|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 3, 2023 10:16:47 GMT
Hi vinny So you're a statistics person? Based on votes? So if the next UK GE produces a majority for independence then that should be enough for you? No referendum needed? The benchmark is 2,001,926 votes. If the next General Election produces 2,001,926+ votes for separatism, that would be enough for me to change my views. But anything less and the 2,001,926 have outvoted the separatists. So if it's 2 000 000 votes for independence supporting parties and 1 400 000 for union supporting parties, we stay? |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jan 3, 2023 10:16:57 GMT
I'm aware of what you said, and already replied as to why you're stats are skewed and why your post just reads as complete nonsense. The so called 'richest countries' in the world is based off GDP, which puts the UK at 5th globally. You however are instead moving the accepted goalpost to GDP per capita and I've explained why this then makes your statement look silly, but you can re-read the post rather than me copy and paste it again. - If you think Ireland is a richer country than the UK and that the people of Ireland are better off than those in the UK, you have never been to Ireland and have no idea what you are talking about. - If you think outside of the top 1% of the people of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Kuwait are richer than the people of the UK, I'd take a very hard look at their quality of life compared to yours. - As for the UK being "3rd world", because it is 26th on such a scale, it still scores higher than France and Japan. So again, you've a very poor view of what a 3rd world country is if you're classingthose countries as '3rd world'. Your assertion is completely flawed and wrong. jaydee is merely doing what unionists do all the time , posting cherry picked stats to enforce a political point.
Wether ireland is a richer country or its people better off isnt the point though.
If the uk is such a great place to be , why isnt the republic of ireland or any other country desperate to rejoin? We arent just talking one disgrunteld country , but 62 nations across the world who were either in the union or at least under london rule.
I think that speaks volumes rather than any economic stat.
Banana republics in the carribean would rather be free and independent than live under london rule.
The hypocrisy of a country , thats England , that stuck two fingers up to a union of nations on our european continent while lecturing us jocks taffs and paddies about the evils of independence is unbelievable.
Economically It would make sense fort the UK to remove Scotland tomorrow and be grateful we're free of a substantial economic burden, so while we're arguing this from a different standpoint, we probably agree on the outcome. Scotland costs the UK far too much money, at the expense of the rest of the UK. But back on topic and to the post we're actually responding too, any suggestion that Ireland is not only 'richer' than the UK, but also 'richer' than France, Germany, or the United States is just in complete error. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jan 3, 2023 10:20:37 GMT
The phenomena of London exists the world over. Every country has it's regions which pay far more than others, be that the southern regions of Germany such as Hessen, or California in the US vs the mid west, there are always going to be regional salary differences and the reasons for this are varied and complex. The same will be true in Scotland, there will even now be regions of Scotland that pay more than others, but you're probably already aware of where those are. Western economies have moved from production of simple goods to more complex goods and/or services because that's just good economics. If you can buy steel from abroad cheaper than you can make it in your own country, then that's what a country is going to do. Admittedly, the entire of Europe has been caught off guard when it comes to Russian energy, but the UK is far from the worst offender here and I do suspect that the UK as well as the rest of Europe have learned a harsh lesson and are likely to strive to become less dependent on other nations as a result of this. Back on topic - From a purely fiscal/economic point of view, if I was asked whether Scotland should remain in the UK, I'd vote Scotland out in a heartbeat. It would be other reasons such as history and a desire for unity that might make me consider otherwise, but it doesn't make economic sense for someone living in England to want to keep Scotland in the union. I say this because financially, Scotland is far more of an economic burden on the rest of the UK, and this isn't because the Scots have done or are doing anything wrong, it's just they've got an exceptionally good deal from the UK parliment that is unfair on the rest of the country and it's everyone else who is paying for it. As for your