Ask a Brit

A repository for intrinsically valuable information

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby D-LOGAN » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:27 pm

What's the story with Scotland these days? I hear things haven't been working out lately, and they might be going their own separate way?
Which would be a shame, you guys always seemed so happy. But if it did happen, wouldn't be the end of the world, I mean look at us. I know things didn't work out between us and all, we've both moved on, and now we can be friends. We've even got a thing going on with Germany at the moment, I don't want to jinx it, early days yet, but I think they might be the one.
  • 9

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Marcuse » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:21 pm

Oh don't get me started on Scotland.

See this link for the likelihood of the independence referendum being won by the Yes campaign.
  • 1

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Learned Nand » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:47 am

Marcuse wrote:Oh don't get me started on Scotland.

See this link for the likelihood of the independence referendum being won by the Yes campaign.

That's still a lot of votes. Even in Texas, only 18% of people support secession.
  • 1

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Marcuse » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:37 am

There are several reasons why I believe that Scottish Independence would not work out economically, and why I believe that the argument for independence has been twisted to maintain the SNP's hold on power and manipulated to their political advantage through deliberately Anglophobic rhetoric and the repeated maligning of the English with no justification.

Well here goes, remember a few of these are speculation about the future or personal opinion.

1. Scotland cannot maintain its level of public spending once independent:

Currently the Scottish government is paying for public services to be free way beyond the situation which is claimed to be affordable in England. Dentistry (on the NHS), University tuition and social care for the elderly are all free in Scotland but carry fees in England because full public funding of these services would be unaffordable. I believe this is possible because the Scottish government does not raise taxes from among the Scottish people, but receives a "block grant" from Westminster to dispose of as they see fit. As far as I can tell, this has amounted to increased money being spent in Scotland compared with England and a fairly massive public service gap appearing.

2. The dependence on North Sea Oil:

The argument in favour of Scottish economic success once independent relies upon the idea that North Sea Oil will be able to fund the burgeoning Scottish economy and maintain its level of public services. Many feel this is particularly optimistic, and that North Sea Oil production would be increasing given falling productivity and exploration since the peak in 1999 means that this would not be the gold mine the SNP is claiming.

Given that Scotland has roughly 5 million of the 61 million people in the UK today, and places like Glasgow represent particularly run down areas where large numbers are unemployed, and 23.2% of Scots are employed in the public sector, it does not follow logically that without massive tax hikes the Scots would be able to afford the public services they currently enjoy.

3. The head of state question:

Given that the Queen is actually the legitimate successor to the crown of both England and Scotland, as the Stuart Monarchs of Scotland were asked to take up the crown of England after the death of the last Tudor (in 1606), this means that the Queen of England would remain Head of State of Scotland even after Independence. While this is the case with other Commonwealth nations, if the Scottish government is going to respect the claim the Queen has then it does not make sense to claim governmental self-determination while remaining a constitutional monarchy.

4. Currency Union:

While up until the European Sovereign Debt Crisis, the SNP was advocating that an independent Scotland should join the Euro, the current line being adopted is that Scotland should seek to retain the pound as their currency. This absurd situation would involve the new Scotland's monetary policy being set in England, with some Scottish "involvement" in that process. Things like exchange rates would also be fixed in England and effectively this would mean that Scotland would remain economically dependant on England for crucial policy decisions.

5. Anglophobia, Devo-Plus and Alex Salmond:

So what we have here is a much more complex situation than just a country which has been oppressed seeking to sever its ties to the oppressive country. If anything, Scotland took over England in 1606, and remained linked for the last 400 years because it has been significantly profitable for both sides.

The argument for independence, is largely the argument to keep the SNP in power, and particularly the fairly odious Alex Salmond, their leader. The independence argument has been used as a stick to beat the English with rhetoric, blame them for any problems in Scotland, while the SNP takes credit for the successes (such as public sector expansion using English money). The referendum has now been delayed to 2014, while the SNP has been in power since 2007 (albeit in a minority government for the first term).

It seems like, from the figures I posted earlier about support for independence, that it is unlikely that the Yes campaign will succeed, but it is believed that Salmond will use the fallout of a referendum to argue for further powers to be devolved, the so-called devo-plus idea that Scotland would then become responsible for raising it's own taxes as well.

Overall, I don't feel like the SNP has the best interests of Scotland at heart, rather they wish to remake Scotland into and unrealistic caricature of the country they wish Scotland had been a few hundred years ago, with little economic argument behind it, the likelihood of still having to cede monetary policy to England, and little historical basis for separation, I don't believe it would be a good thing to have an independent Scotland.

I totally support a referendum as it should be Scotland's right to choose their own government and fate. But I don't believe the support is there, I don't feel it would work economically and I don't see how Scotland suddenly becoming a foreign country would work out.
  • 3

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Learned Nand » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:43 am

There are practical problems with allowing any subset of people to secede at will. Then you get these silly situations in which people declare their houses independent nations. But if the citizens of the UK either vote for Scottish independence or democratically decide to leave the decision up to Scotland, then I suppose it's okay for them to secede.

