day would be on board with the outcome

It's interesting to see the difference in reaction to the idea of NI leaving the UK and Scotland - the wider UK seems resistant to Scotland leaving opposed to broadly ambivalent to NI leaving in my experience

In reply to oldie:

You've just watched them fight tooth and nail for three years to avoid finding out what the majority popular viewpoint is here in the UK. They will do the same in Scotland and NI. Once it's tested their options close down. That refusal will likely push some back to violence, whether it remains contained or not...

There's nothing that isn't absurd about brexit.

I hope I'm wrong but it seems all but unavoidable again now, whatever we all might profess to want we've set a course which makes getting it peacefully very unlikely.

jk

In reply to Niall_li:

My concern over Scotland leaving the UK is more for Scotland than rUK. It has to stand alone on day one, probably for a few years while it rebuilds the alliances it loses through leaving the UK (or now the brexit it is caught up in). That won't be without meddling from close to home and some opposition from other internally stressed EU members.

NI, if it goes, is going somewhere, into a new alliance and with tested majority approval of both parties. It faces different issues: unionist insurgency, a big economic shift as the UK civil service withdraws and a tussle between Dublin and Belfast to keep much of that state work and with it a centre of power. It doesn't face physical or political isolation quite like Scotland would initially.

I'd say they should do as their electorates want so long as that is opinion well informed, clearly expressed and stable.

jk

In reply to Niall_li:

Ireland Unification  just seems the logical thing for everyone (with the very important exception of sectarian issues).

Ireland: get rid of the only border on an island and regain EU advantages. UK situation easier re border issues (both Republic/NI and Irish Sea), hopefully Ireland prospers and needs no financial backup from rUK.

Scotland: actually create a border on an island and probably have to control trade and people movement across it. Probably greater difficulty in sorting out assets etc.

In reply to jkarran:

I don't feel the need to be fully independent. I could go with joining Ireland too. If they would have us! 

In reply to oldie:

You say it like we are the trouble makers here! England has voted us into the situation where we have little choice. In 2014, when we weren't being dragged out of the EU, we opted not to create borders etc. Don't make it sound like we are being unreasonable!

In reply to girlymonkey:

Yes, indeed, I remember the talk of staying within the UK being the best/most trouble free way for Scotland to stay in the EU. Even if in 'the small print' it was said that the UK staying in the EU indefinitely wasn't a sure thing and/or that a referendum on this may happen in the future, it was still a part of 'the pre-vote noise' which people would have absorbed towards deciding how to vote. 

In reply to girlymonkey:

Scotland is in no way to blame. Apologies that I gave that impression.

My intention was to try to answer the post on why there was a "difference in reaction to the idea of NI leaving the UK and Scotland - the wider UK seems resistant to Scotland leaving opposed to broadly ambivalent to NI leaving in my experience." I was giving disinterested possible reasons but not trying to justify or blame anything.

Scotland is not to blame. Neither is England. Those who voted for Leave and for the new UK government (including a minority of Scots), and more importantly those who persuaded them are ultimately responsible.

I am dismayed that we are leaving the EU, though now I can see no alternative  and just hope for a "good" deal. I am also dismayed that Scotland is almost inevitably leaving the UK at some time. My personal view is that it will be disadvantageous to both sides though Scotland will now be overall better off leaving the UK and rejoining the EU, though it might be worth waiting to see the effects of Brexit. I voted in London which has an even bigger population than Scotland and we have no such option, even though a majority also wished to remain and did not vote Tory in the GE.

In reply to Niall_li:

The problem is that, as in just about anywhere, the ordinary people generally get on with each other just fine until some politicking (and frequently religion-spouting) b*st*rds come along and cause divisions. Here, as in many places, the people who hold the power are the politicians, who tend to be, by definition, more extreme and unbending in their views. The last thing that they'll want is any dilution of their power, so they'll use every dirty trick in the book to hold onto it.

Until recently I hoped NI could embrace the political parties we have this side of the Irish Sea, and ditch their sectarian ones. With what's happened recently with Brexit, this isn't a sensible option.

