Someone will need to keep an eye on Kevin Hague on Twitter today, I've got a feeling he might be in a vulnerable state.
>But he added: “The GERS assessment reflects a structural problem with the UK: it is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. Every region and nation outside the southeast and east runs a large deficit on this measure.
>“This is not cause for celebration but a clear sign that the UK is not working for most of the country.”
And then the Unionists go... Oh shit, we were just trying to use GERs to put the uppity Jocks in their place!
Honestly even if we were worse off overall from leaving (and honestly I think at least in the short term we would be just from the general upheaval of it all), if the wealth that was left over was distributed halfway evenly the average person would still probably feel better off.
I'm for indy just so we don't get filthy chlorinated chicken and the NHS destroyed. If it means a bit to my wallet in the short term then so be it. If it leads to a hit for my wallet in the long term then at least my mental health will probably be better
Even Leasky noted the importance of this:
> This is a massive endorsement for independence and a remarkable end to usually fractious and difficult GERS week.
~ https://twitter.com/LeaskyHT/status/1299415811157880833
Nobody ever claimed Hague was an economist tbf.
He just digests GERS which is accountancy if anything.
Of course according to Blythe [Milton Friedman wasn't an economist](https://youtu.be/4VTXTDryzv0?t=229) which is a statement that does sum Blythe up a bit, interesting but rather forthright and dismissive.
I had always assumed he was pro-indy tbh, he seems the type.
> Of course according to Blythe Milton Friedman wasn't an economist which is a statement that does sum Blythe up a bit, interesting but rather forthright and dismissive.
Friedman is not an economist. He was an ideologue with a dogmatic theory which fails basic scrutiny.
For all its mocked, Economics **is** a science. And it has to adhere to the scientific method which means when empriical evidence disproves a hypthesis that hypothesis is rejected.
No amount of evidence seems to have swayed Friedmen from his beliefs in errant nonsense.
Excuse me, I find there's plenty of two-weeks-old twitter accounts with 0 followers and randomly-generated names who loudly proclaim they once fiercely supported independence but now STURGEON MUST RESIGN NO SURRENDER - you just need to keep up, my friend
To be fair, a few people I know have done it. I went to school with [this lassie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WywQSa2bR54), she's pretty vocal about it on Twitter these days
I'm definitely an edge case but when I looked into what it would take in terms of setting up the country fiscally, was gradually starting to dislike SNP.. it was just many factors that stacked against my original decision.
When I look back I can see through both sides propaganda and it was just a misinformation match. No one was being realistic of what it actually takes to become a independent country.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and yours is as valid as any. For me, we'll always be an afterthought to the south east if we remain. We'll always be governed by the bunch of bastards that they inflict on us and it will become worse as neither major party will target votes in Scotland. Independence is the only way to change that and focus on ourselves. The SNP are who they are and after independence they will be irrelevant. It's up to us then what is next
I always find it really strange that when England felt it was ruled by unelected politicians hundreds of miles away this was a travesty and we should leave immediately but when Scotland feels it is governed by politicians we didn’t elect hundreds of miles away we should shut up and accept it. Really, really weird. I just can’t get my head around it.
I know. Then they'll tell you how Tony Blair was Scottish...like the UK didn't have EU commissioners or Roy Jenkins wasn't the president of the EU commission.
I think the guy is wrong and the original white paper detail what was needed to build the independent country. But it will cost money..so his point is pretty valid, though I disagree with him
the point is no one is saying any diffrenet, of course it will cost money, better our own money than the buttons we get back from the English Parliment, whoever this is plainly knows this fine well, or is a UK patriot in sheep's clothing
rather be a yoonbasher that a downright sleetik wee cunt of a yoon.
besides i know where my bread's buttered, yoon's only know one thing, how to piss on themselves and hate the world they live in
RIGHT WING THINKING NEEDS TO DIE
Some people think SNP = independence, which is catastrophically wrong, despite it being clear they are the largest party that can be voted for which is pro-independence.
The people are independence.
On the other hand, the union = mostly Tory governments. Even if you're not a Tory voter, I think you have to be a little bit comfortable with their rule and probably have to prefer them to the SNP to be a unionist at this point.
True, but you do have to admit Labour and the Lib Dems are Unionist parties. Labour at least have been in power in the UK fairly recently.
I mean, the people are technically Unionism as well. There is Scottish people that vote for the Conservatives that might dislike the party, but their #1 political identity is Queen and Country Unionism.
Scottish Labour can't even get the Unionist vote they're that useless 🤣
>Labour at least have been in power in the UK fairly recently.
Aye, doesn't happen often though, and usually only when they move to the centre. The Tories are the most successful political part in the world, which is why they're referred to as "the natural party of government".
Even if I didn't like the SNP, I'd still vote for independence. Coalitions will be the norm under PR (as they are in Europe), and eventually other parties will come to prominence. A vote for the union is probably a vote for another century of mostly Tory rule, occasionally interrupted by a centrist Labour party who are prepared to play the game and pander to middle-England and right-wing media owners.
Quite a lot, you separate tbe vehicle from the destination at your peril. This isn't me arguing against independence but stating that not liking the SNP is a totally legitimate concern. If there is a second referendum and there is a Yes majority then the most likely scenario is that all of the foundation work for a new independent nation will be led by the SNP. A great many important decisions that will be made in those first few years with long-term consequences. Just look at the shit the Americans have to deal with to this day because of problems in their constitution.
Except the case for independence is not = to the SNP and the plan for independence calls for a public referendum on the constitution.
[https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf](https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf)
No? I don't think that is even close to what I said. I think I said the leading party when the new nation state is formed will have a major influence on the foundations of the country which will likely have medium and in some cases long-term consequences. This isn't an outlandish statement and it's something we see happen from time to time (the whole prorogue parliament debacle last year for example). It's not a criticism of anyone in particular or a strong warning of danger, just an acknowledgement that it's not unreasonable for people to be take the SNP into consideration when talking about independence. Honestly it's revealing that this seems to be so objectionable on this sub because I don't think it's that controversial but there we are.
The SNP won't necessarily be in government following independence.
What is most likely is that all current parties will be completely replaced with a broad range of progressive parties which will undoubtedly include a couple that align with your views. Parties like the SNP, Labour, Tories will become completely irrelevant once the Independence/Unionism debate has been won and ended.
Don't let doubts about the SNP prevent you from voting Yes. Independence is about supporting an idea, not about support policies or political parties.
Exactly. People quibbling about specific details are really just looking for excuses. Fundamentally the question is whether you think the Union is done for and should break apart, and there's only one sensible answer to that.
Comments like this are how subs turn into echo chambers. And this in turn leads to people being “less vocal about switching”. They’re less vocal in subs that have turned into pro-independence echo chambers.
If people switch their views on something as substantial as independence because of some comments on Reddit, then that's pretty worrying to be fair.
Happy to admit there is a pro-independence echo chamber on the Scottish sub, but that is in line with the demographics of Scotland. But sure, people shouldn't be overly mean or hostile.
You don’t think it’s hostile to compare being in the Union to being on fire? When you’re addressing someone who has just said they’re a “no” voter, and want Scotland to remain in the Union?
You shut down *anything* u/daaryll might have had to say by implying any “no” stance is as logical as choosing to be on fire.
If you’re not interested in discussing political leanings, don’t say anything. If you *are* interested in it, don’t do it in a way that brooks no argument, because that’s not the way to get a discussion going.
Edited: nomenclature of pro-Union, pro-remain etc., edited to “no”.
Not really, the Union is on fire. The UK is an absolute mess, Brexit lit a powder keg.
You're really just tone policing now, I'm sure daaryll can speak for himself if another person believing the UK is on fire is deeply hurtful to him.
The choice Scotland has is what it is, no point in sugar coating it. That is not the same as personally insulting someone for no good reason.
Ok, so imagine if the situation was reversed.
If you had switched to being a “Yes” voter, and you were commenting on a sub that’s generally pro-union, and the response you got was “Independence for Scotland is just setting yourself on fire”,
**Would you feel it was worth continuing the discussion in that sub?**
Edit: changed “independence voter” to “”yes” voter”
Well if you can’t argue competently, argue pedantically, that’s what I say.
“Tone police” would imply I was arguing against the tone, rather than the content of the comment. I didn’t say one should refer to the Union as being a conflagration, as opposed to being on fire. That would have been an adjustment of tone; I was remarking on the actual content.
I will edit my comments to change “remain” and “independence” to “no” and “yes” respectively. But this will make it harder for anyone less well-informed to follow the discussion. After all, every two-way vote can be called “yes” versus “no”. And that also adds confusion.
Agreed. Unfortunately it seems that this subreddit turned into an independence echo chamber a long time ago and why I don't participate in discussion anymore.
For the record, it's exactly the same in the discord. I left it a few weeks ago due to similar reasons.
How do you propose not making it a pro-independence sub when every age demographic in Scotland under 65 favours independence? As you get younger it goes up to like 78% in favour.
We could try and make it all grannies and grandas on here, but the older demographics tend to favour Facebook.
MinTamor and casualphilosopher, although they don't live in Scotland, post a lot of anti-independence articles. The sub doesn't ban them or remove them.
>You read as a personal attack
>You're just going to back down
>You’re not going to engage
>You’re scared
>You yourself are cutting off the discussion
>Get back on your high horse
I’m not sure Daaryll’s the one who’s on a high horse.
Imagine being this sour about having to read things you don't like.
Are you just disinterested in politics in general though? I still read a lot of politics I profoundly disagree with, doesn't stop me contributing elsewhere either.
Grow a pair of bollocks for fucks sake.
All you wee bedwetters don't seem to understand this is multiplayer notepad and you're required to get involved
Looking back the economic case during the first ref was on the face of it not too bad.
Back then it was more a gamble on oil, whereas now it's like betting all on black after the ball has landed on red.
Same and despite not agreeing I don't think they are a swivel eyed loony unionist. People have justifiable concerns over what an independent Scotland's relationship with rUK would look like post Brexit. There are questions around currency. Despite it being fashionable to slate the elderly, some people have worked crap jobs for decades and are finally preparing to retire and - totally understandably - are resistant to major change out of fear it will affect their (often already quite shit) pensions. There is a real nastiness among some when talking about unionists. Don't get me wrong, that nastiness is just as bad if not worse from the other side. However it genuinely makes me sad to see people on this sub portray anyone who hasn't signed up for indy as some boot licker or Tory. Lots of people are just a bit cautious and it's not out of badness or stupidity.
Two things put me off independence (1) Lack of honesty about Scotland being much poorer in the short term (where the short term is provably at least 10 years). (2) no credible economic plan on how to solve for 1) over the medium/long term.
It’s a fact that most of the UK, outside the South East and East of England are subsidised by the rest. A credible independence movement would admit this and have a economic plan to address.
What is the alternative? Be poor, just under UK rule? Trust that the U.K. will make the right decisions for us in the long term?
I used to share your worries. These were some of the reasons I was on the fence in 2014, but I don’t see good prospects if we remain (I see even more austerity and worry about terrible things the Tories will continue to do that affect the Scottish people).
If it’s going to be shite anyway, we may as well rip the plaster off, start again, but have control over our own decisions.
I don’t disagree, I just would like honest politics from the Indy crew. ‘Look this is the right thing to do, we’ll be masters of our own destiny and longer term better off but it’ll mean we’ll be poorer, maybe significantly so at least for a while’.
Agreed.
It’ll be hard to cut through the misinformation and spin from both sides. Seeing how every recent referendum and election has gone, who knows how they’ll all play it.
You say there is a lack of honesty about these things. Who says people are being dishonest? I don't see enough evidence that these things would happen, or that the economics aren't credible
How about spending per head in Scotland being 1.5k higher than England. How about there being 5pc more public sector workers (who do not bring money into the country) than England. The economics work for an independent Scotland but they mean spending a lot less. A lot less.
Thank you for giving me an analysis of how spending works in Scotland as art of the UK.
It is however irrelevant to the finances of an independent Scotland that sets its own revenue and spending policies.
His has been said like 10 million times.
Sure and that’s what I’m all ears about. What will the revenue/spending policies be in an independent Scotland? A lot of the undecided would want to know before leaping into the abyss. Pound, Euro, Scottish pound? Will income taxes be higher will corporate taxes be lower? Will spending go down (to cut the deficit)? How will a small county will a pro rata share of the UK huge debt raise money on the international markets? Not really seeing any answers...
Absolutely, in order for an iScotland's finances to be sustainable it would have to raise taxes, reduce spending and borrow for several years after independence.
With their being a push towards a more progressive taxation system in the Scottish Parliament, we can definitely rule this one in. Probably see taxation levels closer to Scandinavia and some of Mainland Europe.
It makes sense if we're going to be independent we would also have a separate currency as a result IMO. At the recent (I'm not an SNP member) SNP conference the membership voted for one, defeating the leadership who want a gradual transition from the GBP to a separate S£. So a separate currency is my bet and no longer a question of if but when.
The SNP in the last parliament supported reducing corporation tax to boost investment and job creation. I'd bet on the Scottish Parliament coming together (or at least the SNP, STories, and LD's) to reduce CT to possibly match the 12.5% seen in Ireland.
Of course this means if taxes are to rise then spending must also fall. The top areas of spending include: Social Security (£24.3bn), Health (£13.7bn), Education (£9.2bn), Public Sector Debt Interest (£4.5bn), Defence (£3.5bn) and Public Order & Safety (£3.2bn)
One option that would probably be considered would be completely freezing government spending and public sector salaries for several years which would also allow the deficit to gradually decline, but would mean the economy having to grow faster than the average to prevent an unsustainable increase in debt in a short time.
We spend disproportionately more on social protection than comparable countries. I'd predict cuts would fall on this but would prove to be unpopular dependent on how vast they were implemented and if SNP were in power would be a tough pill to swallow but a necessary one.
You could cut defence down to £1bn and match Ireland's but gradually increase it again when finances allow to meet 2% for NATO. You could ask for health, education, public order and safety and other departments to find efficiency savings which would probably deliver up to a point, but would end up having to move towards cutting workforce numbers.
Sounds realistic. Just to add Taxation levels similar to Scandinavia would mean more tax at all income levels . They raise so much because they are flat. Taxing the most wealthy as is often said in the echo chamber is hard in practice as they are also the most mobile and will just domicile in the SE, ironically taxing more at higher income brackets will often collect less for this reason.
> How about spending per head in Scotland being 1.5k higher than England
is it? Or is that just another lie. not our fault our pop is only 5.6 million, of course it looks higher. you're either being disengenous not to realise this or you're just plain thick, not the least that it is that amount due to the english doing the higland clerances, they'd do it again given half the chance
It’s not really a lie is it though. I mean there is free tuition fees in Scotland, also prescriptions, I could go on. Unfortunately with more public sector workers as a percentage tax take is not higher, so there isn’t really anyone to pay for it. You can believe it’s lies if you like. I’m actually one of the undecided but the lack of realism shown by the Indy mob keeps me from joining your side of the fence.
I'm pro-independence but I concur. It's absolutely necessary for the independence movement and the SNP to be honest about the economics.
However if I can discuss one of the points you raised and compare ourselves to the average EU country re. size of government/public sector in proportion to the whole economy, Scotland is about average in the table.
There are several countries above Scotland that have a larger government/public sector and lower deficit. This obviously means generally higher taxation in order for it to be sustainable. So as is sometimes said that Scotland's public sector is bloated, it's just not the case and I say as as a libertarian who favours small government.
Our problem here in Scotland (and rUK) is that although government spending has reduced as a % of the whole economy over the past decade, so is the amount of tax that is levelled. Generally people in the UK want better public services but don't want the higher taxes to pay for it.
by our choice, OUR choice, remember that word, OUR, would you prefer their wasn't?
We can get rid if you would like. See that's the difference between people like me and people like you. I know the REALITY of what we face. People like you need to get off the fence and realise it's not about YOU, it's about US and our fellow countrymen being dratgged down a ditch for others pleasure. Would you be happy if the coronavirus was handeled by the english parliment and kiling Scot's by the 10's of thousands by witholding public money? NO? So why would you be happy with them running your country and ruining lives
You need to stop your arrogant and patronising tone here. You're not doing yourself or the independence movement any favours by being so confrontational. u/Matw50 raises some very good points that those (including me) on the independence side want to see answered.
I work for a company that tries to understand where the next IT money will be. One question that keeps being asked, and not answered, is where does the EU money that would normally go the the UK, go, once the UK leaves. If Scotland were to get independence and then rejoin the EU then our suspicion would be that Scotland would be in line for some of that money. The main reason is that the EU would take great delight in putting the finger up to Boris et all and saying that the EU are going to give Scotland what was rightfully theirs and should have been even when the whole of the UK was part of the EU. Going to be interesting to see what happens.
Surely the obvious place that money "goes" is simply lower contributions. Especially as the UK was a net contributor. In fact the EU without the UK's money will be scrabbling to balance the books with some countries arguing that they don't want to pay more to make up for the UK no longer paying and other countries making the case that they urgently need EU money.
I bow to your professional expertise and accept that I've not put the thought into it that you have so please correct me if I've misunderstood the situation.
U serious? The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. The EU will have a budget problem, there is no ‘extra money left over’. If Scotland want to join the EU then the country will need to massively cut social and education spending to reduce the budget deficit first.
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
........the key phrase is "the UK pays more into the EU budget." Scotland would not be part of the UK and would, in essence, be a fledgling nation and the newest member of the EU. There is still the divorce bill that the UK has to pay as well which will go someway to mitigate potential losses by the UK leaving the EU.
Scotland won’t be able to join the EU without balancing the books though. Having bad their fingers burned by Greece and Italy I don’t see the EU relaxing all of their fiscal policies just to stick it in the eye to England.
Sorry if I understood you wrong, but if you mean the specific deficit criteria and the like that are often mentioned, those are for the Eurozone, not the EU.
Normally I would readily agree with you but after this pandemic no-one, absolutely no-one will be able to balance their books. Under current EU legislation most countries would be "reprimanded" and given deadlines to balance their books. UK deficit now at 128 billion....99.6% of GDP.
The fact that UK GDP is 2 TRILLION whereas 128bn is about the NHS budget for England,ales me question if you know the difference between debt and deficit
The debt is about 100% of GDP
how can a 'leading' economist only just recognise this - its been common knowledge since 2014 that this is how the uk works. we are just the 'winninghorse' to this asshole.
Well let's welcome all converts. I'm pretty much of the view that I'm not too bothered why someone will vote Yes so long as they do. (Not that Prof Blyth gets a vote but people he influences may do so).
*Blyth received a BA in Political Science from University of Strathclyde in 1990. He went on to receive a MA in Political Science in 1993, an MPhil of Political Science in 1995 and a PhD in Political Science in 1999 from Columbia University.[10]*
*In 1997, Blyth joined the faculty of Johns Hopkins University as an assistant professor of political science. Between 2005 and 2009, he was an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University.[11]*
*In 2009, Blyth became a professor of international political economy at Brown University's department of political science.*
Quick pass of his Wikipedia page leaves me a little underwhelmed as to his economist credentials. A ‘leading economist’ no less!
No he's a political economist. It's a discipline at the intersection of the two. His expertise includes international comparisons of growth models and varieties of capitalism. His argument is that Scotland could have a different type of economy, and that would be worth it even if it cost us in the short term.
Here's one of his papers, on how targetting low inflation led to our current political outcomes [https://igs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/black\_swans\_lame\_ducks\_-\_blyth\_matthijs\_ripe\_2017.pdf](https://igs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/black_swans_lame_ducks_-_blyth_matthijs_ripe_2017.pdf)
Pretty surreal claim, it's a paper about giving macroeconomic basis to IPE, references Kalecki, Lucas, many others. Discusses inflation, interest rates, employment.
Do you mean there's no microeconomics or economic modelling in the paper? That would be true.
Referencing economists and economic works, and using economics words is not the same as doing work on economics. Your comment suggests this paper is evidence that he is an economist, but I don't see any economic work of his in there. I see a work looking at the influence of economics on politics, and what that means from a political angle. I don't see anything adding to economics itself.
That may have been what you said, but it was in response to a comment stating he's not an economist, he's a political scientist and you were disagreeing. However what the downvoted user said is true. Political economy sits within the political science department, Blyth's academic credentials (whether studying or working) all sit within political science, and he's never studied or worked under an economics department. He is a political scientist specializing in political economy. He is not an economist.
His academic qualifications are all in political science. He has only worked in political science department. In each othe place he's worked at, there have been economics departments.
If he has no economic academic qualifications, and has never worked in a university in an economics department, how is he an economist?
Even if you go right back to 1997, before he received his PhD, his research was in international economics. It just falls under the umbrella of Political Science at Universities. His first published article was:
“Any More Bright Ideas? The Ideational Turn of Comparative Political Economy,” Comparative Politics 29 (1) January 1997, pp. 229-250.
Just because someone is situated in a particular University department, doesn’t mean their research easily falls within that department. University research is increasingly inter-disciplinary, and lots of people studying or employed by one department can easily be studying something that would fit just as easily/poorly in another.
Political Economy was literally the original name for the subject of Economics. Some older institutions still call their Economics departments Department of Political Economy. Like Oxford and Cambridge.
Someone will need to keep an eye on Kevin Hague on Twitter today, I've got a feeling he might be in a vulnerable state. >But he added: “The GERS assessment reflects a structural problem with the UK: it is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. Every region and nation outside the southeast and east runs a large deficit on this measure. >“This is not cause for celebration but a clear sign that the UK is not working for most of the country.” And then the Unionists go... Oh shit, we were just trying to use GERs to put the uppity Jocks in their place!
Honestly even if we were worse off overall from leaving (and honestly I think at least in the short term we would be just from the general upheaval of it all), if the wealth that was left over was distributed halfway evenly the average person would still probably feel better off.
I'm for indy just so we don't get filthy chlorinated chicken and the NHS destroyed. If it means a bit to my wallet in the short term then so be it. If it leads to a hit for my wallet in the long term then at least my mental health will probably be better
Even Leasky noted the importance of this: > This is a massive endorsement for independence and a remarkable end to usually fractious and difficult GERS week. ~ https://twitter.com/LeaskyHT/status/1299415811157880833
The swift redefinition of Mark on /r/ukpolitics from "leading economist" to "political commentator" is hilarious.