In terms of the economic argument: how much revenue does the UK government gain from Scotland and how much money is spent on Scotland?
  • 2

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Marcuse » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:53 pm

Image

Source. This link has a report from the Office of Budget Responsibility on the practicalities of Scottish Independence from a economic point of view.

They considered that:

OBR wrote:The most important asset to be divided on Scottish independence would be the oil and gas reserves under the North Sea. The output is sold on world markets and the tax revenues are currently collected centrally by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Over the past five years the average annual tax revenue from oil and gas has been £9.4bn. This represents only 1.7% of onshore tax revenues for the UK in 2011-12 but 20% of onshore tax revenues for Scotland.


But also:

OBR wrote:Professor Kemp's 'guesstimate' ... is that net tax revenues in the Scottish sector could range between £5bn and £10bn per year for the next decade. The revenue flows are large but volatile.


Average tax take for Scotland was about:

Scottish Government wrote:On the basis of the assumptions and methodologies described in this report, in 2009-10, total public sector non-North Sea current revenue in Scotland was £42.2 billion. This is equivalent to 8.3 per cent of UK total non-North Sea current revenue which is broadly in line with Scotland's share of the UK population


This document from the Scottish Government indicates that:

Scottish Government wrote:In 2011-12, total public sector expenditure for Scotland, including a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £64.5 billion, 9.3% of UK public sector expenditure


If Scotland was to become independent they would be expected to take on a share of that public sector debt (particularly as the largest collapsed UK banks were Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland), so this can be see as a rough estimate of the kind of revenue and expenditure figures we could expect if Scotland maintains public services and revenue as they are. There's a £22.2 billion black hole there that needs to be addressed, and probably won't be by an estimated £5-£10 billion oil revenue.

Also, the English have never been given the right to vote on whether Scotland should have a referendum on Independence, nor are they to be included in the referendum. All the main three parties are pro-union, but this hasn't stopped the referendum plans going ahead without consulting the people in any democratic sense.
  • 1

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Learned Nand » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:59 pm

That graph is really the entire counterargument to the SNP's economic stance then, isn't it? Whatever revenues they claim they could take control over, it's still demonstrably not enough to maintain the same level of spending that exists now without an expanded deficit.

If all major parties are pro-union, then I wouldn't be in favor of Scottish secession regardless of what the Scottish want. That's undemocratic.
  • 1

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Marcuse » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:06 pm

But then that's when Devo-Plus comes into it's own. The aim, I have heard on news programmes, is to push for an increase in devolved powers even if the referendum turns back a no vote. This would grant increased powers to the Scottish Government while retaining the subsidy that England pays to Scotland to maintain its public services.

Whatever I think about Alex Salmond, the man is a shrewd politician and I don't think he's as blinded by Nationalism as he seems. I think he's always been out for power and isn't entering into this referendum he knows he'll probably lose without a plan to increase his power. It worries me that Scotland falls for such a demagogue.
  • 2

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Mr Dent » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:24 pm

Marcuse wrote:
Mr Dent wrote:And I bet the English make it even more confusing by calling themselves Brits .


Nope, pretty much only Americans call us "Brits".


So Americans named this thread?
  • 1

Mr Dent
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:04 am
Location: Australia
Show rep

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby OrangeEyebrows » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:27 pm

Well if we'd called it "Consult a fellow from dear old Blighty" everyone would have been confused.
  • 9

A society without redemption would damn us all ~ Kate
User avatar
OrangeEyebrows
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:48 pm
Location: Dormouse-like in a teapot
Show rep
Title: Magnifitail

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby sunglasses » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:10 pm

And unless any of you are/were sailors we couldn't very well call it "Ask a Limey"
  • 6

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Marcuse » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:16 pm

We could have called it "Ask a Tommy"?
  • 3

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Learned Nand » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:36 am

Marcuse wrote:But then that's when Devo-Plus comes into it's own. The aim, I have heard on news programmes, is to push for an increase in devolved powers even if the referendum turns back a no vote. This would grant increased powers to the Scottish Government while retaining the subsidy that England pays to Scotland to maintain its public services.

In America, Republicans often advocate a similar philosophy under the concept of State's Rights, in which a greater number of things are handled by the state. Applied intelligently this would possibly be a good idea, but since when are politicians the kind of people who approach problems with their due subtlety?

Whatever I think about Alex Salmond, the man is a shrewd politician and I don't think he's as blinded by Nationalism as he seems. I think he's always been out for power and isn't entering into this referendum he knows he'll probably lose without a plan to increase his power. It worries me that Scotland falls for such a demagogue.

I don't think that falling for demagogues is a problem specific to Scottland :|
  • 3

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby idontlivehere1122 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:50 am

Hi!