In reply to fred99:

Or likely to happen perhaps?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Economics 101: 
- UK not 5th richest but about 25th/30th.
- UK economic dunce of NW Europe: 10th/11th of 11, and Ireland near the top.
- Scotland is richest part of the UK outside London/SE.
- Scotland scores better Gini equality than whole UK.
- Scotland is best-resourced small country in Europe, including Ireland.
 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I don't doubt an independent Scotland would be viable in themedium to long term, but the transition is bound to be painful and costly. Joining an existing EU country with all its institutions already up and running would be easier (but yes, I know its not going to happen!)

In reply to Robert Durran:

Institutions? What are you talking about? This is only slightly less simple than Norway 1905.

If Scotland is not viable in the long term then neither are 
Iceland
Ireland
Norway
Finland
Slovakia
Czesko
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Denmark

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Why would it be all-Ireland? It's surely not that long ago that they dropped their constitutional claim to the 32 counties in the name of peace in the north. Now that large numbers of people in the six can see as clearly as the people in the 26 that the Brits are a bunch of nutters that they'd be well rid of, I don't see there is any need to go asking stupid questions.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

You misread my post.

In reply to Dax H:

I think you just had one as Tory voters knew the consequences of putting Boris in No10 were a high probability that Ireland would unite and Scotland would get its independence. 

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Measure twice, weld once

In reply to Jim Fraser:

What role would the Barnett Formula play in this,, that is what percentage of Scotland's income is the money it gets from Westminster and where does it go to? I'm certainly not anti-Scotland, in having familial links, but I heard the man who created the formula talking about how unfair it is, and that he's rather embarrassed somewhat that it's still in place, that it was only ever a short term measure to keep Scotland happy/happier. 

In reply to fred99:

I lived in Ireland  for ten years (thats the Republic Of Ireland/Eire) and most of the folk we spoke to did not want a united Ireland because they didn't want the troubles that went with it or the attitudes you mentioned.

In reply to Timmd:

It's changed since the original incarnation

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17837412.barnett-formula-knew-dead-means-...

In reply to Timmd:

The broad fundamental economic facts that are out there for all to see make Barnett and all the history of the hand-me-downs irrelevant. Think fresh, think new. Scotland is already a world-class economy and nearly all the institutions of Government already exist. 

As for NI, are they better in the hands of those who at best ignore them and at worst hate them and have a $42k GDP per capita economy or in the hands of those who love them and have a $78k GDP per capita economy? 

What I hear from Ireland, wrt Scotland or NI, is "come on in the water's lovely". Are there doubters? Yes. Not just doubters but the remnants of the imperial and clerical despots whose life's work is to make us hate and doubt ourselves.  Their day is done.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

As was said on Any Questions / Any Answers today

"Wales is watching"

Well done Farage and the Tories

perhaps we'll have cultural cleansing where England can just be for the Europe haters and the rest of us have to seek other parts of the British Isles to escape to

In reply to Billhook:

As an Irishman i'm going to caveat that. Most Irish people would like to see a united Ireland HOWEVER we know that, that won't happen without the equivalent of the troubles in reverse with the loyalists becoming the Ra 2.o, so we're pragmatic and say it's not worth it. The only way i can see it happening effectively in my lifetime is some sort of federal arrangement and even then i'd have my doubts.

In reply to Frank4short:

Do you not think they were the RA 0.1 all along? And that now that everyone has had a chance to contemplate a hard border, and it's the English whose behaviour is 'beyond the pale', there is a certain mellowing that is evident from the recent electoral shift. 

In reply to Frank4short:

Frank, I'd agree with your  caveat, which I forgot to mention.  I too would like a reunited Ireland.  Living in the south and having a bit of the north governed by the UK, just seems odd when you live on the other side of the fence so to speak.  

One Island divided into two Irelands.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Ah, in posting economic pointers I thought you might present something on the Barnett formula too. Your reply is like a politician's answer to a direct question, Alex Salmondesque (he has the gift of the gab), I'll have a look when I can find the time.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

In principle i don't disagree that said the most hardline elements in NI (at least in any measurable quantity) are still the loyalist factions. Who the DUP have been stoking up for electoral gain for the last 10-15 years (edit: a quick wiki later it was 2003 if i read right). If it did come to pass you can sure the same elements would kick off again much to the regret of everyone but themselves. The mellowing electoral shift only accounts for the majority, there are still significant minority numbers (no different to troubles as such) who would not accept it. Likely as not probably the only "safe" outcome would be an independent NI which at some point might at some point later on for economic reasons decide to join ROI/a united ireland.

