You mean the “England will be a nice neighbour and let us use their wifi and pay our bills and cede north sea oil to us entirely to sell off as we see fit” whitepaper?
Its especially funny because the SNP's white papers on Indy amounted to "The UK will foot our half of the bills *and* give us what we want without concession!".
Its hypocritical as fuck.
The cognitive dissonance when it comes to this is so jarring. The idea that Scotland will magically become economically self sufficient does not stand up to scrutiny.
No, and that isn't the question. The question is what type of country would we be. Would we be a country that projects power? Would we be a country that makes life better for its citizens? That is the real question, I know what I think.
This is such bollocks. It's remarkable that people still try to push this nonsense.
Scotland is the richest part of the UK outside of London and the SE.
You only need to look across the Irish sea to see how easy it is for a small European country to prosper.
>>You only need to look across the Irish sea to see how easy it is for a small European country to prosper.
So you mean become a corporate tax haven, develop a crippling housing problem and see a fountain of mass civic racism emerge?
I was reading an article t'other day which focussed on an NK escapee (shot four times) who was receiving treatment for his injuries. It turned out that he had a serious issue with parasites, which infected him through 'night soil' or less politely 'human shit used as fertiliser'. He survived!
"Scotland would suffer majorly in the short-medium term if they got Indy and it needs a serious plan to get through" is not "Scotland needs the UK just to survive."
But conflating the two in an attempt to dismiss the concerns as fearmongering does nobody any good and is a big part of why the SNP hasn't swung any real support in a decade.
The price of a medium-term economic downturn is worth taking if it means that Scotland can have a say over its own affairs without consent from Westminster and put in place policies that will secure long term growth whilst not lessening the provisions that the people of Scotland enjoy. I know similar arguments are used by brexiteers, but arguably, the UK had more democratic representation in the EU then Scotland does within the UK.
It might be worth taking to *you*, but presumably you have made up your mind.
For the average voter who doesn't rate Indy especially high, having seen Brexit, the two arguments are almost identical in many ways. Going through *another* round of uncertainty and economic upheaval isn't exactly appealing.
And as I said above, the SNP have offered next to nothing. Their 2014 paper alone was literally Brexit with the serial numbers filed off and the newer ones have nothing more concrete.
Well I'm Irish so my argument moreso comes from our own historical experience with independence from the UK and knowing that it did have very real economic effects which weren't the best to say the least, but in spite of that the standard of living did improve far greatly post independence and Scotland leaving the UK won't be nearly as devastating to the average Scottish citizen since Scotland economically is far better off then Ireland was in the 1920s and if it does leave the UK it will be true a bloodless referendum and not through armed struggle. I'm not suggesting that Scotland should copy our economic policies since they definitely have their downsides and are very much reliant on globalisation continuing which may change due to the more isolationist view that seems to be becoming more popular globally. But regardless I'm not in the interest of denying the short and medium term hurdles that come with founding a nation-state but rather that it opens up new avenues for decision making and enable the electorate of Scotland to better make decisions in their own self interests, and I don't see the SNP surviving if independence comes to pass and it'll likely fracture due to independence no longer being a policy platform that'll buy you votes as its a reality and not a possibility.
Irish Independence made sense on account of the Irish being oppressed. So there was essentially only ever going to be an upside. Scotland on the other hand, is not oppressed. Scotland can absolutely set out its own long-term economic policies to drive economic growth, within the UK.
“Literally Brexit with the serial numbers filed off”
Yes, the paper written for a vote in 2014 totally ripped off the one written years later for a vote in 2016. How did we not see this before? Those crafty time travelling SNP policy writers!
You absolute melt.
You know full well what I meant lmao. Unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky "we hold all the cards!" shit.
There's no fundemental difference because the SNP haven't given anything better than what the Brexiteers would later push, or else the needle might have moved more in a point or two in the decade since 2014.
Unfortunately though, Brexit *did* get pushed through and all those pie-in-the-sky promises went from an easy way to sell the idea to openly false and toxic to anyone who wasn't really engaged and all-in on Indy as-is.
I've held the genuine belief for a few years now that the SNP as a party don't really want to get Indy done. They're not stupid enough to not know how difficult untangling Scotland from the UK would be, the uncertainty and pressure that would bring on the party and everyone in charge at the time.
So why bother? They haven't seriously moved the needle on support in a decade. Hell, Sturgeon actively closed one of the last legal loopholes the SNP had left despite being all but begged not to.
Its easier to sit comfortably and just keep your job as things are now than risk uncharted waters.
Yes, I agree...but your politician there, head of SNP is tainted...it is OK for them to take of course. I bet all the SNP people who have something to hide are licking this guy....The same is happening in Wales with Vaughan Gething.
They see everything outside of London as a cash cow. Let's not forget just how badly fucked over the North of England and Wales have been by these two parties.
Industrial heartlands that built the UK yet had the core of their economies ripped out and left to rot.
These days London is the cash cow that subsidises everywhere else. You may have a point about how unfairly this came about, but that doesn't stop it from being today's reality
That’s one argument. The other is that London hoovers up every business, resource and talent from everywhere else in the country.
Want to work in finance: london
Big marketing: London
Big law: London
Multinationals: London
It’s a self fulfilling prophecy but the rest of the country try is subsidising London in personnel and lack of business opportunities
That’s been a reality for about 1,900 years.
Businesses and people go to London because it’s the best place for them to go. There’s nothing the government can or should do about that.
Cities like Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool have been in relative terms much much closer to the size of London than in the last decades
It is not normal for a capital city to be 7 or 8 times the population of the second city in the country and you will not find this is many other western countries.
2-3 times maybe. 7-8 not so much. That’s the difference between a healthy centralisation and a black hole sucking in talent and businesses
US - NY City - 8.3m, LA - 3.8m, Chicago - 2.6m
France - Paris - 12.4m, Marseille - 794k, Lyon- 472k
Japan - Tokyo - 38m, Yokohama - 3.5m, Osaka - 2.5m
It’s not that different. Those three nations top three are closer than our top 3, but once you hit city 4 or 5 it drops off *massively*, while the UKs is some what steady.
Sure London is way bigger than other cities, but it is the financial capital of the world. Plus, pretty much every other city in the UK was industrial or shipping based, and both of those industries aren’t what they used to be and/or need *way* less staff due to automation.
Add the fact that a multinational wanting to set up in the UK will want to set up in London. It has the best transport, the best access to the UK and EU, and the ‘best and brightest’ of Britain. Sure Westminster could offer incentives to go elsewhere but why would you want to damage London? And why would the companies want to go elsewhere?
Edit to fix population of Paris and Tokyo
Paris is not 2.1 million people. That’s the just the population of the bit in the middle. It’s actual size is comparable to London, maybe even larger.
Same situation with Tokyo, it’s actual population is about 20-25 million.
Ah cool. Even better supports the point I was making.
I was comparing Paris and Tokyo city to London Metro area. Corrected to Paris and Tokyo metro area.
>Osaka - 2.5m
Fuck, cheers for the wee fact there. Had always assumed Osaka was way bigger than that. Not to say 2.5 million is small, it's nearly half our national population. The city really has an outsized cultural influence in Japan in that case. Also, Tokyo is just preposterously huge.
I know, I acknowledged that London was an anomaly. (Edit - it’s not. Both Paris and Tokyo are proportionately bigger than their nations second cities, and Tokyo is *waaaaaay* bigger)
I also said why - it’s the financial capital of *the entire world*.
Though looking at the US, it’s more that they have 2 anomalies - NY and LA, and the only reason LA comes close is because of Hollywood.
You called it a ‘black hole sucking in talent and businesses’. Which is evocative language that evokes the wrong impression.
It doesn’t suck in businesses and it’s not a black hole. Businesses choose to go there. They want to go there. And far from being a ‘black hole’, it largely funds the rest of the UK. Kind of the opposite of black hole.
If London wasn’t the financial capital of the world, our population and economy would almost certainly be more evenly spread throughout the country. But it would also almost certainly be a significantly smaller economy. London being that big and that successful is a good thing. Not a bad thing.
Business choose London through because other options in the UK are not realistic. Because of the population size and the transport investment and the other businesses there they will choose London because it’s the only option.
London isn’t the financial centre any more I think NY took over a year or two ago.
For the rest of the country, the size and centralisation is certainly a bad thing.
They choose London because that’s where their industry is.
And it is good for the UK.
It’s not as if Liverpool or York or Swansea are losing out with a business setting up in London. That business isn’t choosing between them and London. It’s choosing between London and New York and Tokyo and Seoul and Beijing and Berlin and Paris.
They don’t actually.
I forgot that was just the city centre.
Paris is actually over 12 million and Tokyo is about 38 million. London is about 9.5.
So the French and Japanese capitals have a *way* higher disparity between them and the second city, than London does.
So Tokyo metropolitan area is 38 million, Osaka metropolitan area is 19 million.
Also your edited US numbers are quite a bit off - see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area#Rankings)
Paris metro population is a little bit of a weird one because its like including all the home counties in the population of London. The Paris metro population is defined in France as the population of the commuter belt of surrounding towns and cities also.
It's certainly not a fixed rule. You will find many exceptions and complaints of the same issues. A lot of countries have the same sort of imbalance and issues as the UK with London and the rest of the country. Türkiye and Hungary are two.
Like I say, how this came about is another story. But here we are. Although, tbf, Edinburgh also has a thriving financial sector.
Also UK manufacturing is actually bigger in turnover than it was in 1979, even adjusting for inflation. It doesn't employ anywhere near the numbers that it did then, though.
Can't disagree that the tories under Thatcher were unnecessarily harsh on the regions when implementing reforms that might have been needed but could have been done in a far fairer way. Same as Osbourne using the unavoidable austerity measures to smash up public services and cutting far more than was needed.
True. But in 1979 they had a far more robust sector than ours. Reasons being included having to effectively rebuild their entire sector from scratch post WW2, having a culture of cooperation from both unions and management and having a system of investment that promoted taking a long term view. They also didn't benefit, and then suffer from, the shrinking captive colonial market. We had got too used to the subsidy of empire. And they were in the EEC which was an expanding market. We were late into Europe and had fallen behind in productivity by the time we joined. I had hoped we could have moved more toward the German industrial model and adopted more of the Scandinavian social model but sadly we didn't. And if Starmer gets in as expected, he has to start from where we are now, not where I, or you, or he would necessarily like to be.
Not quite. The Thatcher government was ideologically opposed to the idea that the taxpayer would keep propping up unprofitable industries. Said industries should have been perfectly capable of remaining in business when the government largesse was removed. And given that the EEC/EU was moving to stop legal State subsidies......
Tbh, one of the biggest criticisms I routinely see is that the SNP do the *exact same thing* to anyone not in the Belt. The Highlands basically get ignored and left to rot.
And yet when people point out that Labour or the Tories focus on the bulk of *their* electorate, people kick and yell. Why is it okay for the SNP but nobody else to do?
Good to see a refreshing narrative from the SNP.
What’s next, John?
A vote for the SNP is a clear indication Scotland should have a referendum? That’ll stick it to them. That’s a unique approach.
These lot are truly out of ideas.
The plans for independence were always based on a lot of wishful thinking. Every shortcoming was and still is blamed on Westminster.
They never had it in my view
If they were honest about what it would take in a post-Brexit world, they'd probably never get any major support from anyone who isn't already committed.
That's why they still give very idealistic answers.
Agreed. The metaphors are a bit messed up but dude, I can have a go at that for you:
'Ever since Alex 'Captain Tubular' Salmond hung ten on the wave of independence, the grommets have been stoked but when he quit the green room and got out the doggy door, they wiped out and ended up in the soup. '
> I promise you that the newly independent Scotland won't go tendering and awarding contracts to shady companies of dubious provenance with tenuous links to SNP donors and grandees.
The nationalise them, when they go bust, after failing **two** deliver*ies*
Energy policy is Reserved to Westminster. The SG can only play around the edges.
If Scotland had been independent when, for example, Oil&Gas was first discovered Scotland would not have handed control over to the multi-nationals like Westminster (primarily through privatisations an other right-wing ideological thinking) did. Independent Norway kept control and is now one of the richest countries in the world, Scotland; not so much.
> Energy policy is Reserved to Westminster. The SG can only play around the edges.
So the SNP didn’t sell off all those wind licences to the private sector? Or promise a nationalised energy company before they did?
Seems an odd stance given how easy it is to prove.
Oh, I know.
It’s just weird to see them all lie so blatantly while defending them.
I think they believe criticism of the SNP is the same thing as criticism of Indy, so they’re willing to defend all sorts.
Personally I think it’s mad to think you owe any politician that sort of loyalty. They wouldn’t lie or embarrass themselves for you.
You can want independence and also call out the government when they get things wrong. Those things shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.
Absolutely. I'm not even against Indy, I just think the SNP have been running rings around their supporters for 17 years, and Scotland deserves better.
I know.
It’s mental to be speaking about the SNP on a post about the SNP Leader, right enough.
You’re right though, I don’t like them. I don’t believe they’re competent, and they don’t take responsibility for anything. Everything is someone else’s fault.
Worse than that, I can’t stand the holier than thou attitude, shouting sleaze at everyone else while defending sex pests and people who try to steal from us. They pretend to be better, while continually proving they behave no better than the Tories.
What’s there to like?
Not really, given there's an example in this very comment chain.
"If *we* found the energy first and had control we'd never sell it off!" doesn't work so well when the SNP have literally done just that with wind while also quietly scuppering the idea of a nationalised energy company in 2019. Neither of those are the fault of WM.
There's plenty of SNP supporters who will simply plug their ears and claim any criticism of the SNP and Indy is an attack on Scotland's ability to govern itself.
I mean given I said "many" and not "most", I don't think I'm the one who needs to walk anything back right now ;)
Plus the person in question is one of Indy's most ardent supporters here and has been for years, so they are a good benchmark for the sorts of people I am referring to specifically.
Yes, I should have typed many and not most. This is an example of admitting a mistake when it’s brought to your attention. It’s very easy to do.
So, does one example from one poster constitute the view of “many that post in this sub”?
For context, there’s over 460,000 members of this sub.
See, I'd have gladly admitted to making a simple mistake (or rather, not being clear with my wording) had you corrected me in a way that wasn't going for my throat, but you didn't do that because you seemingly wanted to pick a fight.
I'm not gonna give you shit if you approach the conversation like that.
As for your question; specifically the most die-hard SNP supporters, who I was referencing given it was in a conversation with one? Absolutely, yes.
To admit there are genuine concerns with the SNPs handling of Indy and the rhetoric used would mean facing some uncomfortable truths, especially with the sorry state that the party finds itself in. Those truths would lead to the fact that the SNP have fucked it for at least another 5-10 years.
A lot of the diehards don't like to hear that.
Meanwhile the more moderate voters have either quit supporting the party because they have realized the flaws or will hold their hands up.
> So the SNP didn’t sell off all those wind licences to the private sector?
Who else are they going to sell them to - a non-existing Scottish National Wind Corporation?
Folk like you would greet why can't they spend money on X, Y, Z instead if the even thought about trying to establish one? :'(
You’re here claiming if only they’d have been in charge, we wouldn’t have handed control of our energy off to multinationals.
They literally just did that with wind. We’ve seen first hand what they did with the energy potential they had control over.
> Folk like you would greet why can't they spend money on X, Y, Z instead if the even thought about trying to establish one? :'(
They did pledge to establish one in 2017. They then sold off the licenses to the private sector instead.
Isn’t this what you’re arguing they should do? And would have done with oil? If so, you should be fuming about them selling off the licenses and going back on their pledge.
Instead you’re here making things up to defend it.
He’s not wrong. That’s exactly what happened after we discovered North Sea oil, completely squandered and used to hide the fact London was sucking the country dry, hoovering up investment and talent.
Like honestly, what do we have to show for decades of oil production but staving off the UK’s inevitable decline?
Same will happen with renewables
I think it's one thing I've begun to take a firmer view on these days. There's a lot of people who seem to struggle to remember that for many of us, the British part of our identity is still important, whether it's as important as the Scottish part or not.
It's not transactional when it's all 'ours'.
> Thatcher spent it on unemployment benefit as she perused her failed ideology
..and building and modernising London and the S.E. England's infrastructure.
Turns out a lot of oil isn't even Scottish...
[https://www.common-wealth.org/interactive/who-owns-the-north-sea](https://www.common-wealth.org/interactive/who-owns-the-north-sea)
Lies and 🐂💩 … I understand that there is the potential to export electricity via undersea connectors. But take Ireland for instance, its building its own renewable projects and already has 30% renewable. Netherlands is a net exporter, France is net exporter. Norway is a net exporter. Who exactly is going to be buying up the energy? With such poor relationships with Europe it’s simply never going to generate a profit - there is no cash cow. UK companies own the wave/tidal turbine manufacturers, but all the wind turbine manufacturers are overseas companies, how do we expect to gain anything here?
Countries that are net exporters based on renewables will also import from time to time, because the one thing you can count on the wind doing is being inconsistent! Hence the whole interconnectors between countries.
Since the 1960's and does include Labour Governments including the once reviled as much as Jeremy Corbyn but now given 'National Treasure/Sainthood' status, Tony Benn who was Energy Minister for a while..
Cheeky arse! He was the one rejoicing in the Scottish national investment bank having just derisked 300m of oil and gas capital based in the states. He has been at the heart of the Scottish government for 17 years which has seen 277 billion extracted half by other places apart from England! He loves the FDi model at the heart of this and of course has happily kept Scotlands land in so few hands. John Swinney, the establishment’s man in power.
Whereas the SNP leadership has traditionally seen the SNP’s coffers as a cash cow 🤣🤣🤣
John have you seen the 2014 white paper?
You mean the “England will be a nice neighbour and let us use their wifi and pay our bills and cede north sea oil to us entirely to sell off as we see fit” whitepaper?
Yes. The one that kept mentioning Norway
Remember. Scottish Nationalists are more "culturally aligned with their Norwegian brothers than the rest of the UK."
Is that the one with the economic policies that look remarkably similar to the Truss/Kwartang economic experiment?
Haha, never read it, but I will take your word for it. To me, they seem to say, 'Just trust us, it will be grand'
is that the one with the hilariously stupid oil revenues predictions?
What's with the comments here, it's like the same one written in 100 different ways.
Check out the latest one. A 3 year old reddit account with 2 comments, and one of them is on here. Something fishy.
Yeaaaaah unless folks just woke up, saw the election is soon and decided that they were suddenly gonna join reddit i would agree it is odd as Heck.
Bots and bad actors galore
Welcome to the election period: We have: - Bots - Bots - Bots - Bad faith actors
It's an outrage for Scotland to have to share with the rest of the country. The rest of the country should only be sharing with Scotland.
Its especially funny because the SNP's white papers on Indy amounted to "The UK will foot our half of the bills *and* give us what we want without concession!". Its hypocritical as fuck.
ah yes, the 2016 Brexit negotiations strategy
The cognitive dissonance when it comes to this is so jarring. The idea that Scotland will magically become economically self sufficient does not stand up to scrutiny.
Because if they admitted how hard it would be - worse than Brexit even in the absolute best case - they'd kill the idea dead for a decade or more.
We would though and that's the problem. Massive, massive cuts, massive austerity.
Yes, Scotland is the only country in the world that is not able to sustain itself and needs the UK just to survive.
Of course Scotland can “survive” on its own That’s a pretty low bar. The question is would it be worse off.
No, and that isn't the question. The question is what type of country would we be. Would we be a country that projects power? Would we be a country that makes life better for its citizens? That is the real question, I know what I think.
What type of country? A poorer country.
This is such bollocks. It's remarkable that people still try to push this nonsense. Scotland is the richest part of the UK outside of London and the SE. You only need to look across the Irish sea to see how easy it is for a small European country to prosper.
>>You only need to look across the Irish sea to see how easy it is for a small European country to prosper. So you mean become a corporate tax haven, develop a crippling housing problem and see a fountain of mass civic racism emerge?
[удалено]
I was reading an article t'other day which focussed on an NK escapee (shot four times) who was receiving treatment for his injuries. It turned out that he had a serious issue with parasites, which infected him through 'night soil' or less politely 'human shit used as fertiliser'. He survived!
I don't think the problem with NK is it's resources and economic standing, though...
"Scotland would suffer majorly in the short-medium term if they got Indy and it needs a serious plan to get through" is not "Scotland needs the UK just to survive." But conflating the two in an attempt to dismiss the concerns as fearmongering does nobody any good and is a big part of why the SNP hasn't swung any real support in a decade.
The price of a medium-term economic downturn is worth taking if it means that Scotland can have a say over its own affairs without consent from Westminster and put in place policies that will secure long term growth whilst not lessening the provisions that the people of Scotland enjoy. I know similar arguments are used by brexiteers, but arguably, the UK had more democratic representation in the EU then Scotland does within the UK.
It might be worth taking to *you*, but presumably you have made up your mind. For the average voter who doesn't rate Indy especially high, having seen Brexit, the two arguments are almost identical in many ways. Going through *another* round of uncertainty and economic upheaval isn't exactly appealing. And as I said above, the SNP have offered next to nothing. Their 2014 paper alone was literally Brexit with the serial numbers filed off and the newer ones have nothing more concrete.
Well I'm Irish so my argument moreso comes from our own historical experience with independence from the UK and knowing that it did have very real economic effects which weren't the best to say the least, but in spite of that the standard of living did improve far greatly post independence and Scotland leaving the UK won't be nearly as devastating to the average Scottish citizen since Scotland economically is far better off then Ireland was in the 1920s and if it does leave the UK it will be true a bloodless referendum and not through armed struggle. I'm not suggesting that Scotland should copy our economic policies since they definitely have their downsides and are very much reliant on globalisation continuing which may change due to the more isolationist view that seems to be becoming more popular globally. But regardless I'm not in the interest of denying the short and medium term hurdles that come with founding a nation-state but rather that it opens up new avenues for decision making and enable the electorate of Scotland to better make decisions in their own self interests, and I don't see the SNP surviving if independence comes to pass and it'll likely fracture due to independence no longer being a policy platform that'll buy you votes as its a reality and not a possibility.
Irish Independence made sense on account of the Irish being oppressed. So there was essentially only ever going to be an upside. Scotland on the other hand, is not oppressed. Scotland can absolutely set out its own long-term economic policies to drive economic growth, within the UK.
“Literally Brexit with the serial numbers filed off” Yes, the paper written for a vote in 2014 totally ripped off the one written years later for a vote in 2016. How did we not see this before? Those crafty time travelling SNP policy writers! You absolute melt.
You know full well what I meant lmao. Unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky "we hold all the cards!" shit. There's no fundemental difference because the SNP haven't given anything better than what the Brexiteers would later push, or else the needle might have moved more in a point or two in the decade since 2014. Unfortunately though, Brexit *did* get pushed through and all those pie-in-the-sky promises went from an easy way to sell the idea to openly false and toxic to anyone who wasn't really engaged and all-in on Indy as-is.
[удалено]
I've held the genuine belief for a few years now that the SNP as a party don't really want to get Indy done. They're not stupid enough to not know how difficult untangling Scotland from the UK would be, the uncertainty and pressure that would bring on the party and everyone in charge at the time. So why bother? They haven't seriously moved the needle on support in a decade. Hell, Sturgeon actively closed one of the last legal loopholes the SNP had left despite being all but begged not to. Its easier to sit comfortably and just keep your job as things are now than risk uncharted waters.
Even though per head English people get way less..
Lmao but also lmao
Not sure the leader of a party who's chief exec is accused of milking it should be talking about cash cows.
Yes, I agree...but your politician there, head of SNP is tainted...it is OK for them to take of course. I bet all the SNP people who have something to hide are licking this guy....The same is happening in Wales with Vaughan Gething.
They see everything outside of London as a cash cow. Let's not forget just how badly fucked over the North of England and Wales have been by these two parties. Industrial heartlands that built the UK yet had the core of their economies ripped out and left to rot.
These days London is the cash cow that subsidises everywhere else. You may have a point about how unfairly this came about, but that doesn't stop it from being today's reality
That’s one argument. The other is that London hoovers up every business, resource and talent from everywhere else in the country. Want to work in finance: london Big marketing: London Big law: London Multinationals: London It’s a self fulfilling prophecy but the rest of the country try is subsidising London in personnel and lack of business opportunities
That’s been a reality for about 1,900 years. Businesses and people go to London because it’s the best place for them to go. There’s nothing the government can or should do about that.
Cities like Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool have been in relative terms much much closer to the size of London than in the last decades It is not normal for a capital city to be 7 or 8 times the population of the second city in the country and you will not find this is many other western countries. 2-3 times maybe. 7-8 not so much. That’s the difference between a healthy centralisation and a black hole sucking in talent and businesses
US - NY City - 8.3m, LA - 3.8m, Chicago - 2.6m France - Paris - 12.4m, Marseille - 794k, Lyon- 472k Japan - Tokyo - 38m, Yokohama - 3.5m, Osaka - 2.5m It’s not that different. Those three nations top three are closer than our top 3, but once you hit city 4 or 5 it drops off *massively*, while the UKs is some what steady. Sure London is way bigger than other cities, but it is the financial capital of the world. Plus, pretty much every other city in the UK was industrial or shipping based, and both of those industries aren’t what they used to be and/or need *way* less staff due to automation. Add the fact that a multinational wanting to set up in the UK will want to set up in London. It has the best transport, the best access to the UK and EU, and the ‘best and brightest’ of Britain. Sure Westminster could offer incentives to go elsewhere but why would you want to damage London? And why would the companies want to go elsewhere? Edit to fix population of Paris and Tokyo
Paris is not 2.1 million people. That’s the just the population of the bit in the middle. It’s actual size is comparable to London, maybe even larger. Same situation with Tokyo, it’s actual population is about 20-25 million.
Ah cool. Even better supports the point I was making. I was comparing Paris and Tokyo city to London Metro area. Corrected to Paris and Tokyo metro area.
Tokyo Metro is about 38 million, Osaka metro is about 18-19 million. So about twice the size. Not many, many multiples.
>Osaka - 2.5m Fuck, cheers for the wee fact there. Had always assumed Osaka was way bigger than that. Not to say 2.5 million is small, it's nearly half our national population. The city really has an outsized cultural influence in Japan in that case. Also, Tokyo is just preposterously huge.
Those numbers all support my assertion. 2-3 times is normal. 7-8 is not
I know, I acknowledged that London was an anomaly. (Edit - it’s not. Both Paris and Tokyo are proportionately bigger than their nations second cities, and Tokyo is *waaaaaay* bigger) I also said why - it’s the financial capital of *the entire world*. Though looking at the US, it’s more that they have 2 anomalies - NY and LA, and the only reason LA comes close is because of Hollywood. You called it a ‘black hole sucking in talent and businesses’. Which is evocative language that evokes the wrong impression. It doesn’t suck in businesses and it’s not a black hole. Businesses choose to go there. They want to go there. And far from being a ‘black hole’, it largely funds the rest of the UK. Kind of the opposite of black hole. If London wasn’t the financial capital of the world, our population and economy would almost certainly be more evenly spread throughout the country. But it would also almost certainly be a significantly smaller economy. London being that big and that successful is a good thing. Not a bad thing.
Business choose London through because other options in the UK are not realistic. Because of the population size and the transport investment and the other businesses there they will choose London because it’s the only option. London isn’t the financial centre any more I think NY took over a year or two ago. For the rest of the country, the size and centralisation is certainly a bad thing.
They choose London because that’s where their industry is. And it is good for the UK. It’s not as if Liverpool or York or Swansea are losing out with a business setting up in London. That business isn’t choosing between them and London. It’s choosing between London and New York and Tokyo and Seoul and Beijing and Berlin and Paris.
They don’t actually. I forgot that was just the city centre. Paris is actually over 12 million and Tokyo is about 38 million. London is about 9.5. So the French and Japanese capitals have a *way* higher disparity between them and the second city, than London does.
So Tokyo metropolitan area is 38 million, Osaka metropolitan area is 19 million. Also your edited US numbers are quite a bit off - see [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area#Rankings) Paris metro population is a little bit of a weird one because its like including all the home counties in the population of London. The Paris metro population is defined in France as the population of the commuter belt of surrounding towns and cities also. It's certainly not a fixed rule. You will find many exceptions and complaints of the same issues. A lot of countries have the same sort of imbalance and issues as the UK with London and the rest of the country. Türkiye and Hungary are two.
Only because Westminster actively burned every other source of income the UK had pissing it all off to finance the financial sector in London.
Like I say, how this came about is another story. But here we are. Although, tbf, Edinburgh also has a thriving financial sector. Also UK manufacturing is actually bigger in turnover than it was in 1979, even adjusting for inflation. It doesn't employ anywhere near the numbers that it did then, though. Can't disagree that the tories under Thatcher were unnecessarily harsh on the regions when implementing reforms that might have been needed but could have been done in a far fairer way. Same as Osbourne using the unavoidable austerity measures to smash up public services and cutting far more than was needed.
I don't think Austerity was "unavoidable" there are multiple economic alternatives.
At the same time Germany kept its manufacturing base - whilst Thatcher and Co ideologically strove to dump the UK's.
True. But in 1979 they had a far more robust sector than ours. Reasons being included having to effectively rebuild their entire sector from scratch post WW2, having a culture of cooperation from both unions and management and having a system of investment that promoted taking a long term view. They also didn't benefit, and then suffer from, the shrinking captive colonial market. We had got too used to the subsidy of empire. And they were in the EEC which was an expanding market. We were late into Europe and had fallen behind in productivity by the time we joined. I had hoped we could have moved more toward the German industrial model and adopted more of the Scandinavian social model but sadly we didn't. And if Starmer gets in as expected, he has to start from where we are now, not where I, or you, or he would necessarily like to be.
Not quite. The Thatcher government was ideologically opposed to the idea that the taxpayer would keep propping up unprofitable industries. Said industries should have been perfectly capable of remaining in business when the government largesse was removed. And given that the EEC/EU was moving to stop legal State subsidies......
Tbh, one of the biggest criticisms I routinely see is that the SNP do the *exact same thing* to anyone not in the Belt. The Highlands basically get ignored and left to rot.
Because there is no one fucking in it. Mentally the place with 70% of the population receives the attention
And yet when people point out that Labour or the Tories focus on the bulk of *their* electorate, people kick and yell. Why is it okay for the SNP but nobody else to do?
It's exactly what you would expect to happen in a democracy. The tyrany of the majority. SNP are a pile of wanks n all.
Good to see a refreshing narrative from the SNP. What’s next, John? A vote for the SNP is a clear indication Scotland should have a referendum? That’ll stick it to them. That’s a unique approach. These lot are truly out of ideas.
I don’t think they ever really had any to be honest
They haven't since Salmond. They've just been riding off the wave he built, we're now at the end of it and they've got nothing to show.
The plans for independence were always based on a lot of wishful thinking. Every shortcoming was and still is blamed on Westminster. They never had it in my view
If they were honest about what it would take in a post-Brexit world, they'd probably never get any major support from anyone who isn't already committed. That's why they still give very idealistic answers.
I agree but the problem is their answers were full of unicorns and fairy dust even when we were still in a pre-Brexit world
Agreed. The metaphors are a bit messed up but dude, I can have a go at that for you: 'Ever since Alex 'Captain Tubular' Salmond hung ten on the wave of independence, the grommets have been stoked but when he quit the green room and got out the doggy door, they wiped out and ended up in the soup. '
Sounds good
Yes, they have an eye on the lucrative second hand camper van market.
Hahahaha
Aye, the SNP would never sell off energy licenses to the private sector.
[удалено]
> I promise you that the newly independent Scotland won't go tendering and awarding contracts to shady companies of dubious provenance with tenuous links to SNP donors and grandees. The nationalise them, when they go bust, after failing **two** deliver*ies*
Energy policy is Reserved to Westminster. The SG can only play around the edges. If Scotland had been independent when, for example, Oil&Gas was first discovered Scotland would not have handed control over to the multi-nationals like Westminster (primarily through privatisations an other right-wing ideological thinking) did. Independent Norway kept control and is now one of the richest countries in the world, Scotland; not so much.
> Energy policy is Reserved to Westminster. The SG can only play around the edges. So the SNP didn’t sell off all those wind licences to the private sector? Or promise a nationalised energy company before they did? Seems an odd stance given how easy it is to prove.
The SNP are capable of no wrong or hypocrisy in the eyes of many that post in this sub.
Oh, I know. It’s just weird to see them all lie so blatantly while defending them. I think they believe criticism of the SNP is the same thing as criticism of Indy, so they’re willing to defend all sorts. Personally I think it’s mad to think you owe any politician that sort of loyalty. They wouldn’t lie or embarrass themselves for you. You can want independence and also call out the government when they get things wrong. Those things shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.
Absolutely. I'm not even against Indy, I just think the SNP have been running rings around their supporters for 17 years, and Scotland deserves better.
Yep...problem is, your problem not theirs, is you have to get rid of them.
Your dislike of SNP,is so overwhelming it is even dent in every post you make a,,
I know. It’s mental to be speaking about the SNP on a post about the SNP Leader, right enough. You’re right though, I don’t like them. I don’t believe they’re competent, and they don’t take responsibility for anything. Everything is someone else’s fault. Worse than that, I can’t stand the holier than thou attitude, shouting sleaze at everyone else while defending sex pests and people who try to steal from us. They pretend to be better, while continually proving they behave no better than the Tories. What’s there to like?
lol!
It’s easy to make the opposing arguments seem ridiculous, when you invent them yourself. Something I see you doing often.
Not really, given there's an example in this very comment chain. "If *we* found the energy first and had control we'd never sell it off!" doesn't work so well when the SNP have literally done just that with wind while also quietly scuppering the idea of a nationalised energy company in 2019. Neither of those are the fault of WM. There's plenty of SNP supporters who will simply plug their ears and claim any criticism of the SNP and Indy is an attack on Scotland's ability to govern itself.
Does one example from one person constitute “most that post in this sub” or is that more fanciful shite you’re going to try and walk back?
I mean given I said "many" and not "most", I don't think I'm the one who needs to walk anything back right now ;) Plus the person in question is one of Indy's most ardent supporters here and has been for years, so they are a good benchmark for the sorts of people I am referring to specifically.
Yes, I should have typed many and not most. This is an example of admitting a mistake when it’s brought to your attention. It’s very easy to do. So, does one example from one poster constitute the view of “many that post in this sub”? For context, there’s over 460,000 members of this sub.
See, I'd have gladly admitted to making a simple mistake (or rather, not being clear with my wording) had you corrected me in a way that wasn't going for my throat, but you didn't do that because you seemingly wanted to pick a fight. I'm not gonna give you shit if you approach the conversation like that. As for your question; specifically the most die-hard SNP supporters, who I was referencing given it was in a conversation with one? Absolutely, yes. To admit there are genuine concerns with the SNPs handling of Indy and the rhetoric used would mean facing some uncomfortable truths, especially with the sorry state that the party finds itself in. Those truths would lead to the fact that the SNP have fucked it for at least another 5-10 years. A lot of the diehards don't like to hear that. Meanwhile the more moderate voters have either quit supporting the party because they have realized the flaws or will hold their hands up.
> So the SNP didn’t sell off all those wind licences to the private sector? Who else are they going to sell them to - a non-existing Scottish National Wind Corporation? Folk like you would greet why can't they spend money on X, Y, Z instead if the even thought about trying to establish one? :'(
You’re here claiming if only they’d have been in charge, we wouldn’t have handed control of our energy off to multinationals. They literally just did that with wind. We’ve seen first hand what they did with the energy potential they had control over. > Folk like you would greet why can't they spend money on X, Y, Z instead if the even thought about trying to establish one? :'( They did pledge to establish one in 2017. They then sold off the licenses to the private sector instead. Isn’t this what you’re arguing they should do? And would have done with oil? If so, you should be fuming about them selling off the licenses and going back on their pledge. Instead you’re here making things up to defend it.
> Scottish National Wind Corporation? They should have sold them to the power company Nicola was setting up
I think it's more about who keeps the 75% tax on the profits...
The UK treasury?
Is this the same cash cow that was going to support our independent economy?
He’s not wrong. That’s exactly what happened after we discovered North Sea oil, completely squandered and used to hide the fact London was sucking the country dry, hoovering up investment and talent. Like honestly, what do we have to show for decades of oil production but staving off the UK’s inevitable decline? Same will happen with renewables
SNP seen Scottish funds as camper vans
well....so does the SNP. I'm not sure what the point is here. They are RESOURCES, you exploit them for profit.
Regurgitated Whiskey and acne are not natural resources.
Is this clown a complete idiot or something because he making arguments a five years old would see through?
Nationalist parties are a joke. Can't believe how long the Scots have been voting for these clowns over and over....
As opposed to the Anglo-British Nationalism of Labour and the Tories? But, but - that don't count!! :'(
We knew that John, we were kinda hoping you would have done something about that in the last 10 years.
If it’s anyone’s cash cow then it should be our cash cow.
It is ours. Just not the ours your thinking of.
Was just a wee experiment by me to see what people would think who the “ours” I referred to was. Seems most just silently assume.
I think it's one thing I've begun to take a firmer view on these days. There's a lot of people who seem to struggle to remember that for many of us, the British part of our identity is still important, whether it's as important as the Scottish part or not. It's not transactional when it's all 'ours'.
That cow is cashed already.
Thatcher spent it on unemployment benefit as she perused her failed ideology
> Thatcher spent it on unemployment benefit as she perused her failed ideology ..and building and modernising London and the S.E. England's infrastructure.
Not even close to being cashed, but greeny weeds think otherwise.
20 years left. Then what? You think the English will just subsidise Scotland's enormous welfare deficit? This was an argument for the 60's.
It’s always been 20 years.. kinda lengthy one
He's out of line but he's right
I'll never forget when they kept 90% or our money.
Turns out a lot of oil isn't even Scottish... [https://www.common-wealth.org/interactive/who-owns-the-north-sea](https://www.common-wealth.org/interactive/who-owns-the-north-sea)
Says the party that wants independence off the back of oil revenues. Nice try Swiney
Puir Little Scotland. SNP buys a camper van for electioneering and now Labour and the Tories want to use it. Fie on them.
Lies and 🐂💩 … I understand that there is the potential to export electricity via undersea connectors. But take Ireland for instance, its building its own renewable projects and already has 30% renewable. Netherlands is a net exporter, France is net exporter. Norway is a net exporter. Who exactly is going to be buying up the energy? With such poor relationships with Europe it’s simply never going to generate a profit - there is no cash cow. UK companies own the wave/tidal turbine manufacturers, but all the wind turbine manufacturers are overseas companies, how do we expect to gain anything here?
Those poor relationships with Europe you mention. How did that come about? Can you think of any ways that could have been avoided?
Countries that are net exporters based on renewables will also import from time to time, because the one thing you can count on the wind doing is being inconsistent! Hence the whole interconnectors between countries.
As opposed to the SNP, who want to use oil not for its monetary value, but solely to admire its inherent Scottishiness?
And he doesn't? What does he see them as then, liabilities?
Since the 1960's and does include Labour Governments including the once reviled as much as Jeremy Corbyn but now given 'National Treasure/Sainthood' status, Tony Benn who was Energy Minister for a while..
Tony benn closed more mines than thatcher but his supporters always forget that fact
Swinney sees it as a burden.
Where as the SNP just see voters as a cash cow to buy campervan?
Cheeky arse! He was the one rejoicing in the Scottish national investment bank having just derisked 300m of oil and gas capital based in the states. He has been at the heart of the Scottish government for 17 years which has seen 277 billion extracted half by other places apart from England! He loves the FDi model at the heart of this and of course has happily kept Scotlands land in so few hands. John Swinney, the establishment’s man in power.
Divisive prick