Just had to ask all the brits here, whats your take on who's likely to win the next general elections? Pretty generic question, but just had to ask. It's all I can think of at the moment as well. Spent the whole of yesterday in the campus computer lab trying to finish off some work all the while trying my level best to ignore the abso-fucking-lutely heated political 'debate' going on at the other end of the lab. :?

EDIT: Almost forgot, what do you guys think of the stereotype that british food is terrible? Personally I disagree, I rather like what I've eaten so far. Though I do find your cuisine very 'bland' in the sense that there isn't much spice and the like, if that makes sense.
  • 5

Still alive, not a good thing. Fuck life.
idontlivehere1122
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:35 am
Show rep

Re: Ask a Brit

Postby Marcuse » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:42 pm

idontlivehere1122 wrote:Just had to ask all the brits here, whats your take on who's likely to win the next general elections? Pretty generic question, but just had to ask. It's all I can think of at the moment as well. Spent the whole of yesterday in the campus computer lab trying to finish off some work all the while trying my level best to ignore the abso-fucking-lutely heated political 'debate' going on at the other end of the lab. :?


*Marcuse breathes a long, long sigh*

Politics. Bleh. I suppose the first thing we'd need to do is look at each party and see what they've been doing and how they're expected to do. The first thing to remember is that despite the government being a Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition, they're running in the next general election as separate parties.

Conservatives:

The "nasty" party has pretty much reverted to type by this point in the electoral cycle. Just today I've heard on the news as I was writing this that Michael Gove (the Education Secretary) has made a statement saying that state schools should be more like private schools. Privatisation, even of pretty essential public services, like the NHS, seems to be the order of the day, along with huge reductions in welfare, and not always to the detriment of the people that are classified as "scroungers" or "cheats". Employment is on the rise, but conspicuously fails to indicate the level of under-employment (people technically in work, but working less hours than they are willing or capable of doing), skewing the figures to look positive without providing specific benefit to the population.

Despite this, the Conservatives find themselves in a tricky situation, pressed on the far right by UKIP, and struggling to hold the middle ground when they're so blatantly pushing a specific agenda, they run the risk of a death by a thousand cuts. UKIP on one side, Labour on the other, with the Lib Dems agitating from the sidelines. Overall I think they'll perform well in the 2015 election, but I wouldn't put money on a three term government. I honestly wouldn't put too much money on a majority Conservative government.

Labour:

When your party is led by Wallace, you really have to look at the available talent in your Shadow Cabinet. Ed Milliband has always been overshadowed by his more heavyweight Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls. I live and dream of a day where we can hail our now Prime Minister Balls, merely for the humour to distract us from his gross incompetence. For all its assaults and talk of a world where public spending continues to increase without concomitant increase in taxes or other forms of revenue, Labour has failed to present a comprehensive, clear and decisive vision of the economy that it wishes to implement in opposition to the Conservative plans. Labour is still smarting from the crash that, as much as the 2008 banking crisis was global, they bore responsibility for in the fields of poor financial regulation and an attitude of allowing business to have a free hand in all things. I don't think Milliband has done anything like enough to exorcise the leaders of the past, or rejuvenate the Labour party enough to be a viable party of government. I expect their share of the vote will increase, because they're in opposition, and are one of the two "parties of government", but I strongly doubt a new labour government to be ushered in in 2015.

Liberal Democrats:

Well. Where do I even start? The Lib Dems have, in forming the coalition with the Conservatives, been party to the betrayal of most, if not all the principles they claimed to hold in opposition. Everyone understands that compromise is necessary in a coalition government, but there's compromise and there's letting literally all the ideas you have for government fall by the wayside in order to get in there in the first place. The last time the (then plain Liberal) party had a coalition with a large and numerically superior Conservative party, they ended up a split party who haven't been in government since this coalition, a stretch spanning nearly 90 years. Looking at their popularity now, I can't see how the same won't happen again. Nick Clegg may have had high hopes, but in the end I feel he's led his party to ruin. On top of that, the sex scandals they're suffering have dragged them into the realm of sleaze and tabloid journalism, which really isn't helping.

UKIP:

Any party that has to make it's motto that they're "non-racist" (they're not racist, by the way, they just don't like foreigners) has a lot of issues already. But the problem is, a lot of people in the UK sadly think that UKIP are an appropriate protest vote if you're disaffected and right wing. Recent electoral performances have been better than expected (though local elections are normally no indication of performance at general elections) and the lunatic fringe of the Conservative party is tempted by their Eurosceptic, little Englander mentality. There's pretty much literally no way they could win in 2015, but they'll certainly be a player, and that's more than can be said of them in the 2010 election.

Overall then, politics in the UK be fucked. I'd predict a Conservative minority government, simply because they're like the only bog brush in the kingdom of wet toilet paper. While they're still full of shit, there's literally nothing with the strength to take them down. Which is a shame really. I don't want to be ruled over by a bog brush.
  • 7

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron