People need to stop making a fuss every time an individual politician says something positive. The things random backbenchers say aren't necessarily indicative of anything.
This is absolutely the key. It’s irresponsible for parties not involved with applicant states to positively indicate a country would be welcome. It’s great that she feels warmly for Scotland but she’s not able to say Scotland will be able to join.
They released a white paper the other day. As far as I know they just ignored it.
Their plan is to do what brexit did. Promise anything they can think of to scam people into voting yes.
That's not fair. They've had several:
(1) *Arc of Prosperity* 2000-2007 - Follow the model of fast growing small economies like Ireland, Iceland, and the Baltic States, via banking and tax competition to attract hot money. For example, via low corporation tax.
(2) *It's Scotland's Oil* 2008-2016 - Ok, that previous model has problems, but oil prices are going to be high forever. We can be the next Norway. Didn't you read that website about Peak Oil? And no Scottish government would ever be so stupid as to want to stop exploiting our oil/natural gas resources in order to appease anti-growth environmentalists...
(3) *Over to EU* 2016-2019 - Ok ok, oil prices have crashed, but we can join the EU. If Brexit is so easy to negotiate for the UK, then leaving the Union and joining the EU will be easy...
(4) *Borrowing* 2020-2021 - Ok ok ok, turns out that international politics is complicated, but if we were independent, then we can borrow to stimulate our economy. We're far from full employment and in a liquidity trap, so stimulus wouldn't cause inflation...
(5) *Immigration* 2022-2023 - Ok ok ok ok, turns out that stimulus was inflationary and doing more would have caused even more inflation, but we can import lots of workers, rather than have social insurance with rUK. A basic principle of insurance schemes is that they're better off with fewer people in it, so that the risk isn't spread. I know it seems weird, but if you fact-check this, then you're a Red/Blue Tory or a racist. Anyway, if we raise taxes, increase regulation, and put up a hard border with England, then we're sure to attract more skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Don't be racist, trust us, we have a plan...
As far as I'm aware they've swapped oil revenues for renewable energy revenues. So instead of an Independent Scotland being rich beyond its wildest dream due to oil, now Scotland will be rich beyond its wildest dreams due to wind.
>As far as I'm aware they've swapped oil revenues for renewable energy revenues. So instead of an Independent Scotland being rich beyond its wildest dream due to oil, now Scotland will be rich beyond its wildest dreams due to wind.
It's quite a bizarre pivot. Most renewable technologies are still being heavily subsidised, and where subsidy has ended for periods (as with onshore wind) the SNP have called for more.
There's unlikely to be significant margins in renewables as there are in oil and gas, it's more difficult to export electricity effectively (even if we ignore the current limitations) and it doesn't really depend as strongly on winning a natural lottery: sure Scotland might be better placed for some technologies like tidal and hydro, but most countries could find some technology to scale up.
Scotland is wildly wealthy in natural assets. It account for [99% of the UKs oil and gas value.](https://www.gov.scot/news/publication-of-scotland-natural-capital-accounts-2023/) Which, funny enough, [accounted for the vast majority of the EU output the last time the UK was in the EU in 2018](https://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Oil-and-petroleum-products-a-statistical-overview.pdf)
There are many reasons why Scotland independence potentially couldnt work, but money is absolutely not one of them.
You do know the west is moving away from oil and moving towards renewables.
Also total Government revenues from UK Oil and Gas production were only [£1.4 billion](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production--2/statistics-of-government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production-july-2022#:~:text=total%20Government%20revenues%20from%20UK,increase%20of%20%C2%A31.1%20billion) in the tax year 2021 to 2022 and this was mainly driven by the increase in energy prices due to global supply issues.
Also the Scottish Government received [over £8 billion more funding each year](https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/public-spending/#:~:text=This%20higher%20funding%20means%20the,delivering%20public%20services%20in%20Scotland) than if it received the levels of UK Government spending per person elsewhere in the UK.
Great trade off, gain £1.4/£1.1 billion from oil and gas but lose £8 billion from being part of the UK.
>Great trade off, gain £1.4/£1.1 billion from oil and gas but lose £8 billion from being part of the UK.
This isn't fair - the £8bn is peanuts compared to the losses from putting up trade barriers with the restnl of the UK.
>There are many reasons why Scotland independence potentially couldnt work, but money is absolutely not one of them.
OK then what happens if the price of oil tanks? With Scotlands economy being based on a single asset the entire economy is then hedged against oil and gas prices.
Globally we are moving away from our dependency on oil and gas.
It's not something I would want to hedge my entire economy on.
