The Lemon Fool

Dod101 wrote:if Scottish education is better than in England, I am sorry for the English!

Dod

I don’t think that the 5th/6th year courses and examinations have yet been Swinneyed so probably still as thorough and broad as ever, though once they too have been replaced with a sound education in rights without responsibilities who knows?

It's long been said that westminster wont allow Scotland to leave the union until north sea oil runs out. That day may be drawing closer.

The rest of the financial aspects don't really matter - they won't influence how the average person votes in another referendum.

Snorvey wrote:

Lanark wrote:It's long been said that westminster wont allow Scotland to leave the union until north sea oil runs out. That day may be drawing closer.

The rest of the financial aspects don't really matter - they won't influence how the average person votes in another referendum.

I think that's a very good point. Oil was a hundred dollars a barrel and, depending on where you drew the line, we owned almost all of it.

That was a major MAJOR plus for indypendance ya dancer. Scotland was financially viable - even more so at 150.....200+ bucks a barrel THAT we were told was on the cards. And with no debt and a respected currency like Sterling at our disposal, the SNP bs machine was running at full chat.

....yet even with that mouth watering prospect, Alex only managed to pin down 45% of the vote.

Now we're being promised an EUtopia, bypassing all the rules of joining, Tivial things like having your own currency and strict rules on deficits will be waved aside as the Brussels red carpet is rolled out for us.

Aye. Riiiiight.

I really doubt oil ever came into the Westminster thinking. I recall reading (though I cannot remember where) that the Scottish economy has been underwritten by England since the serious decline of Scottish heavy industry after Word War I. That is, with the exception of the years when oil and gas production from "Scottish" waters was boosted by high oil prices and high production rates. That lasted for about 20 years, since when we have returned to the situation pertaining beforehand. Money flows out of Westminster to Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, maintaining the economy and standard of living in those areas. It seems to me that those areas should do their best to spend that money wisely, and not waste it on frivolous local governments.

Nimrod103 wrote:

Snorvey wrote:

Lanark wrote:It's long been said that westminster wont allow Scotland to leave the union until north sea oil runs out. That day may be drawing closer.

The rest of the financial aspects don't really matter - they won't influence how the average person votes in another referendum.

I think that's a very good point. Oil was a hundred dollars a barrel and, depending on where you drew the line, we owned almost all of it.

That was a major MAJOR plus for indypendance ya dancer. Scotland was financially viable - even more so at 150.....200+ bucks a barrel THAT we were told was on the cards. And with no debt and a respected currency like Sterling at our disposal, the SNP bs machine was running at full chat.

....yet even with that mouth watering prospect, Alex only managed to pin down 45% of the vote.

Now we're being promised an EUtopia, bypassing all the rules of joining, Tivial things like having your own currency and strict rules on deficits will be waved aside as the Brussels red carpet is rolled out for us.

Aye. Riiiiight.

I really doubt oil ever came into the Westminster thinking.

Oh I agree there, but I think some Scottish voters do think and vote that way. One thing we should learn from brexit is that many people will quite happily vote for things which are against their own economic interest.

Im not in favour of an independent Scotland, but a lot of Boris Johnston's actions are playing right into the hands of the SNP. The appaling mismanagement of Covid in the UK isn't exactly helping anything.

Lanark wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:

Snorvey wrote:
I think that's a very good point. Oil was a hundred dollars a barrel and, depending on where you drew the line, we owned almost all of it.

That was a major MAJOR plus for indypendance ya dancer. Scotland was financially viable - even more so at 150.....200+ bucks a barrel THAT we were told was on the cards. And with no debt and a respected currency like Sterling at our disposal, the SNP bs machine was running at full chat.

....yet even with that mouth watering prospect, Alex only managed to pin down 45% of the vote.

Now we're being promised an EUtopia, bypassing all the rules of joining, Tivial things like having your own currency and strict rules on deficits will be waved aside as the Brussels red carpet is rolled out for us.

Aye. Riiiiight.

I really doubt oil ever came into the Westminster thinking.

Oh I agree there, but I think some Scottish voters do think and vote that way. One thing we should learn from brexit is that many people will quite happily vote for things which are against their own economic interest.

Im not in favour of an independent Scotland, but a lot of Boris Johnston's actions are playing right into the hands of the SNP. The appaling mismanagement of Covid in the UK isn't exactly helping anything.

I thought Boris’ Govt only controlled health in England and that combatting Covid in Scotland was for the SNP.

Sorry if you find this comment too general but I think it is nonetheless pertinent.