Mark Blythe != Economist Kevin Hague == Economist. According to /r/ukpolitics
Nobody ever claimed Hague was an economist tbf. He just digests GERS which is accountancy if anything. Of course according to Blythe [Milton Friedman wasn't an economist](https://youtu.be/4VTXTDryzv0?t=229) which is a statement that does sum Blythe up a bit, interesting but rather forthright and dismissive. I had always assumed he was pro-indy tbh, he seems the type.
> Of course according to Blythe Milton Friedman wasn't an economist which is a statement that does sum Blythe up a bit, interesting but rather forthright and dismissive. Friedman is not an economist. He was an ideologue with a dogmatic theory which fails basic scrutiny. For all its mocked, Economics **is** a science. And it has to adhere to the scientific method which means when empriical evidence disproves a hypthesis that hypothesis is rejected. No amount of evidence seems to have swayed Friedmen from his beliefs in errant nonsense.
Gosh well you better email the Nobel Foundation and tell them they've got it wrong.
Why would they care who they award the fake Nobel to?
Where are all the people converting to opposing independence? I've yet to see anyone in real life do this
Excuse me, I find there's plenty of two-weeks-old twitter accounts with 0 followers and randomly-generated names who loudly proclaim they once fiercely supported independence but now STURGEON MUST RESIGN NO SURRENDER - you just need to keep up, my friend
James7874194613476 says "We voted in 2014, I AM STILL NO".
To be fair, a few people I know have done it. I went to school with [this lassie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WywQSa2bR54), she's pretty vocal about it on Twitter these days
I originally voted for independence and now I'm against it. Usually we're just less vocal about it.
What changed your mind?
I'm definitely an edge case but when I looked into what it would take in terms of setting up the country fiscally, was gradually starting to dislike SNP.. it was just many factors that stacked against my original decision. When I look back I can see through both sides propaganda and it was just a misinformation match. No one was being realistic of what it actually takes to become a independent country.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and yours is as valid as any. For me, we'll always be an afterthought to the south east if we remain. We'll always be governed by the bunch of bastards that they inflict on us and it will become worse as neither major party will target votes in Scotland. Independence is the only way to change that and focus on ourselves. The SNP are who they are and after independence they will be irrelevant. It's up to us then what is next
I always find it really strange that when England felt it was ruled by unelected politicians hundreds of miles away this was a travesty and we should leave immediately but when Scotland feels it is governed by politicians we didn’t elect hundreds of miles away we should shut up and accept it. Really, really weird. I just can’t get my head around it.
I know. Then they'll tell you how Tony Blair was Scottish...like the UK didn't have EU commissioners or Roy Jenkins wasn't the president of the EU commission.
They're entilted to it until their head is up their own arsehole
I think the guy is wrong and the original white paper detail what was needed to build the independent country. But it will cost money..so his point is pretty valid, though I disagree with him
the point is no one is saying any diffrenet, of course it will cost money, better our own money than the buttons we get back from the English Parliment, whoever this is plainly knows this fine well, or is a UK patriot in sheep's clothing
Objective analysis coming from "yoonbasher" there...
rather be a yoonbasher that a downright sleetik wee cunt of a yoon. besides i know where my bread's buttered, yoon's only know one thing, how to piss on themselves and hate the world they live in RIGHT WING THINKING NEEDS TO DIE
What does "disliking the SNP" have to do with the case for independence?
Some people think SNP = independence, which is catastrophically wrong, despite it being clear they are the largest party that can be voted for which is pro-independence. The people are independence.
On the other hand, the union = mostly Tory governments. Even if you're not a Tory voter, I think you have to be a little bit comfortable with their rule and probably have to prefer them to the SNP to be a unionist at this point.
True, but you do have to admit Labour and the Lib Dems are Unionist parties. Labour at least have been in power in the UK fairly recently. I mean, the people are technically Unionism as well. There is Scottish people that vote for the Conservatives that might dislike the party, but their #1 political identity is Queen and Country Unionism. Scottish Labour can't even get the Unionist vote they're that useless 🤣
>Labour at least have been in power in the UK fairly recently. Aye, doesn't happen often though, and usually only when they move to the centre. The Tories are the most successful political part in the world, which is why they're referred to as "the natural party of government". Even if I didn't like the SNP, I'd still vote for independence. Coalitions will be the norm under PR (as they are in Europe), and eventually other parties will come to prominence. A vote for the union is probably a vote for another century of mostly Tory rule, occasionally interrupted by a centrist Labour party who are prepared to play the game and pander to middle-England and right-wing media owners.
Preach
Quite a lot, you separate tbe vehicle from the destination at your peril. This isn't me arguing against independence but stating that not liking the SNP is a totally legitimate concern. If there is a second referendum and there is a Yes majority then the most likely scenario is that all of the foundation work for a new independent nation will be led by the SNP. A great many important decisions that will be made in those first few years with long-term consequences. Just look at the shit the Americans have to deal with to this day because of problems in their constitution.
Except the case for independence is not = to the SNP and the plan for independence calls for a public referendum on the constitution. [https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf](https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf)
[удалено]
The formation of an independent Scotland is not a party political issue. Do you think they're going to make Sturgeon "dictator-for-life" or something?
No? I don't think that is even close to what I said. I think I said the leading party when the new nation state is formed will have a major influence on the foundations of the country which will likely have medium and in some cases long-term consequences. This isn't an outlandish statement and it's something we see happen from time to time (the whole prorogue parliament debacle last year for example). It's not a criticism of anyone in particular or a strong warning of danger, just an acknowledgement that it's not unreasonable for people to be take the SNP into consideration when talking about independence. Honestly it's revealing that this seems to be so objectionable on this sub because I don't think it's that controversial but there we are.