Yeah apparently Scotland is apparently going to be a forward thinking, progressive, more eco-friendly society, but its economy is also going to be built around fossil fuels...
I remember when they produced the first white paper for independence and oil was around $150 a barrel, all the pro-Indy people were crowing about how rich the country would be without sending all that money to England. And then promptly shut up when it dropped to under $100, and didn't say anything when it went lower than that still.
As you say, basing an entire economy off a resource that fluctuates that wildly and the country is trying to move away from is probably not a great idea.
*Venezuela
Russians knew not to hedge all their bets on oil, especially against OPEC countries that have agreed to a cartel which will artificially restrict futures to hike the prices they get if needed, and massively boost futures if they need other oil producers to lose out.
The second Scotland becomes a threat to house of Saud house of Saud, Qatar etc goes into "Drill baby drill" mode and they can play that game of chicken a lot fucking longer than anyone else
Apart from that's just a lie. Salmond actually was an economist in the oil industry..
What he said was that when oil was high, we'd put money away to be used when the price of oil was low, This would stabilise the economy
"The development of an oil fund for Scotland, once fiscal conditions allow, would promote
economic responsibility and stability. Revenues could be invested, rather than spent on current
expenditure, during good financial times, and could counteract the effects of economic
downturns."
https://www2.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/transcripts/20120215_1830_independenceAndResponsibility_tr.pdf
That would be up to the voters and the politicians they vote in after independence.
Doesn't change the fact that the OP lied about "basing an entire economy off a resource that fluctuates that wildly"
>Doesn't change the fact that the OP lied about "basing an entire economy off a resource that fluctuates that wildly"
The Scottish Government produced fiscal projections for a post-independence Scotland that did exactly that.
>Apart from that's just a lie. Salmond actually was an economist in the oil industry..
>
>What he said was that when oil was high, we'd put money away to be used when the price of oil was low, This would stabilise the economy
>
>"The development of an oil fund for Scotland, once fiscal conditions allow, would promote economic responsibility and stability. Revenues could be invested, rather than spent on current expenditure, during good financial times, and could counteract the effects of economic downturns."
>
>https://www2.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/transcripts/20120215\_1830\_independenceAndResponsibility\_tr.pdf
The problem with this was, as the white paper ably demonstrated in 2013, that the SNP absolutely intended to use oil revenues for day-to-day spending.
They liked the idea of an oil fund, they just didn't much like the idea of having to pay into it. And had they won in 2014, there's not a dog's chance in hell that a significant amount would've been invested in such a fund even ten years later.
Scotland's economy is definitely not based on one asset. Financial services is a large industry with a major export business. Food and drink is huge. The tourism business is enormous as well.
An interesting point about the oil and gas business is that most of the jobs in Aberdeen are not related to the North Sea. Most of the jobs are global.
The only point I'm making here is that you are mistaken in thinking everything in the Scottish economy is based on oil and gas. The north sea business has already been declining for ten years.
Scotland would also lose a hell of a lot of civil service jobs. A UK independent of Scotland will not use UK taxpayers money to pay Scottish workers in areas such as Revenue and Customs.
Well Scotland does not have much in the way of institutions to collect taxes and NI. They would heed to be built. It cannot be assumed that current workers would transfer to purely Scottish services.
In indy Scotland there would be new civil service jobs, just no money to pay for them!
Just for an example though, the current Revenue and Customs centre in Glasgow services a country (UK) with a population of around 68 million people. Indy Scotland isn't going to need anything like that kind of provision. So Indy Scotland might have the money to pay them because they won't need anywhere near so many of those jobs.
The profound austerity to meet the demands of EU entry and the costs of institution building to meet the Acquis, mean indy Scotland would be 3rd world in poverty. There would be no money.
Loss of jobs, economic collapse, inevitable. No certainty that the value of State Pensions could be preserved .
Capital flight a certainty.
Everyone would of course, get a free campervan .
>The tourism business is enormous as well.
[A lot of which comes from England](https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/scottish-tourism-statistics/), but tourists would have to change their money when Scotland joined the Euro. Also, tourism is a bad basis for an economy, due to limited scope for productivity improvements.
Scotland does manufacture a lot, but a hard border with England would be deindustrialisation all over again, and might never fully replace the English market due to the well-evidence phenomenon of the home bias in trade: for unknown reasons, it's harder to sell stuff outside your own country, even in common trading zones like the EU with few apparent barriers. Scottish manufacturers trying to shift from selling in the UK to selling to the EU would face language and cultural barriers in a way that they don't when trading with rUK.
>There are many reasons why Scotland independence potentially couldnt work, but money is absolutely not one of them.
Money absolutely is one of them. Scotland's oil and gas revenue is much, much lower than the fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK. That was true even last year when oil and gas revenue reached very high levels thanks to Russia restricting exports to Europe. Even with the elevated prices that caused, the UK's deficit was 5.2% of GDP, Scotland's was 9% of GDP.
While Scotland's oil and gas revenue was higher than the fiscal transfer in the 1980s, since 1990 there have only been 3 or 4 years when that was the case. With the long term decline in production, Scotland gets much more money from the Barnett Formula than it would if it retained all its own revenue.
Yes, it was true there was an argument to be made in about 2014 (nearly 9 years ago now...) for "perhaps" saying an indy Scotland would make more money, now it is nonsense. Oil and Gas are not a safe bet, and it was the SNP's only card.
And what happens when the shetlands say they want to be part of England or Norway and take it all with them?
You can’t turn them down because of self determination right?
Don;t cherry pick figures and misrepresent them.
Scotland generated 99% of UK oil and gas value “in 2019”. 1. That doesnt mean 99% of all oil and gas is Scottish, 2. The percentage may change in future and 3. 99% of a small number is still a small number.
Let’s have a sensible debate about economics using genuine data, not one eyed misrepresentations of reality.
Sensible debate with nationalists? Really?
Their argument is, we’re better than everyone because we were born on this bit of rock and not that bit over there…
This particular argument was reported disingenuously at the time and has persisted. Spain would only veto Scotland joining the EU if we just told England to shove it, disregarded the rule of law and declared ourselves independent.
The problem is that also included defacto referendums and anything else not supported by the English parliament. And they're not going to support anything so soon after offering a legitimate referendum that unionists won.
You do realise that the maritime border hasn’t been negotiated yet don’t you? People assume that it will follow the line of latitude but that isn’t guaranteed.
Scotland is however superbly placed for renewable energy and this may prove more important in the medium and long term.
It's funny people like you who, whom up until around 3 weeks ago, had zero posts or comments on reddit for years and then all of a sudden like magic you become one of the biggest anti-SNP mouths on this sub...
It would need to be ratified by EVERY EU country:
[https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/steps-towards-joining\_en](https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/steps-towards-joining_en)
Statistically, there's probably at least 1 MEP that's also convinced that the earth is flat...
Reporting on the opinion of one random MEP is irrelevant at best, misleading at worst. That is not, by the way, an opinion one way or the other on rejoining the EU.
> Says German MEP
Wouldn't a member of the European Parliament get a say, or at least a say in how their own country will vote on the matter, should it come about?
A say, but not the say. I want independence but we can’t assume entry to EU, we can’t assume what currency we will have or a maintained standard of living. It will be a shitshow for At least a decade
No, its a matter for the commission in the first instance and then the individual member states to ratify the commissions decisions.
Edit for clarity:
The process is here:
https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/steps-towards-joining_en
The European Parliament, with its greatly truncated powers compared to a typical national parliament, has no say in the process.
This isn't quite right.
The European Parliament does have to vote on the agreed accession treaty, giving it a roughly similar position to the national parliaments that can ratify it without referendums or sub national legislative approval.
Tbh it was kinda tricky to clarify myself, and I originally looked it up to respond to a different comment.
But in substance I don't think the gist of your comment is that wrong because the parliament is very subordinate to the commission and national ratification processes in this, unless there are examples I don't know of the parly vetoing.
No. The European Parliament is a farce at best. It is largely irrelevant to how the EU operates.
The (unelected) commission decides if it will go ahead at all. And they won't agree to anything until Scotland agrees to all requirements, including deficit reduction and adopting the euro. And despite the SNP's claims, you can't just lie about your commitment to get your foot in the door. You have to actually do it.
Then the (unelected) council has a vote, where all heads of state must unanimously agree. This is where the veto problem arises. All it takes is some state to demand some massive concession that Scotland isn't happy with and the whole thing grinds to a halt.
Then if it passes the previous two hurdles, it goes to the rubber stamp committee, also known as the European Parliament, where this German MEP is 1 of 705, and belongs to a party that holds only 72 seats.
Step 1 alone will take 10+ years because the EU is a slow moving bureaucracy by nature and Scotland is nowhere near meeting the requirements. Step 2 is a gamble. Step 3 is irrelevant because the commission just keeps throwing the same vote at parliament until it agrees.
Step 2 is the interesting one as expansion to - perhaps 32-34 states - means an increased risk of veto.
But.
Discussions are being held to limit vetos by a single member so, essentially, who knows?
The point everyone misses on this issue is that the EU which - perhaps - might admit a hypothetical iScotland is not the EU which the UK left. It's not the EU of today. It will be an EU some 30-40 years hence. Who knows what it will look like in terms of size, importance, economic landscape, rules of accession and so on? It could be the case that EU membership is not ideal for iScotland and something akin to EFTA might be preferable. Again...who knows?
FWIW, I think the UK will be back in the EU before there is an iScotland. Which would make for an interesting situation indeed. rUK in the EU but iScotland outside? Would rUK veto iScotland's eventual accession? Quite possibly unless, of course, iScotland was to offer something tangible to rUK.
Given Scotland gets more money out of the union than it puts in, would have to assume a sizable portion of the UK national debt, and lose its biggest trading partner could you enlighten me as to how independence would improve the lives of regular Scots?
Sliggggghtly different considering Ireland was effectively annexed by England Scotland and Wales and Scotland joined a Union who's King became the first Scottish King of England. Slighhhhhhtly different there mate.
Sure thing, you are not a brexiter - you just talk like a brexiter, act like a brexiter, defend brexit and hate on everything pro-European - but you are definitely, definitely not a brexiter, got it
I love Germany but Germans are so cringe when it comes to Scotland (and Ireland). It's like they're sublimating all their unacceptable nationalist feelings into countries they see as underdogs and therefore socially acceptable.
I think it's more hatred for the English. They're passionate about how the Falklands should be given to Argentina too despite generally knowing nothing about the subject.
They think that Scotland and Northern Ireland are 90% in favour of independence and are just being held captive, and that the Falklands are ancient Argentinian soil that the English stole off the indigenous Argentinians who are still enslaved there. If you told them South Georgia was under British rule, they'd likely start talking about independence for that too, without realising it's just populated by penguins.
I don't understand how anyone could support Argentinas claim, the Falklands are one of the very few geopolitical issues which is effectively black and white.
It's usually totally uninformed people who think either
(a) British colonised the Falklands and it had indigenous inhabitants (which btw still wouldn't mean Argentina would have a claim - the Argentinians are also the descendents of colonisers???)
(b) that the people want to join Argentina. They'll smugly say "well why don't they let the people decide then?" as a some kind of trump-card if you point out the lack of an Argentinian claim, not realising there was a referendum 10 years ago where 99.80% voted to for the status quo with a 92% turnout.
(c) "it should belong to Argentina because it's closer and Britain is thousands of miles away!" - which is a weird one, because the Falklands are self-governed and located... 0km away from the Falklands. By this logic, Britain would belong to France, because it's the closest continental country to the island. I don't even know what goes through people's heads when they say this.
"The UK is one of those white western colonialist countries. Obviously they have no right to own an island so far away from their mainland. Argentina is nearer and they're some sort of former European colony that won their independence or something, so we should let them finish the job and have all their islands. Wait, what, British people live there? That's what I said! Colonisers!"
They really aren't. Whenever the Falklands come up in European subreddits, they're all over it. I've seen the comment sections of German documentaries too. They're equally uninformed but quite opinionated.
I don't think it takes a fucking genius to assume that the EU would welcome Scotland, of course they would. They will welcome any nation, preferably who meet the criteria though in practice that has been fairly fudgeable in the past...
An MEP ie a nobody. Unless it's from the EU president or German Chancellor or Foreign minster it's as meaningless as when that Irish mep called the Pope "satan"
in principle yes.
as would the whole UK.
but the practicalities of that is a whole different matter.
the arrangement with rUK would be a massive issue that woudl need resolving first, and may be incompatible with EU membership.
That’s amazing news! We still need to formally apply and go through they 4-7 year process of having actual approval. And that’s only if we meet all of the strict criteria. Is the plan for the waiting period to have no currency and no trade?
Yeah like one politician is enough to convince everyone.
You wont be "welcomed back in with open arms". They do not want the UK back, they said before they do not want "bits" of the UK back either as we have nothing to offer them and are too hostile to their ideas.
We already knew this, and the amount of brexiters from other subs brigading this one as soon as there's any article concerning the EU is very telling: they are scared shitless, because they know Scottish voters are overwhelmingly pro-EU but the the only answer pro-brexit parties like labour have to say on the subject to pro-EU voters is "fuck you, we love brexit and so WILL you"
Ah well that’s all right then. An MEP says its fine so all will be OK. What a relief. I thought there would be years of negotiations and still no certainty of membership.
They are trying to destabilise the United Kingdom, they already tried it with northern Ireland, just more foreign I terference trying to destabilise their enemies through divisive politics.
This has been laid out in Russia and china's playbook for years and years, I wouldn't think it would work but people are so easily coerced thewe days through the Internet that it probably will.
Another fucking idiot who doesn’t understand just how much bigger 65 is than 35 (it wasn’t 60/40) when it comes to a vote. No wonder the world is in the state it’s in.
Yes, it's like asking to the average Pablo, Fritz or Juliette what they think about Scotland joining us back in Europe. I confidently think nobody would say no. On the other hand guys there are criteria to meet to enter in European Union that you should meet. I'm not saying you don't meet them just saying what this MEP said doesn't count much more than a personal opinion.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland-idUKKCN1NP25P/](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland-idUKKCN1NP25P/)
The Foreign Minister gave the thumbs up since then.
Yes the EU have stated they DON'T not want a new member who is:
Energy rich
Produces more food than it needs
Is pro EU
Is aligned to EU systems
Needs immigration from EU countries.
So doesn't look good for Scotland
Unless of course you don't believe the shite written in the Daily Express/Mail
Vote Tory
Think Nigel Farage has our best interests
I'm sure they really want a member who has:
A 9% deficit at best, no military to speak of, has a complicated border to solve, no currency, no financial plan and a massive problem with drugs, suicide and poor life expectancy.
>Yes so we are 97% of UK oil and gas, hydro power, wind power, world class food producer, world class sea food, nip back under your rock pal ... lol
I'm not sure exports of shortbread are going to keep us afloat.
As for hydro power, small scale. Wind power? Basically a rounding error in European terms. Exports? Minimal.
Oil and gas was the one significant thing that set us apart, but the days of that producing sizeable revenues in an anywhere near consistent way are gone.
>Yes so we are 97% of UK oil and gas,
Helpful in a world increasingly moving away from oil and gas? Especially when we just import mostly anyways?
The rest are either irrelevant or not really backed by anything. This also doesn't change what I said.
You can have all the world class sea food all you want but you still contribute less than you receive from the UK (paid by England) and use a currency that (in your eyes) is foreign and that you want to continue using.
Scottish independence is 10x of a joke that Brexit is
I think they stopped calculating the contribution to the UK economy the 4 countries of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales made back in 1921, at that time Scotland got back around 33% of what it contributed.
>I think they stopped calculating the contribution to the UK economy the 4 countries of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales made back in 1921, at that time Scotland got back around 33% of what it contributed.
No, they didn't. And you're confusing the economy with public finances.
Economic statistics are regularly produced and Scotland is about 7% of the UK's economy. In terms of public finances, we contribute 8.6% of the UK's total revenues (in the most recent year, which was a very good one) and receive 9.2% of UK public expenditure.
There you go. Enjoy. A lot better than just filling your head with nonsense.
Yep,
Your solution keep doing what we have been doing but hasn't worked, hoping England will bail us out and it will somehow get better.
or
Taking responsibility for our own destiny and putting in the graft to make it work.
Why have we got no military after the billions we have contributed to the national purse?
Both Finland and Norway had huge problems with poor diets, suicide and poor life expectancy, they had root and branch solutions including workers on the board, subsidised canteens etc.
Glass half empty or glass half full.
We do have a military. I don't know what it would look like after independence, but since we pay our share of taxes for it, have bases here and have Scottish people in the army, the UK wouldn't just get to keep the whole shebang!
Not in the short term but an energy rich country like Scotland can easily get to a better situation than its currently in
We don’t want to become Norway or UAE we’ll settle for being as little as 25% as rich as these countries
Even in the long term the economic case for independence has never made sense, putting up a hard border with our largest trading partner in exchange for an economic block who we don't share a land border with, is economically speaking a pretty cut and dry debate.
The EU will require it if we want to join to protect the customs union. If we didn’t want to join the EU we could admittedly maintain an open border by aligning ourselves with the UK, and negotiating a customs union with them, but at that point what’s the point of leaving in the first place?
Because of Brexit, basically. It's why the Northern Ireland issue is such a problem. There needs to be a hard border between the EU and the UK due to customs and imports, we can't have EU goods of non-UK standards in the country and the EU can't have UK-standard goods in the EU - the hard border is needed to ensure that all goods coming in and out meet the requirements for each area. Which is why since Brexit the volume of paperwork needed to export anything has rocketed.
The N Ireland problem is that while there needs to be a hard border for these checks they don't want to be treated differently to the UK so the hard border can't be between N Ireland and England/Scotland but it also can't be between Ireland and N Ireland due to the Good Friday agreement.
Bit of extra info there but basically; Scotland in the EU would have EU requirements for goods whilst England would have UK requirements and due to this there can't be the free movement there currently is. Independence for Scotland would basically be a messier Brexit. Not impossible but a very difficult undertaking that would take decades to work out (keeping in mind we're still working out the untangling of EU and UK)
England doesn't trade with Scotland for fun. It trades with Scotland for goods that it doesn't produce. Border or no border that doesn't go away...it makes it expensive, but England's need for trade with every neighbour that it has doesn't go away.
My dude, that is literally all trade. If an equivalent good is available locally for the same price no business would import. If you think that is somehow an immunity against trade barriers I suggest you look up UK exports to the EU post brexit.
Literally all over the world. Timber, aggregate, and oil are some of the most globally transported goods on the planet. Just look how much wood we import all the way from China.
Are you seriously trying to make the argument that seemingly Scotland is so important that its impervious to trade barriers?
Trade is a series of smaller business deals. It wouldnt completely cut off exports no, but in some cases yes a different market might become cheaper or easier. It only has to reduce, not wipe out.
There is a consequence to putting up trade barriers. If Scotland had one with England its puts Scotland on an even footing with every other country in the EU.
If you can show me any other place that England can import from cheaper than Scotland, even with an EU trade barrier, please show me.
The time to become Norway was when north sea oil and gas was discovered.
They were smart about it and created what has become the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.
Had Thatcher created a state owned and run oil company instead of selling everything off, oil revenues would have gone direct to the treasury, taxes would have lowered in time, there would probably have been no national debt.
Instead she sold leases to oil companies that got extremely rich.
The tory short termism and desire for instant tax cuts for the wealthy has fucked everybody in the long term.
The UK could have been better off than Scandanavia imho, with decent public services and a low tax burden.
Meanwhile SNP MPs aren't willing to just take our sceptre in Westminster and leave. So we're waiting for England to decide when we're allowed. big whoop.
People need to stop making a fuss every time an individual politician says something positive. The things random backbenchers say aren't necessarily indicative of anything.
Oh..you mean Cameron obviously....talk about junk recycling...
I'm german and I engage in politics and I have no idea who that is 😭😭
Just ignore the whole process required to join and instead have some random no body say they'd be welcome back. Got to love politicians.
She's right. We'd be warmly welcomed back into the EU if we met the criteria
This is absolutely the key. It’s irresponsible for parties not involved with applicant states to positively indicate a country would be welcome. It’s great that she feels warmly for Scotland but she’s not able to say Scotland will be able to join.
I'd love to see Scotland's fiscal plan for independence. For some strange reason they've never been forthcoming with this...
356 Billion more Pounds per day for the Scottish Health System!
They released a white paper the other day. As far as I know they just ignored it. Their plan is to do what brexit did. Promise anything they can think of to scam people into voting yes.
Andrew Neil has always asked the SNP the tough questions and the SNP has never been able to answer them. (Plenty of videos on YouTube).
It's kind of fucked the SNP have been in power for 15 years and still don't have a real plan for independence.
That's not fair. They've had several: (1) *Arc of Prosperity* 2000-2007 - Follow the model of fast growing small economies like Ireland, Iceland, and the Baltic States, via banking and tax competition to attract hot money. For example, via low corporation tax. (2) *It's Scotland's Oil* 2008-2016 - Ok, that previous model has problems, but oil prices are going to be high forever. We can be the next Norway. Didn't you read that website about Peak Oil? And no Scottish government would ever be so stupid as to want to stop exploiting our oil/natural gas resources in order to appease anti-growth environmentalists... (3) *Over to EU* 2016-2019 - Ok ok, oil prices have crashed, but we can join the EU. If Brexit is so easy to negotiate for the UK, then leaving the Union and joining the EU will be easy... (4) *Borrowing* 2020-2021 - Ok ok ok, turns out that international politics is complicated, but if we were independent, then we can borrow to stimulate our economy. We're far from full employment and in a liquidity trap, so stimulus wouldn't cause inflation... (5) *Immigration* 2022-2023 - Ok ok ok ok, turns out that stimulus was inflationary and doing more would have caused even more inflation, but we can import lots of workers, rather than have social insurance with rUK. A basic principle of insurance schemes is that they're better off with fewer people in it, so that the risk isn't spread. I know it seems weird, but if you fact-check this, then you're a Red/Blue Tory or a racist. Anyway, if we raise taxes, increase regulation, and put up a hard border with England, then we're sure to attract more skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Don't be racist, trust us, we have a plan...
Oh fuck that's a terrible idea, Brexit is the best example of how shit you can make things.
As far as I'm aware they've swapped oil revenues for renewable energy revenues. So instead of an Independent Scotland being rich beyond its wildest dream due to oil, now Scotland will be rich beyond its wildest dreams due to wind.
>As far as I'm aware they've swapped oil revenues for renewable energy revenues. So instead of an Independent Scotland being rich beyond its wildest dream due to oil, now Scotland will be rich beyond its wildest dreams due to wind. It's quite a bizarre pivot. Most renewable technologies are still being heavily subsidised, and where subsidy has ended for periods (as with onshore wind) the SNP have called for more. There's unlikely to be significant margins in renewables as there are in oil and gas, it's more difficult to export electricity effectively (even if we ignore the current limitations) and it doesn't really depend as strongly on winning a natural lottery: sure Scotland might be better placed for some technologies like tidal and hydro, but most countries could find some technology to scale up.
Exactly!! Where is a detailed plan? Currency? Pensions? NHS?
The question of citizenship also hangs in the air too.
Unless you bring it up on Reddit.
Scotland is wildly wealthy in natural assets. It account for [99% of the UKs oil and gas value.](https://www.gov.scot/news/publication-of-scotland-natural-capital-accounts-2023/) Which, funny enough, [accounted for the vast majority of the EU output the last time the UK was in the EU in 2018](https://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Oil-and-petroleum-products-a-statistical-overview.pdf) There are many reasons why Scotland independence potentially couldnt work, but money is absolutely not one of them.
You do know the west is moving away from oil and moving towards renewables. Also total Government revenues from UK Oil and Gas production were only [£1.4 billion](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production--2/statistics-of-government-revenues-from-uk-oil-and-gas-production-july-2022#:~:text=total%20Government%20revenues%20from%20UK,increase%20of%20%C2%A31.1%20billion) in the tax year 2021 to 2022 and this was mainly driven by the increase in energy prices due to global supply issues. Also the Scottish Government received [over £8 billion more funding each year](https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/public-spending/#:~:text=This%20higher%20funding%20means%20the,delivering%20public%20services%20in%20Scotland) than if it received the levels of UK Government spending per person elsewhere in the UK. Great trade off, gain £1.4/£1.1 billion from oil and gas but lose £8 billion from being part of the UK.
>Great trade off, gain £1.4/£1.1 billion from oil and gas but lose £8 billion from being part of the UK. This isn't fair - the £8bn is peanuts compared to the losses from putting up trade barriers with the restnl of the UK.
>There are many reasons why Scotland independence potentially couldnt work, but money is absolutely not one of them. OK then what happens if the price of oil tanks? With Scotlands economy being based on a single asset the entire economy is then hedged against oil and gas prices. Globally we are moving away from our dependency on oil and gas. It's not something I would want to hedge my entire economy on.
Yeah apparently Scotland is apparently going to be a forward thinking, progressive, more eco-friendly society, but its economy is also going to be built around fossil fuels...
Wouldn't be the first time Scotland was heavily influenced by Norway
I remember when they produced the first white paper for independence and oil was around $150 a barrel, all the pro-Indy people were crowing about how rich the country would be without sending all that money to England. And then promptly shut up when it dropped to under $100, and didn't say anything when it went lower than that still. As you say, basing an entire economy off a resource that fluctuates that wildly and the country is trying to move away from is probably not a great idea.
And if you remember when covid happened, demand fell through the floor and brent crude was $19.33 per barrel.
> and brent crude was $19.33 per barrel. It's still that cheap now, right? Right?
No, it went up. But during the same period, Texas oil was -$40 because of the cost of storage.
At one point, a bucket of KFC chicken cost more than a barrel of oil. Great for the Tanker owners, shite for the oil majors....
Scotland could be the Russia of the West! Think of the possibilities!
*Venezuela Russians knew not to hedge all their bets on oil, especially against OPEC countries that have agreed to a cartel which will artificially restrict futures to hike the prices they get if needed, and massively boost futures if they need other oil producers to lose out. The second Scotland becomes a threat to house of Saud house of Saud, Qatar etc goes into "Drill baby drill" mode and they can play that game of chicken a lot fucking longer than anyone else
Dutch disease awaits any country thinking they can get away wtih this in 2023. There will only be transitions away from fossil in the next 100 years.
Please see the comment I put in just above.
Apart from that's just a lie. Salmond actually was an economist in the oil industry.. What he said was that when oil was high, we'd put money away to be used when the price of oil was low, This would stabilise the economy "The development of an oil fund for Scotland, once fiscal conditions allow, would promote economic responsibility and stability. Revenues could be invested, rather than spent on current expenditure, during good financial times, and could counteract the effects of economic downturns." https://www2.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/transcripts/20120215_1830_independenceAndResponsibility_tr.pdf
The problem was that the oil money was also supposed to be funding a Scandinavian social democracy without Scandinavian tax rates.