I'm not sure whether or not you specifically meant to use the term beyond the pale based on its origin and if so i approve. If not the expression comes from originally the Greater Dublin area which was the only "civilised" corner of Ireland that was actually under control in a meaningful sense by England/the early British Empire was referred to as "the Pale". Therefore beyond the pale was meant as beyond civilisation/control. Anyways it's a good choice of words under the context.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Ireland is a tax haven who allowed Apple to pay a corporate tax rate of 0.005%. They are currently appealing against the EU in an attempt to give €20 billion of taxes back to Apple (i.e. Apple's taxes due under Ireland's already low 12.5% tax rate). 

A lot this GDP per capita flows through the Ireland without touching or enriching the Irish citizens. It's a corrupt model which the EU seeks to remove. Is this the 'independent' future you see for Scotland then? 

In reply to FreshSlate:

Steady now, dont be showing Jim this:

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#11111111111

we are very lucky to live where we do, when we do - its amazing we can all carp so much about so little.

A good christmas and a happy new year to you all!

In reply to Frank4short:

An approval I cherish.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Oh f3ck, I'm so sorry. I didn't understand that Ireland was half as corrupt as the UK but actually pulled off the trick of making some real money out of it. What a dreadful over-sight.

And yes, it is notable that Ireland does have a problem with not enough of the new wealth seeping from East to West. That however pales into insignificance against the difference between Inner West London and the Welsh Valleys which is over FOUR TIMES WORSE. (No wonder "Wales is watching".)

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I can see from the OECD figures that this is an exceptional place to live based on the very low homicide rate and the fact that all our toilets work. 

However, as the OECD nation state with probably more developmental advantages than any other, it has to be asked why we are dire in relation to: 
- Work-Life Balance  (No kidding!)
- Civic Engagement and Governance  (Who knew?!)
- Environmental Quality
- Health status
- Income

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I think you are reading things rather differently to me Jim, but at least we agree the toilets work.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

You do know that Ireland was one of the countries that got into the most trouble in the financial crisis? It had the worlds largest budget deficit of 32% in 2010.

Funnily enough the UK lent Ireland £3.2 billion in ... 2010. The UK borrowed the money using its much better sovereign credit rating at a better interest rate than Ireland could manage to borrow for themselves. 

I guess that's because everyone in UK goverment are a bunch of c*nts... or something. 

In reply to FreshSlate:

There's no denying Ireland had a rough few years. Now we're passing each other: Ireland on the way up and the UK on the way down.  The UK has slipped twice since then and will slip again and probably again. 

Late 70s and winter of discontent: AAA
80s, pound diving, high unemployment: AAA
2009 debt crisis: AAA
2013 Tory economic policy: dropped
2017, more Tory sh1te: dropped, AA/AA2, negative outlook
2019, state may come apart and most heavily-resourced region break away ...

Economic self-harm of the most ridiculous kind. This is very much English self-harm. Imagine you are in town for a night out, and you come across a drunk lying on his belly licking dog sh1te off the pavement: that's what England looks like right now to observers. Why would you want to be part of that if you didn't have to?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Any chance of making London independent? That'd fix everything for the rest of us I reckon. 

In reply to bouldery bits:

Living in London i'd be up for that. No Tory government (even though we are responsible for BJ. Sorry!), strong majority to remain in the EU, strong economy and negligible unemployment once we stop economic migrants coming from outside the M25 stealing our jobs, and a generally open multicultural society . What's not to like?

We are also subsidising the rUK with £500 million a week which we could use to fund the LHS instead, but you got to be a real greedy c@nt to want to split on the basis that you are better off than your neighbours and don't want to contribute your fair share.

You are welcome to the Royal Family though. I'm sure with a bit of digging we can do a Windrush on them since they have no Passports and deport them to the Kingdom of England

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I'm not going to defend the Conservatives*. I'm not going to defend the brexit voters from the UK and the piss-poor turnout in Scotland who could have single-handedly prevented Brexit but were seemingly apathetic and jaded from the previous independence referendum. Neither has done us any good at all. 