question and lack of money to fund public services, an independent Scotland would have to suddenly begin paying for things it currently enjoys 'for free'. How an independent Scotland achieves this is really upto the Scots to decide and really wouldn't be the rest of the UK's problem. Needless to say, while long term, this can be countered with economic growth, there are only a few ways Scotland, the UK or anyone else can achieve this in the short term: - Increase the ratio of debt:gdp and borrow alot more money - something a fledgling economy would not want to do (because debt costs smaller economies far more than it does larger ones). - Make cuts to some existing services. - Raise taxation. Lastly I think you mentioned new countries haven't struggled with finding a currency, well, of the 5 newest countries, 2 adopted the Euro, 2 adopted the US dollar and South Sudan created it's own currency which it is now considering removing because of how it is failing. That's not to say Scotland can't create it's own currency, but just be aware that there isn't perhaps the strongest precedent as you seemed to believe for countries successfully creating their own currency. Hi tinculin That phenomenon certainly exists. Not as strongly as in London and the uk, however, where the gap between London and the poorest region - it's either north East England or Northern Ireland - is so stark. My point is that the uk could develop scotland so that it would no longer need that exceptional deal. I suspect that the British powers that be don't want scotland to leave because they want the resources, whatever the figures on spreadsheets say. Anyway, I may have said in my OP, but scotland is actually the 2nd richest economic region - well 2nd equal with england south west - so if it's a burden it's a long way from the worst. Finally, reading between the lines, you believe that the uk will continue to ensure London s economic hegemony and we all just have to live with it. Scotland isn't the most underdeveloped area in the UK, the North East is, but you have to ask yourself why companies and investors aren't ploughing money there and rather do it in the South East? Alot of the reasons companies choose to setup a business where they do comes down to transporation networks, logistics and proximity to other businesses that you are a supplier to or them to you and that's why the North struggles. Big cities tend to attract investment, and unfortunately for the rest of the UK, that means London, especially when it's so close to major European transport links. This is unlikely to change, regardless of Scotlands status, the way a country can attract business is offer tax relief incentives, but I suspect since you want better public services, you're going to be against letting off companies millions of dollars in taxation? |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 3, 2023 10:21:01 GMT
On debt, it’s not all roses and there are certainly a lot of concerns for Scotland which would inherit an equal share of the debt, something even the first minister has confirmed. Let’s not forget that things like state pensions which are currently covered and paid for by the UK are a significant portion of spending and these would need to be picked up by a fledgling Scottish economy. This would cost around 10BN per year (based on just under 10% million of the 104BN for 2021/2022. The cost of this to Scotland should not be ignored, because unlike the remaining UK, Scotland has neither its own currency (which would take years to setup at significant cost), it also lacks significant population and economic ability to back a huge debt and this would very likely see investment and backing of loans for Scotland to be seen as significantly more risky (at least in the short term), for Scotland. I highly doubt Scotland would be granted a AA, let alone a AA+ or AAA rating given the untried or untested economy. Ronald McDonald of the no campaign believes that such staggering debt would lead to a depreciation of 20-30% of any Scottish pound and that would lead to ‘brutally high’ borrowing costs. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/17/independence-will-rid-scotland-of-uk-economic-chaos-says-nicola-sturgeonScotland will not be responsible for one penny of the UK debt. In terms of UK borrowing. The Scottish Government has no power. It cannot create something it cannot do. The debt is UK and Scotland will not be in the UK. Now you better go and tell the UK treasury they have it all wrong. I repeat. This is what they say.. Better therefore to be blunt and clear, that the full £1.4tn would stay as a liability of England, Wales and Northern Ireland - and that there would be no legal requirement on Scottish people to pay any of it.. That debt is now £2.8 trillion. . Yes that really is £2,800,000,000,000 and rising at over £5,000 a second. And the reason the then Secretary to the Treasury had to make that statement is because George