Scots are a highly patriotic lot and believe that, since 1707, they have had a separate culture within a larger grouping. Unsurprisingly, most have got used to this arrangement which probably explains much of their acceptance of a similar grouping , namely the EU. This is in stark contrast to the narrow English nationalists currently running Westminster who see participation in such a larger group, the EU, as subservience.

Plodding along within the UK has been made easier by having totally separate legal, educational and health systems from the outset and more recently a devolved government. Removing these freedoms would be totally unpalatable to the vast majority of Scots and is a total non-starter. Indeed, increasing the degree of autonomy within a "federal" UK has been suggested as a solution to Scottish dissatisfaction and a means to maintain the UK.

So far, the Scots have not supported independence and the reason seems fairly clear. They are practical and mostly understand the broad economic implications of independence. They are, after all, described as "canny". However, in recent months support for independence has grown and Brexit is the main reason. Another issue is the perceived jokey bluster and superficiality of upper crusty Boris. He is extremely unpopular with most Scots. They prefer what is seen as the more honest and down to earth approach of such as Nicola Sturgeon and Ruth Davidson.

Covid-19 has undoubtedly put independence on the back burner for several years which is the only on topic comment in this diatribe. Sorry.

TP2.

Nimrod103 wrote:

Snorvey wrote:

Lanark wrote:It's long been said that westminster wont allow Scotland to leave the union until north sea oil runs out. That day may be drawing closer.

The rest of the financial aspects don't really matter - they won't influence how the average person votes in another referendum.

I think that's a very good point. Oil was a hundred dollars a barrel and, depending on where you drew the line, we owned almost all of it.

That was a major MAJOR plus for indypendance ya dancer. Scotland was financially viable - even more so at 150.....200+ bucks a barrel THAT we were told was on the cards. And with no debt and a respected currency like Sterling at our disposal, the SNP bs machine was running at full chat.

....yet even with that mouth watering prospect, Alex only managed to pin down 45% of the vote.

Now we're being promised an EUtopia, bypassing all the rules of joining, Tivial things like having your own currency and strict rules on deficits will be waved aside as the Brussels red carpet is rolled out for us.

Aye. Riiiiight.

I really doubt oil ever came into the Westminster thinking. I recall reading (though I cannot remember where) that the Scottish economy has been underwritten by England since the serious decline of Scottish heavy industry after Word War I. That is, with the exception of the years when oil and gas production from "Scottish" waters was boosted by high oil prices and high production rates. That lasted for about 20 years, since when we have returned to the situation pertaining beforehand. Money flows out of Westminster to Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, maintaining the economy and standard of living in those areas. It seems to me that those areas should do their best to spend that money wisely, and not waste it on frivolous local governments.

It also flows to most of the English regions....

BH

bionichamster wrote:

Nimrod103 wrote:

Snorvey wrote:
I think that's a very good point. Oil was a hundred dollars a barrel and, depending on where you drew the line, we owned almost all of it.

That was a major MAJOR plus for indypendance ya dancer. Scotland was financially viable - even more so at 150.....200+ bucks a barrel THAT we were told was on the cards. And with no debt and a respected currency like Sterling at our disposal, the SNP bs machine was running at full chat.

....yet even with that mouth watering prospect, Alex only managed to pin down 45% of the vote.

Now we're being promised an EUtopia, bypassing all the rules of joining, Tivial things like having your own currency and strict rules on deficits will be waved aside as the Brussels red carpet is rolled out for us.

Aye. Riiiiight.

I really doubt oil ever came into the Westminster thinking. I recall reading (though I cannot remember where) that the Scottish economy has been underwritten by England since the serious decline of Scottish heavy industry after Word War I. That is, with the exception of the years when oil and gas production from "Scottish" waters was boosted by high oil prices and high production rates. That lasted for about 20 years, since when we have returned to the situation pertaining beforehand. Money flows out of Westminster to Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, maintaining the economy and standard of living in those areas. It seems to me that those areas should do their best to spend that money wisely, and not waste it on frivolous local governments.

It also flows to most of the English regions....

BH

It may be true but it is irrelevant because England has been a single entity since 954, and arguably since the reign of Æthelstan before that. The other bits of the UK were mainly added by the Normans and Stuarts, and about which the English were pretty ambivalent. They probably still are.

Charlottesquare wrote:Why on earth would we want English law

Is the Scottish legal system held in particularly high regard ?
My one experience of was of the Scottish small claims system which proved to be appallingly incompetent compared with the English equivalent.

Nimrod103 wrote:I recall reading (though I cannot remember where) that the Scottish economy has been underwritten by England since the serious decline of Scottish heavy industry after Word War I. That is, with the exception of the years when oil and gas production from "Scottish" waters was boosted by high oil prices and high production rates. That lasted for about 20 years, since when we have returned to the situation pertaining beforehand. Money flows out of Westminster to Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, maintaining the economy and standard of living in those areas.

When I was at university in the fifties, it was apparently exports of Scotch whisky that were keeping the British economy afloat so that adds a few more years to the period when Scottish assets have been essential to the British economy.

And as to the idea that money flows from Westminster, it is pretty obvious that London and the surrounding area creates little wealth and that any money "flowing out of Westminster" must first enter from elsewhere.

stockton wrote:

Charlottesquare wrote:Why on earth would we want English law

Is the Scottish legal system held in particularly high regard ?
My one experience of was of the Scottish small claims system which proved to be appallingly incompetent compared with the English equivalent.

Certainly my late father thought so and he had some knowledge of both as he read for a BA in Law from Oxford and then an LLB from Edinburgh. One big difference is still the corroboration requirement in criminal law, another used to be concluding property purchase contracts at exchange of missives well before entry, thus avoiding gazumping etc, sadly over recent years early conclusion of missives has become far less prevalent.

stockton wrote:... it is pretty obvious that London and the surrounding area creates little wealth ...

Really, what makes you say that?

dealtn wrote:

stockton wrote:... it is pretty obvious that London and the surrounding area creates little wealth ...

Really, what makes you say that?

I am trying to think of any wealth that is created - hotel rooms and the tower of London come to mind.

stockton wrote:

dealtn wrote:

stockton wrote:... it is pretty obvious that London and the surrounding area creates little wealth ...

Really, what makes you say that?

I am trying to think of any wealth that is created - hotel rooms and the tower of London come to mind.

The financial sector is responsible for about 1/4 of the tax receipts in the country alone. The City of London brings in about £75bn.

dealtn wrote:

stockton wrote:

dealtn wrote:
Really, what makes you say that?

I am trying to think of any wealth that is created - hotel rooms and the tower of London come to mind.

The financial sector is responsible for about 1/4 of the tax receipts in the country alone. The City of London brings in about £75bn.

But the financial sector does not create wealth - it simply takes a percentage of other peoples money.

stockton wrote:

dealtn wrote:

stockton wrote:I am trying to think of any wealth that is created - hotel rooms and the tower of London come to mind.

The financial sector is responsible for about 1/4 of the tax receipts in the country alone. The City of London brings in about £75bn.

But the financial sector does not create wealth - it simply takes a percentage of other peoples money.

This is a sensible board, if you want to play games I suggest you go elsewhere.

The City is still, despite the financial crisis, one of our chief export markets and something we are seriously good at.

The tax revenues generated pay for a large percentage of all those hospitals we have been needing in recent weeks!

dealtn wrote:This is a sensible board, if you want to play games I suggest you go elsewhere.

The City is still, despite the financial crisis, one of our chief export markets and something we are seriously good at.

The tax revenues generated pay for a large percentage of all those hospitals we have been needing in recent weeks!

Is there some incompatibility between what I said and what you have said ?

stockton wrote:

dealtn wrote:This is a sensible board, if you want to play games I suggest you go elsewhere.

The City is still, despite the financial crisis, one of our chief export markets and something we are seriously good at.

The tax revenues generated pay for a large percentage of all those hospitals we have been needing in recent weeks!

Is there some incompatibility between what I said and what you have said ?

Yes.

I say the City creates wealth. You say it doesn't. That seems pretty incompatible to me.

dealtn wrote:I say the City creates wealth. You say it doesn't. That seems pretty incompatible to me.

OK. Take me for example. I pay tax from time to time.
What I could have done was put my investments in ISAs. That would have ensured that I would pay less tax and that a few people in the City would pay a little more tax for running those ISAs.
As far as I can see that tax from the City would have been extracted from my wealth.

stockton wrote:

dealtn wrote:I say the City creates wealth. You say it doesn't. That seems pretty incompatible to me.

OK. Take me for example. I pay tax from time to time.
What I could have done was put my investments in ISAs. That would have ensured that I would pay less tax and that a few people in the City would pay a little more tax for running those ISAs.
As far as I can see that tax from the City would have been extracted from my wealth.

You clearly don't understand how the City works, or macroeconomics.

This will be a pointless exercise of engaging further, so I won't.

Others can decide on the worth of your contribution to The Economy Board if that is the evidence.