However, even under the threat of Brexit, the UK still has a stronger economy and better credit rating than Ireland right now. I'm glad Ireland has recovered from the 'junk' rating they held because they're an important ally and economic partner to the UK.

However, should Apple and a handful of other multinational companies decide to launder their money in Luxembourg or elsewhere Ireland's economy will crash again. 

Should the EU force Ireland to level the playing field for multi-national companies you could well see either a departure of these companies from Ireland, or Ireland from the EU.

Scotland's credit rating isn't likely to be anything to boast about either with the highest decifit in the EU and currently the rUK is effectively using it's credit rating to lend money to Scotland too. 

Getting so drunk you lick up shit off the pavement? Sounds like the average Glaswegian night out to me, nothing you don't seem to bounce back from. 

*Although you fail to mention that the Conservatives presided over much of the period the UK held the tripple A rating.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

haven't you somewhat forgotten the "only a blip" of the 1990s?

The repossession rates put it in context against the 2008 problem

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/761/mortgages/mortgage-default-rates-in-...

as a "boomer" my one attempt to own a tiny  property fell foul of the 1990s and it was sold later for less than I paid due to family circumstances

In reply to FreshSlate:

The Scottish turnout for euro ref was 67.2%, 2017 66.5% and 2019 68.1%. The English turnout was 73% for the euro ref, 2017 69.1% and 2019 67.4.

Unless I'm missing something, it would appear that rather than a 'piss poor' turnout in Scotland - which was by and large consistent with GE turnout - the anomaly was a spike of leave voters in England.

It would be less disingenuous to just say 'I'm going to blame' rather than 'I'm not going to defend'.

It's no secret that Glasgow has it's problems with things like alcohol and knife crime. The glass houses there are also significantly less robust than those in, say, Manchester.

In reply to cfdouglas:

I'm going to retract my comment about 'piss poor turnout' for Scotland which were only 3rd worst in the UK and 6% behind England although I'd still call it 'significantly below' rather than 'consistent with'.

You're right, as a remainer I was disappointed by Scotland's below average engagement with the EU issue and I'm happy to admit that. The closer the result was the better the argument would have been against Brexit.

I wasn't really trying to invoke the alcohol and violent crime issues in Glasgow. On the whole the UK is a fairly safe place to live in comparison to the rest of the world, Glasgow included with all of its problems.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Consistent  in Scotland with previous UK-wide votes. Significantly below a percentage bolstered by an anomalous spike.

I was suggesting that your disappointment was misplaced.

So you were just being generally (rather than specifically) derogatory in light of your misplaced disappointment?

In reply to cfdouglas:

Just comparing apples to apples i.e. the turnout for the referendum rather than comparing it to general elections. Nothing too controversial about that really.

Well... I'd have hoped a country that was staunchly for the EU would have turned out more but the same goes for Northern Ireland and Manchester too. My disappointment wasn't misplaced as unless I'm wrong most of Scotland voted to remain. I wouldn't be expressing disappointment for the lack of turnout in the East of England would I?

Eh? We're a bit sensitive aren't we? If you want we can pretend that the nights out in Glasgow are perfectly civil and the behaviour witnessed on a Friday night is not dissimilar to say... Norwich. 

Don't you think it's ironic to become upset by me making a light-hearted rebuttal to someone saying that the 'English' are seen as licking shit off the floor by the rest of the world?

In reply to FreshSlate:

Quite a poor grasp of the economic numbers and of international law then?

In reply to FreshSlate:

It is misplaced exactly because Scotland voted to remain in the Europe ref. and then voted again for a party opposed to Brexit. Had these voting trends extended across the whole UK the overall results in both instances would be different.

There are obviously a multitude of factors that caused a spike of votes over and above the normal active electorate in England during the euro ref. I would tentatively suggest that attributing blame to others and thinly veiled resentment played their part in creating a divisive political landscape. Why persist with this sort of rhetoric if the results have been disappointing in the past?

There is no upset here. You can pick up and run with whatever ugly analogies take your fancy. 

And merry Christmas! Thanks for the exchange of views.