Osborne welched on a deal. In short that liar made it clear he was going to steal all the UK assets, and would not use the Bank of England as Lender of Last resort, to Scottish banks. It was to late and the UK lost its AAA rating. And now has brutally high’ borrowing costs. Simply put. AA with negative outlook And before you go of regarding the Bank of England. It is not a bank it is a regulatory authority controlling UK banks. It does not lend money to countries. That is the UK tax payer. It holds around £300 billion in gold reserves. That would not even cover the PFI NHS debt on English local authority NHS trusts. And for your info. On its own Scotland would be around the 8th to12th RICHEST country in the world. The only country in the UK to pay its way. Over the last 40 or so years Scotland has contributed some 9.6% of all UK tax with 8.4% of the population. That under present constitional arrangements. Or to put it another way. Scotland has contributed some £222 billion more than it has taken out. So lets get the ducks in order. Or to put it another way. If Scotland had been on its merry own in 1976. England would still be a bankrupt third world basket case economy. Still in the hands of the IMF. The sick man of Europe. Where it is now. Dragging Scotland with it on England's never ending race to the bottom. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25712350www.theguardian.com/business/2022/nov/27/brexit-has-made-britain-the-sick-man-of-europe-againwww.economicshelp.org/blog/132993/economics/uk-imf-crisis-of-1976/ |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 3, 2023 10:21:03 GMT
Hi everyone
Please don't let this thread degenerate into Nationalist Arguments about whose got the biggest d1ck. It's showing a lot of signs of going that way. I do not believe that any nationality is superior to any other.
For example London has economic pre eminence because the uk plans it that way, not because they're better and/or cleverer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jan 3, 2023 10:22:57 GMT
Scotland will not be responsible for one penny of the UK debt. It will, and even your first minister had accepted this will be a condition. It's probably a good idea you listen to your own SNP who would be the brokers with westminster in any deal, or become first minister yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 3, 2023 10:23:17 GMT
The benchmark is 2,001,926 votes. If the next General Election produces 2,001,926+ votes for separatism, that would be enough for me to change my views. But anything less and the 2,001,926 have outvoted the separatists. So if it's 2 000 000 votes for independence supporting parties and 1 400 000 for union supporting parties, we stay? If it's 2001926 votes for separatist parties and less than that for unionist, separatism wins as the 2014 referendum benchmark would have been met. If separatism gets less than that the union wins. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 3, 2023 10:25:22 GMT
Hi tinculin That phenomenon certainly exists. Not as strongly as in London and the uk, however, where the gap between London and the poorest region - it's either north East England or Northern Ireland - is so stark. My point is that the uk could develop scotland so that it would no longer need that exceptional deal. I suspect that the British powers that be don't want scotland to leave because they want the resources, whatever the figures on spreadsheets say. Anyway, I may have said in my OP, but scotland is actually the 2nd richest economic region - well 2nd equal with england south west - so if it's a burden it's a long way from the worst. Finally, reading between the lines, you believe that the uk will continue to ensure London s economic hegemony and we all just have to live with it. Scotland isn't the most underdeveloped area in the UK, the North East is, but you have to ask yourself why companies and investors aren't ploughing money there and rather do it in the South East? Alot of the reasons companies choose to setup a business where they do comes down to transporation networks, logistics and proximity to other businesses that you are a supplier to or them to you and that's why the North struggles. Big cities tend to attract investment, and unfortunately for the rest of the UK, that means London, especially when it's so close to major European transport links. This is unlikely to change, regardless of Scotlands status, the way a country can attract business is offer tax relief incentives, but I suspect since you want better public services, you're going to be against letting off companies millions of dollars in taxation? Hi tinculin My OP gave one of the reasons why London gets most investment. Why invest in a renewables project off the western Isles, paying 3%, when you can buy a mansion in London that will pay 10 to 15%? |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jan 3, 2023 10:27:05 GMT
Scotland isn't the most underdeveloped area in the UK, the North East is, but you have to ask yourself why companies and investors aren't ploughing money there and rather do it in the South East? Alot of the reasons companies choose to setup a business where they do comes down to transporation networks, logistics and proximity to other businesses that you are a supplier to or them to you and that's why the North struggles. Big cities tend to attract investment, and unfortunately for the rest of the UK, that means London, especially when it's so close to major European transport links. This is unlikely to change, regardless of Scotlands status, the way a country can attract business is offer tax relief incentives, but I suspect since you want better public services, you're going to be against letting off companies millions of dollars in taxation? Hi tinculin My OP gave one of the reasons why London gets most investment. Why invest in a renewables project off the western Isles, paying 3%, when you can buy a mansion in London that will pay 10 to 15%? Valid question, until it becomes economically more sound to do so, why would you? As a private investor, I probably agree with you, at least at face value, it makes no sense to do so. Edit: Just as a thought exercise, let's say you won 1 Million tomorrow and were looking to invest it. Would you a) invest in renewable energy with a predicted return of 3% or would you invest in property investments which give a 10-15% return? - i.e. would you prefer to make 30,000 per year, or 100-150,000? |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 3, 2023 10:29:15 GMT
So if it's 2 000 000 votes for independence supporting parties and 1 400 000 for union supporting parties, we stay? If it's 2001926 votes for separatist parties and less than that for unionist, separatism wins as the 2014 referendum benchmark would have been met. If separatism gets less than that the union wins. Hi vinny I'm struggling with your logic here. I'm tolerably certain that Jeremy Corbyn got more votes against Theresa may than Tony Blair got in any election, yet lost. Past performance is no indicator of future success. You can't lock a single event in history into the future. But good luck selling that one. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 3, 2023 10:37:18 GMT
From the link supplied by Tinculin,
From the statement made by Jaydee.
This is why I think that most of the contents of Jaydee's posts are fabricated nonsense and alcohol inspired wishful thinking. There is not a grain of accuracy, truth or perspective in anything he posts. As demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 3, 2023 10:40:12 GMT
I'm aware of what you said, and already replied as to why you're stats are skewed and why your post just reads as complete nonsense. The so called 'richest countries' in the world is based off GDP, which puts the UK at 5th globally. You however are instead moving the accepted goalpost to GDP per capita and I've explained why this then makes your statement look silly, but you can re-read the post rather than me copy and paste it again. - If you think Ireland is a richer country than the UK and that the people of Ireland are better off than those in the UK, you have never been to Ireland and have no idea what you are talking about. - If you think outside of the top 1% of the people of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Kuwait are richer than the people of the UK, I'd take a very hard look at their quality of life compared to yours. - As for the UK being "3rd world", because it is 26th on such a scale, it still scores higher than France and Japan. So again, you've a very poor view of what a 3rd world country is if you're classingthose countries as '3rd world'. Your assertion is completely flawed and wrong. No you are not aware of what I said. The simple fact that RICHEST put the UK 5th globally is simply wrong. It is the 5th LARGEST. And nothing skewed about that. It is not even 5th in Europe. It is not even in the top 10 It is 14th so how do you work out that it is the 5th richest country in the world. It is a third world basket case. So according to you all those links below are flawed and rigged. Then would you care to tell me how Scotland that has paid its way in the UK is a drain on England. That is what you said. Delusion is a strange thing. The data in the links are from the IMF and the World Bank. Which means it is not my data. Stop shooting the messenger. You are simply 100% wrong www.edudwar.com/richest-countries-in-europe/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_and_social_rankings_of_sovereign_states_in_Europewagecentre.com/immigration/country/the-richest-countries-in-europewww.worlddata.info/richest-countries.phpimmigrantinvest.com/blog/top-10-richest-countries-world-en/ |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 3, 2023 10:44:05 GMT