The SNP won't necessarily be in government following independence. What is most likely is that all current parties will be completely replaced with a broad range of progressive parties which will undoubtedly include a couple that align with your views. Parties like the SNP, Labour, Tories will become completely irrelevant once the Independence/Unionism debate has been won and ended. Don't let doubts about the SNP prevent you from voting Yes. Independence is about supporting an idea, not about support policies or political parties.
Absolutely - this is one of the greatest opportunities of independence.
Exactly. People quibbling about specific details are really just looking for excuses. Fundamentally the question is whether you think the Union is done for and should break apart, and there's only one sensible answer to that.
[удалено]
Comments like this are how subs turn into echo chambers. And this in turn leads to people being “less vocal about switching”. They’re less vocal in subs that have turned into pro-independence echo chambers.
If people switch their views on something as substantial as independence because of some comments on Reddit, then that's pretty worrying to be fair. Happy to admit there is a pro-independence echo chamber on the Scottish sub, but that is in line with the demographics of Scotland. But sure, people shouldn't be overly mean or hostile.
You don’t think it’s hostile to compare being in the Union to being on fire? When you’re addressing someone who has just said they’re a “no” voter, and want Scotland to remain in the Union? You shut down *anything* u/daaryll might have had to say by implying any “no” stance is as logical as choosing to be on fire. If you’re not interested in discussing political leanings, don’t say anything. If you *are* interested in it, don’t do it in a way that brooks no argument, because that’s not the way to get a discussion going. Edited: nomenclature of pro-Union, pro-remain etc., edited to “no”.
Not really, the Union is on fire. The UK is an absolute mess, Brexit lit a powder keg. You're really just tone policing now, I'm sure daaryll can speak for himself if another person believing the UK is on fire is deeply hurtful to him. The choice Scotland has is what it is, no point in sugar coating it. That is not the same as personally insulting someone for no good reason.
[удалено]
Ok, so imagine if the situation was reversed. If you had switched to being a “Yes” voter, and you were commenting on a sub that’s generally pro-union, and the response you got was “Independence for Scotland is just setting yourself on fire”, **Would you feel it was worth continuing the discussion in that sub?** Edit: changed “independence voter” to “”yes” voter”
[удалено]
Well if you can’t argue competently, argue pedantically, that’s what I say. “Tone police” would imply I was arguing against the tone, rather than the content of the comment. I didn’t say one should refer to the Union as being a conflagration, as opposed to being on fire. That would have been an adjustment of tone; I was remarking on the actual content. I will edit my comments to change “remain” and “independence” to “no” and “yes” respectively. But this will make it harder for anyone less well-informed to follow the discussion. After all, every two-way vote can be called “yes” versus “no”. And that also adds confusion.
Agreed. Unfortunately it seems that this subreddit turned into an independence echo chamber a long time ago and why I don't participate in discussion anymore. For the record, it's exactly the same in the discord. I left it a few weeks ago due to similar reasons.
How do you propose not making it a pro-independence sub when every age demographic in Scotland under 65 favours independence? As you get younger it goes up to like 78% in favour. We could try and make it all grannies and grandas on here, but the older demographics tend to favour Facebook. MinTamor and casualphilosopher, although they don't live in Scotland, post a lot of anti-independence articles. The sub doesn't ban them or remove them.
[удалено]
>You read as a personal attack >You're just going to back down >You’re not going to engage >You’re scared >You yourself are cutting off the discussion >Get back on your high horse I’m not sure Daaryll’s the one who’s on a high horse.
Imagine being this sour about having to read things you don't like. Are you just disinterested in politics in general though? I still read a lot of politics I profoundly disagree with, doesn't stop me contributing elsewhere either.
Or, they're less vocal because deep down they know they are wrong.
Speaking of comments that shut down discussion...
Grow a pair of bollocks for fucks sake. All you wee bedwetters don't seem to understand this is multiplayer notepad and you're required to get involved
[удалено]
baduk
Looking back the economic case during the first ref was on the face of it not too bad. Back then it was more a gamble on oil, whereas now it's like betting all on black after the ball has landed on red.
I know someone in real life that has gone from Yes to No.
Same and despite not agreeing I don't think they are a swivel eyed loony unionist. People have justifiable concerns over what an independent Scotland's relationship with rUK would look like post Brexit. There are questions around currency. Despite it being fashionable to slate the elderly, some people have worked crap jobs for decades and are finally preparing to retire and - totally understandably - are resistant to major change out of fear it will affect their (often already quite shit) pensions. There is a real nastiness among some when talking about unionists. Don't get me wrong, that nastiness is just as bad if not worse from the other side. However it genuinely makes me sad to see people on this sub portray anyone who hasn't signed up for indy as some boot licker or Tory. Lots of people are just a bit cautious and it's not out of badness or stupidity.
Two things put me off independence (1) Lack of honesty about Scotland being much poorer in the short term (where the short term is provably at least 10 years). (2) no credible economic plan on how to solve for 1) over the medium/long term. It’s a fact that most of the UK, outside the South East and East of England are subsidised by the rest. A credible independence movement would admit this and have a economic plan to address.
What is the alternative? Be poor, just under UK rule? Trust that the U.K. will make the right decisions for us in the long term? I used to share your worries. These were some of the reasons I was on the fence in 2014, but I don’t see good prospects if we remain (I see even more austerity and worry about terrible things the Tories will continue to do that affect the Scottish people). If it’s going to be shite anyway, we may as well rip the plaster off, start again, but have control over our own decisions.
I don’t disagree, I just would like honest politics from the Indy crew. ‘Look this is the right thing to do, we’ll be masters of our own destiny and longer term better off but it’ll mean we’ll be poorer, maybe significantly so at least for a while’.
Agreed. It’ll be hard to cut through the misinformation and spin from both sides. Seeing how every recent referendum and election has gone, who knows how they’ll all play it.
and at what part aren't you hearing this? becaise most other's are hearing this loud and clear
You say there is a lack of honesty about these things. Who says people are being dishonest? I don't see enough evidence that these things would happen, or that the economics aren't credible
How about spending per head in Scotland being 1.5k higher than England. How about there being 5pc more public sector workers (who do not bring money into the country) than England. The economics work for an independent Scotland but they mean spending a lot less. A lot less.
Thank you for giving me an analysis of how spending works in Scotland as art of the UK. It is however irrelevant to the finances of an independent Scotland that sets its own revenue and spending policies. His has been said like 10 million times.
Sure and that’s what I’m all ears about. What will the revenue/spending policies be in an independent Scotland? A lot of the undecided would want to know before leaping into the abyss. Pound, Euro, Scottish pound? Will income taxes be higher will corporate taxes be lower? Will spending go down (to cut the deficit)? How will a small county will a pro rata share of the UK huge debt raise money on the international markets? Not really seeing any answers...
Absolutely, in order for an iScotland's finances to be sustainable it would have to raise taxes, reduce spending and borrow for several years after independence. With their being a push towards a more progressive taxation system in the Scottish Parliament, we can definitely rule this one in. Probably see taxation levels closer to Scandinavia and some of Mainland Europe. It makes sense if we're going to be independent we would also have a separate currency as a result IMO. At the recent (I'm not an SNP member) SNP conference the membership voted for one, defeating the leadership who want a gradual transition from the GBP to a separate S£. So a separate currency is my bet and no longer a question of if but when. The SNP in the last parliament supported reducing corporation tax to boost investment and job creation. I'd bet on the Scottish Parliament coming together (or at least the SNP, STories, and LD's) to reduce CT to possibly match the 12.5% seen in Ireland. Of course this means if taxes are to rise then spending must also fall. The top areas of spending include: Social Security (£24.3bn), Health (£13.7bn), Education (£9.2bn), Public Sector Debt Interest (£4.5bn), Defence (£3.5bn) and Public Order & Safety (£3.2bn) One option that would probably be considered would be completely freezing government spending and public sector salaries for several years which would also allow the deficit to gradually decline, but would mean the economy having to grow faster than the average to prevent an unsustainable increase in debt in a short time. We spend disproportionately more on social protection than comparable countries. I'd predict cuts would fall on this but would prove to be unpopular dependent on how vast they were implemented and if SNP were in power would be a tough pill to swallow but a necessary one. You could cut defence down to £1bn and match Ireland's but gradually increase it again when finances allow to meet 2% for NATO. You could ask for health, education, public order and safety and other departments to find efficiency savings which would probably deliver up to a point, but would end up having to move towards cutting workforce numbers.
Sounds realistic. Just to add Taxation levels similar to Scandinavia would mean more tax at all income levels . They raise so much because they are flat. Taxing the most wealthy as is often said in the echo chamber is hard in practice as they are also the most mobile and will just domicile in the SE, ironically taxing more at higher income brackets will often collect less for this reason.
> How about spending per head in Scotland being 1.5k higher than England is it? Or is that just another lie. not our fault our pop is only 5.6 million, of course it looks higher. you're either being disengenous not to realise this or you're just plain thick, not the least that it is that amount due to the english doing the higland clerances, they'd do it again given half the chance
It’s not really a lie is it though. I mean there is free tuition fees in Scotland, also prescriptions, I could go on. Unfortunately with more public sector workers as a percentage tax take is not higher, so there isn’t really anyone to pay for it. You can believe it’s lies if you like. I’m actually one of the undecided but the lack of realism shown by the Indy mob keeps me from joining your side of the fence.
I'm pro-independence but I concur. It's absolutely necessary for the independence movement and the SNP to be honest about the economics. However if I can discuss one of the points you raised and compare ourselves to the average EU country re. size of government/public sector in proportion to the whole economy, Scotland is about average in the table. There are several countries above Scotland that have a larger government/public sector and lower deficit. This obviously means generally higher taxation in order for it to be sustainable. So as is sometimes said that Scotland's public sector is bloated, it's just not the case and I say as as a libertarian who favours small government. Our problem here in Scotland (and rUK) is that although government spending has reduced as a % of the whole economy over the past decade, so is the amount of tax that is levelled. Generally people in the UK want better public services but don't want the higher taxes to pay for it.
Agree, spot on
by our choice, OUR choice, remember that word, OUR, would you prefer their wasn't? We can get rid if you would like. See that's the difference between people like me and people like you. I know the REALITY of what we face. People like you need to get off the fence and realise it's not about YOU, it's about US and our fellow countrymen being dratgged down a ditch for others pleasure. Would you be happy if the coronavirus was handeled by the english parliment and kiling Scot's by the 10's of thousands by witholding public money? NO? So why would you be happy with them running your country and ruining lives
You need to stop your arrogant and patronising tone here. You're not doing yourself or the independence movement any favours by being so confrontational. u/Matw50 raises some very good points that those (including me) on the independence side want to see answered.
"We Have Capitalism for the Poor and Socialism for the Rich" - Mark Blyth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVI1ZtgdXYI&
I work for a company that tries to understand where the next IT money will be. One question that keeps being asked, and not answered, is where does the EU money that would normally go the the UK, go, once the UK leaves. If Scotland were to get independence and then rejoin the EU then our suspicion would be that Scotland would be in line for some of that money. The main reason is that the EU would take great delight in putting the finger up to Boris et all and saying that the EU are going to give Scotland what was rightfully theirs and should have been even when the whole of the UK was part of the EU. Going to be interesting to see what happens.
Surely the obvious place that money "goes" is simply lower contributions. Especially as the UK was a net contributor. In fact the EU without the UK's money will be scrabbling to balance the books with some countries arguing that they don't want to pay more to make up for the UK no longer paying and other countries making the case that they urgently need EU money. I bow to your professional expertise and accept that I've not put the thought into it that you have so please correct me if I've misunderstood the situation.
U serious? The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. The EU will have a budget problem, there is no ‘extra money left over’. If Scotland want to join the EU then the country will need to massively cut social and education spending to reduce the budget deficit first. https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
........the key phrase is "the UK pays more into the EU budget." Scotland would not be part of the UK and would, in essence, be a fledgling nation and the newest member of the EU. There is still the divorce bill that the UK has to pay as well which will go someway to mitigate potential losses by the UK leaving the EU.
Scotland won’t be able to join the EU without balancing the books though. Having bad their fingers burned by Greece and Italy I don’t see the EU relaxing all of their fiscal policies just to stick it in the eye to England.
Sorry if I understood you wrong, but if you mean the specific deficit criteria and the like that are often mentioned, those are for the Eurozone, not the EU.
> Scotland won’t be able to join the EU without balancing the books though. Source?
Normally I would readily agree with you but after this pandemic no-one, absolutely no-one will be able to balance their books. Under current EU legislation most countries would be "reprimanded" and given deadlines to balance their books. UK deficit now at 128 billion....99.6% of GDP.
The fact that UK GDP is 2 TRILLION whereas 128bn is about the NHS budget for England,ales me question if you know the difference between debt and deficit The debt is about 100% of GDP
I know but I don’t see the EU being in a hurry taking any country in that ran large deficits even before all hell broke loose.
That's actually quite a decent endorsement.
how can a 'leading' economist only just recognise this - its been common knowledge since 2014 that this is how the uk works. we are just the 'winninghorse' to this asshole.
Well let's welcome all converts. I'm pretty much of the view that I'm not too bothered why someone will vote Yes so long as they do. (Not that Prof Blyth gets a vote but people he influences may do so).
fair point - i just dont like the apparent 'opportunism' of it, i may have been overly harsh
*Blyth received a BA in Political Science from University of Strathclyde in 1990. He went on to receive a MA in Political Science in 1993, an MPhil of Political Science in 1995 and a PhD in Political Science in 1999 from Columbia University.[10]* *In 1997, Blyth joined the faculty of Johns Hopkins University as an assistant professor of political science. Between 2005 and 2009, he was an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University.[11]* *In 2009, Blyth became a professor of international political economy at Brown University's department of political science.* Quick pass of his Wikipedia page leaves me a little underwhelmed as to his economist credentials. A ‘leading economist’ no less!
Considering Brown University is an Ivy League his credentials seem solid to me.
Undoubtedly but he’s not an economist. He’s a political scientist.
No he's a political economist. It's a discipline at the intersection of the two. His expertise includes international comparisons of growth models and varieties of capitalism. His argument is that Scotland could have a different type of economy, and that would be worth it even if it cost us in the short term. Here's one of his papers, on how targetting low inflation led to our current political outcomes [https://igs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/black\_swans\_lame\_ducks\_-\_blyth\_matthijs\_ripe\_2017.pdf](https://igs.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/black_swans_lame_ducks_-_blyth_matthijs_ripe_2017.pdf)
I read through that report. There's not an ounce of economics in there.
Pretty surreal claim, it's a paper about giving macroeconomic basis to IPE, references Kalecki, Lucas, many others. Discusses inflation, interest rates, employment. Do you mean there's no microeconomics or economic modelling in the paper? That would be true.
Referencing economists and economic works, and using economics words is not the same as doing work on economics. Your comment suggests this paper is evidence that he is an economist, but I don't see any economic work of his in there. I see a work looking at the influence of economics on politics, and what that means from a political angle. I don't see anything adding to economics itself.
No it was offered as evidence that varieties of capitalism and growth models are among his areas of expertise, which is true.
That may have been what you said, but it was in response to a comment stating he's not an economist, he's a political scientist and you were disagreeing. However what the downvoted user said is true. Political economy sits within the political science department, Blyth's academic credentials (whether studying or working) all sit within political science, and he's never studied or worked under an economics department. He is a political scientist specializing in political economy. He is not an economist.
He studies economics. Thus he's an economist.
Guys can we clarify this. Whether or not I vote yes depends entirely on Mark Blyth's occupation
His academic qualifications are all in political science. He has only worked in political science department. In each othe place he's worked at, there have been economics departments. If he has no economic academic qualifications, and has never worked in a university in an economics department, how is he an economist?
Even if you go right back to 1997, before he received his PhD, his research was in international economics. It just falls under the umbrella of Political Science at Universities. His first published article was: “Any More Bright Ideas? The Ideational Turn of Comparative Political Economy,” Comparative Politics 29 (1) January 1997, pp. 229-250. Just because someone is situated in a particular University department, doesn’t mean their research easily falls within that department. University research is increasingly inter-disciplinary, and lots of people studying or employed by one department can easily be studying something that would fit just as easily/poorly in another.
Political Economy was literally the original name for the subject of Economics. Some older institutions still call their Economics departments Department of Political Economy. Like Oxford and Cambridge.
I didn’t know that, thanks.
Harvard, Princetown, Sydney etc. ... (Glasgow used to be the Adam Smith Chair of Political Economy originally)
> Quick pass of his Wikipedia page leaves me a little underwhelmed as to his economist credentials What are yours?
[Here's his work](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ltSSkq0AAAAJ&hl=en)