In reply to FreshSlate:

There wasn't a single major political organisation in Scotland supported Brexit: SNP, Labour, Tories, Lib Dem were all Remain.  There was hardly any campaigning because the party funds had been spent on Indyref and nobody thought there was anything to worry about.  The MSM like the BBC were saying Remain would win.   It didn't really register that the English were about to go completely mental so it isn't surprising many people couldn't be arsed to vote.

Just another f*cked up aspect of the Brexit referendum.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Scotland can't have a deficit since Scottish Government isn't allowed to borrow.  The 'deficit' is accounting artifact based on making us pay for a bunch of crap the English parliament decides on.  It measures the present condition where everything of value is centralised in London, not an independent state.

Even under the nonsense GERS accounting if you zoom out a bit and look at the situation over a few decades, Scotland was subsidising England to a vast extent from its oil money.  As soon as it goes the other way the media are on about how we can't possibly survive on our own and the English are so generous to us.  The basic argument is "we've already nicked all your money, you are so useless you will never recover so now you can't afford to leave and you can suck up any shit we decide to inflict on you".

When we get independence we will cancel the crap we don't need and can't afford - starting with nuclear weapons and 'our share' of HS2.  We will take back the well paid jobs getting done 'on Scotland's behalf' in London and the taxes the people doing those jobs pay will get booked into Scotland's economy, not London's.   The private sector organisations which need to deal with the government departments which run Scotland will have to locate in Scotland instead of London and their taxes and the taxes of their staff will come to Scotland.    

Scotland has an export based economy with a positive balance of payments and vast natural resources.  It has a more educated population than the rest of the UK.  There's no reason for it to have a poor credit rating.   

It's the UK credit rating that is headed for the toilet with not only Brexit but also vast spending promises from the Tories which will put up the UK deficit.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I was wondering what the state of play was before the oil money came in and found this interesting overview.

https://www.scotfact.com/article_scotland20thCentury

which concludes:

The analysis carried out in this article concurs with the consensus amongst historians and economists that throughout the 20th century, for most years where data is available, Scotland has enjoyed a higher level of public expenditure per person than the rest of the UK. This is mostly due to deliberate policy by the UK Government via Goschen and Barnett. From a revenue standpoint, Scotland contributed slightly less per head than England and Wales over the early 20th century. Due to Oil & Gas revenue, from 1980 to 2000 Scotland's revenue per head was consistently higher than the rest of the UK. However, due to higher expenditure, the net fiscal balance was only positive from 1980 to 1989.

it also makes the excellent point that it can be false to view the imbalance in either direction as a subsidy, rather the appropriate way for an integrated taxation system to work.

interesting read.

In reply to cfdouglas:

Merry Christmas! I agree with everything you've just said.

I think your ugly analogy comment should be steered towards Jim Fraser. I tried to make a light-hearted joke about weekend drunkedness in Glasgow out of some fairly ugly hatred levelled at the English but you're right I probably should have just ignored it. Cheers.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

scotfact is a farce. It's just a regurgitation of usual GERS type irrelevances. It includes the farcical concept of a Scotland without its offshore resources while not considering the equivalent concept of the UK without its offshore resources. The economy of an independent Scotland would be based on quite different number. To bring this into the correct framework, refer to my list posted above. 
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/mary_lou_mcdonald_calls_for_iri...

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I thought the detail presented about the techniques used to actually generate the figures over time, plus the dramatic changes in what governments spent, and how the money was raised, was pretty interesting. 

In addition they present data like GERS for the other U.K. regions, which again makes for an interesting read.

there does not seem to be much editorialising - what’s your beef?

and I’ve no issue with Scotland being more than able to function well as an independent economic entity by the way - I just don’t want it to make that choice.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Logically if there was little campaigning support for Brexit then wouldn't that also have depressed the Leave vote? Maybe the Scotland Leave vote would then have been higher in Scotland. Also could there have been a sort of tactical vote element from any supporters of Independence to abstain or vote for Leave so that the UK government could be seen to have imposed a damaging and unpopular measure?

Just curious. I imagine opinion polls from then might back your thesis.

In reply to oldie:

In Scotland the Brexit referendum was a non-event compared to the wide engagement in the indyref.

Tactical leave vote by indy supporters - not something that I remember being mentioned in conversation or coverage at the time so I doubt it.