Hi tinculin My OP gave one of the reasons why London gets most investment. Why invest in a renewables project off the western Isles, paying 3%, when you can buy a mansion in London that will pay 10 to 15%? Valid question, until it becomes economically more sound to do so, why would you? As a private investor, I probably agree with you, at least at face value, it makes no sense to do so. Edit: Just as a thought exercise, let's say you won 1 Million tomorrow and were looking to invest it. Would you a) invest in renewable energy with a predicted return of 3% or would you invest in property investments which give a 10-15% return? - i.e. would you prefer to make 30,000 per year, or 100-150,000? Just a thought. Why did Jacob Rees Moggs and John Redwood tell investors to move their money out of the UK. www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/labour-accuses-john-redwood-of-talking-britain-downcitywire.com/wealth-manager/news/boss-of-rees-mogg-firm-denies-dublin-move-due-to-brexit/a1140796 |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jan 3, 2023 10:48:08 GMT
I'm aware of what you said, and already replied as to why you're stats are skewed and why your post just reads as complete nonsense. The so called 'richest countries' in the world is based off GDP, which puts the UK at 5th globally. You however are instead moving the accepted goalpost to GDP per capita and I've explained why this then makes your statement look silly, but you can re-read the post rather than me copy and paste it again. - If you think Ireland is a richer country than the UK and that the people of Ireland are better off than those in the UK, you have never been to Ireland and have no idea what you are talking about. - If you think outside of the top 1% of the people of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Kuwait are richer than the people of the UK, I'd take a very hard look at their quality of life compared to yours. - As for the UK being "3rd world", because it is 26th on such a scale, it still scores higher than France and Japan. So again, you've a very poor view of what a 3rd world country is if you're classingthose countries as '3rd world'. Your assertion is completely flawed and wrong. No you are not aware of what I said. The simple fact that RICHEST put the UK 5th globally is simply wrong. It is the 5th LARGEST. And nothing skewed about that. It is not even 5th in Europe. It is not even in the top 10 It is 14th so how do you work out that it is the 5th richest country in the world. It is a third world basket case. So according to you all those links below are flawed and rigged. Then would you care to tell me how Scotland that has paid its way in the UK is a drain on England. That is what you said. Delusion is a strange thing. The data in the links are from the IMF and the World Bank. Which means it is not my data. Stop shooting the messenger. You are simply 100% wrong www.edudwar.com/richest-countries-in-europe/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_and_social_rankings_of_sovereign_states_in_Europewagecentre.com/immigration/country/the-richest-countries-in-europewww.worlddata.info/richest-countries.phpimmigrantinvest.com/blog/top-10-richest-countries-world-en/- This lists countries by GDP by capita - I've explained why this is skewed data because people in Ireland do not on average make 100k per year, not even close. This data is skewed because huge multinational corporations transfer IP assets to avoid taxation in other countries to various tax havens (of which Ireland is one). It doesn't generate a cent into the Irish economy. Because their economy and population is so small, this inflates this statistic to make it almost meaningless. Let me put this to you - Do you seriously think the average income in Ireland is 99k like that site claims?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_and_social_rankings_of_sovereign_states_in_EuropeLists countries in GDP, where the UK would be 2nd, between Germany and France. wagecentre.com/immigration/country/the-richest-countries-in-europeIs a rehash of #1, and skewed for the same reasons. www.worlddata.info/richest-countries.phpIs exactly the same as #1, and wrong for the same reasons. people in Ireland are not richer than the United States, France, Japan, Germany or the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 3, 2023 10:48:31 GMT
Research0it, General Elections will not produce an SNP government.
They are an always outvoted party proportionally speaking.
You are trying to play games and it will not work.
The losers do not dictate to the winners.
1,488,559 British voters in Scotland voted for unionist parties at the last General Election.
The separatists didn't come close.
Unionism also got the most votes at the last Scottish Parliament Election.
1,374,455+ votes.
Separatists lost that too, proportionally speaking.
Also, what they want to do is illegal as the courts will not support.
It's over.
Furthermore, the SNP may bring down devolution if they continue down their insane path.
|
|
