U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Do you support Scottish independence?

Log-in to remove advertisement.

Do you support Scottish independence?

Yes, an independent Scotland will be a socialist ‘state’
No, an independent Scotland will just be another capitalist country.
Other, please state.
Total votes : 37
Post 25 Aug 2014, 12:32
The Yes campaign has dodged the more important questions of the debate, as far as I've been following it.
Salmond keeps claiming that Scotland would keep Sterling as its currency, pegged to and controlled by the Bank of England, while the government in Westminster is basically saying "no you won't". They'll have to join the Euro and enjoy exactly the same non-rights to alter interest rates to suit economic and fiscal conditions.

Afaik, Scots receive more public spending per head than in the rest of the UK, as distributed from taxes from the entire union (not just from Scots themselves), and simply wouldn't be able to afford anything they're proposing, even with the North Sea oil, which apparently might have stocks far lower than Salmond's predictions.

An independent Scotland would be forced to choose between large income tax rises or severe public spending cuts because it has overestimated the amount of oil left in the North Sea, the UK’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury claims today.

Danny Alexander said that when revised oil and gas estimates from industry expert Sir Ian Wood were taken into account, Scotland would either have to introduce a basic income tax rate of 30 per cent or make cuts to public spending of around 5 per cent to balance its books.

Sir Ian, the billionaire founder of oil services firm Wood Group, warned last week that 15-16.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent were likely to be recovered from the North Sea – far less than the Scottish Government’s official prediction of 24 billion barrels.

Mr Alexander said the Treasury had updated its forecasts of the Scottish deficit in 2016/17 – the year it would go independent – in light of the new estimates and had concluded it would stand at around £700 per head higher than the rest of the UK.

“It undermines the case that the SNP has made, which is built on fantastical over-optimistic oil predictions in order to pretend that somehow in an independent Scotland various policies could be afforded,” Mr Alexander said. “An independent Scotland from day one would have no choice but to make substantial cuts to public services or substantial increases to income tax.”

However, a spokesman for Alex Salmond described the calculation as “fantasy stuff”, adding: “Oil is the bonus and not the basis of Scotland’s economy. Without oil, our economy is on a par with the rest of the UK and, as global ratings agency Standard & Poor’s said, even without the North Sea’s resources we are a wealthy country which would qualify for their ‘highest economic assessment’.”

Meanwhile, a ComRes poll for The Independent on Sunday published today shows that Scots feel more positive about the English than the English and Welsh do about them. In Scotland 65 per cent said they felt favourable towards the English – whereas in England and Wales only 52 per cent said the same about the Scots.

Opinions of Mr Salmond were also low in Scotland, with 40 per cent of those questioned feeling unfavourable towards the SNP leader and 36 per cent feeling favourable. ComRes questioned 2,058 adults across the UK, of whom 170 lived in Scotland.

Someone here is telling porkies. "Oil is the bonus", oh come on Alex! All you've been banging on about for the last 5 years has been oil, oil and oil!
Post 25 Aug 2014, 18:19
No 14 wrote:
... I look forward to the 18th of next month, when the whole farce will finally be over one way or another.

You think a "No" means it all goes away? Norway had 5 referendums (referenda?) about joining the EU - though it only takes one to be "Yes"

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
... Afaik, Scots receive more public spending per head than in the rest of the UK ...
... oil, oil and oil!

That is my understanding also. As far as oil money goes, my understanding is that Mrs T used it to spend our way out of the bankruptcy of the 1970s. Oil money? 40 years of the NHS and other welfare, probably Canary Wharf too.
Even if I'm mistaken, fracking tells me the boom is over and the oil fund ship has already sailed.
Post 25 Aug 2014, 19:42
I'm sure there will always be discussions about the future administrative divisions, but I think this particular form of "independence" will be dead in the water. The SNP are hardly going to go into the 2016 elections saying, "You know that referendum from two years ago? Let's do that again!" A serious discussion can be had without these false hopes.
Post 25 Aug 2014, 20:21
It's worth stressing yet again that no major faction of the pro-independence campaign, including the major player (the SNP), could ever be construed as being socialist, not in a million years.

Perhaps the confusion comes over what a socialist is, as it's not exclusively about a social spending plan, which would honestly be quite nice to alleviate the bottom end of poverty in Scotland (and the UK as a whole), but it simply doesn't stop the country being beholden to foreign investment banks and unable to set their own socialist agenda on work, culture etc.

Tomik wrote:
Even if I'm mistaken, fracking tells me the boom is over and the oil fund ship has already sailed.

You'd be right there, and the terrifying thing is that this Tory-led government is that they can totally honestly, without even hiding a sneer and a grin, claim that fracking is a "long-term" energy objective of the UK! 30 years is the total length of time that it may exist for at its longest, hardly long-term. Why would either the Tories or Salmond mention a "long-term" strategy if they are not completely committed to correcting the horrible mistakes of the past by renationalising the energy grid (and other utilities) so investment can actually take place in an energy infrastructure that is just about on its last legs? The simple fact that we're a small island in the North Atlantic means that, regardless of boundaries, a common energy policy should really be sought, though that would be impossible if both prospective governments are at loggerheads.
Post 25 Aug 2014, 21:14
I know far less about this fracking thing than I should. I was reading the paper on Saturday and it said that the biggest party of the Dutch coalition (VVD), as well as one of the "loyal opposition" parties (D66), want to replace European dependence on Russian natural gas with American shale gas. And it went on to say that not only would that be far more expensive to transport, but that supplies may also be exhausted within 10 years!

Anyone know anything more about this? It's when I read this kind of stuff that I realise how much these Fraggers are grasping at straws, how illusory the "stability" of the system is, how short-term their thinking is, and how anarchic it really is.
Post 25 Aug 2014, 21:58
The fracking debate is largely framed within the confines of the two polar extremes of "it causes cancer to everybody and poisons all water for the rest of time and causes earthquakes like Lisbon in 1755 omg!" and "it's a perfectly sensible long-term energy strategy that will save the world". I have yet to come across any kind of reasonable debate on the whole thing that isn't just a reiteration of these extremist positions.

I've not looked into it that much for these reasons, as I am pretty sure that 30 years of potential UK shale-gas fracking is not a sustainable policy by any means and shouldn't really be considered just because of that, and assuming there to be a grain of truth in the environmental impact of the whole undertaking, then wrecking parts of arable, pasture or buildable land just seems ridiculous.
Post 11 Sep 2014, 11:09
So it's actually turning into a close race now. What, did independence suddenly become a good idea as soon as Salmond managed to win a debate against Alastair Darling? Rank madness.
Post 19 Sep 2014, 10:28
Good result, I guess they made the good choice. However it would have been funny to see the Perfidious Albion losing a piece of itself.
Post 02 Sep 2015, 02:45
For a independent socialist Scottish Republic.
Post 17 Nov 2015, 23:00
I believe in a United Socialist Ireland and a United Socialist Britain as neighbours. So, no I don't believe in an independent Scotland, it would just divide the British working-class.
Post 28 Nov 2015, 00:30
Then why should the Irish and British working class be divided? Like either you agree with a Socialist UK or you agree with a Socialist Ireland, Socialist England, Socialist London, Socialist Scotland, Socialist Wales, and so on.
Post 21 Jan 2016, 21:22
If Scotland were to become independent, the rest of Britain would swing drastically to the right. It's mostly Scottish voters that keep the far-right from making gains in Britain.

But then again, I think Scots should do what is best for Scots. If that means leaving, then they should leave. But I doubt they will vote again any time soon.
Post 22 Feb 2016, 12:07
Other: I support Scottish independence mainly as a way to dismantle and weaken the imperialist power that is the United Kingdom.
However, I have little expectations that Scotland would in any way be "socialist" after independence.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]