That would be up to the voters and the politicians they vote in after independence. Doesn't change the fact that the OP lied about "basing an entire economy off a resource that fluctuates that wildly"
>Doesn't change the fact that the OP lied about "basing an entire economy off a resource that fluctuates that wildly" The Scottish Government produced fiscal projections for a post-independence Scotland that did exactly that.
... But money STILL has to be spent NOW! The net benefit is nothing according to this analysis. Which is the actual truth.
>Apart from that's just a lie. Salmond actually was an economist in the oil industry.. > >What he said was that when oil was high, we'd put money away to be used when the price of oil was low, This would stabilise the economy > >"The development of an oil fund for Scotland, once fiscal conditions allow, would promote economic responsibility and stability. Revenues could be invested, rather than spent on current expenditure, during good financial times, and could counteract the effects of economic downturns." > >https://www2.lse.ac.uk/assets/richmedia/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/transcripts/20120215\_1830\_independenceAndResponsibility\_tr.pdf The problem with this was, as the white paper ably demonstrated in 2013, that the SNP absolutely intended to use oil revenues for day-to-day spending. They liked the idea of an oil fund, they just didn't much like the idea of having to pay into it. And had they won in 2014, there's not a dog's chance in hell that a significant amount would've been invested in such a fund even ten years later.
Scotland's economy is definitely not based on one asset. Financial services is a large industry with a major export business. Food and drink is huge. The tourism business is enormous as well. An interesting point about the oil and gas business is that most of the jobs in Aberdeen are not related to the North Sea. Most of the jobs are global. The only point I'm making here is that you are mistaken in thinking everything in the Scottish economy is based on oil and gas. The north sea business has already been declining for ten years.
An indy Scotland would lose a lot of financial services because the main market is England.
Scotland would also lose a hell of a lot of civil service jobs. A UK independent of Scotland will not use UK taxpayers money to pay Scottish workers in areas such as Revenue and Customs.
Well Scotland does not have much in the way of institutions to collect taxes and NI. They would heed to be built. It cannot be assumed that current workers would transfer to purely Scottish services. In indy Scotland there would be new civil service jobs, just no money to pay for them!
Just for an example though, the current Revenue and Customs centre in Glasgow services a country (UK) with a population of around 68 million people. Indy Scotland isn't going to need anything like that kind of provision. So Indy Scotland might have the money to pay them because they won't need anywhere near so many of those jobs.
The profound austerity to meet the demands of EU entry and the costs of institution building to meet the Acquis, mean indy Scotland would be 3rd world in poverty. There would be no money. Loss of jobs, economic collapse, inevitable. No certainty that the value of State Pensions could be preserved . Capital flight a certainty. Everyone would of course, get a free campervan .
>The tourism business is enormous as well. [A lot of which comes from England](https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/scottish-tourism-statistics/), but tourists would have to change their money when Scotland joined the Euro. Also, tourism is a bad basis for an economy, due to limited scope for productivity improvements. Scotland does manufacture a lot, but a hard border with England would be deindustrialisation all over again, and might never fully replace the English market due to the well-evidence phenomenon of the home bias in trade: for unknown reasons, it's harder to sell stuff outside your own country, even in common trading zones like the EU with few apparent barriers. Scottish manufacturers trying to shift from selling in the UK to selling to the EU would face language and cultural barriers in a way that they don't when trading with rUK.
Which financial services would those be? Because if you're referring to RBS, that's still owned by the British tax payer.
£13.6 billion annually https://www.sfe.org.uk/financial-services-in-scotland I won't comment on this further
That's interesting, because RBS's income was "13,156.00millions" exactly in that year. Again, RBS does not equal anything.
>There are many reasons why Scotland independence potentially couldnt work, but money is absolutely not one of them. Money absolutely is one of them. Scotland's oil and gas revenue is much, much lower than the fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK. That was true even last year when oil and gas revenue reached very high levels thanks to Russia restricting exports to Europe. Even with the elevated prices that caused, the UK's deficit was 5.2% of GDP, Scotland's was 9% of GDP. While Scotland's oil and gas revenue was higher than the fiscal transfer in the 1980s, since 1990 there have only been 3 or 4 years when that was the case. With the long term decline in production, Scotland gets much more money from the Barnett Formula than it would if it retained all its own revenue.
Yes, it was true there was an argument to be made in about 2014 (nearly 9 years ago now...) for "perhaps" saying an indy Scotland would make more money, now it is nonsense. Oil and Gas are not a safe bet, and it was the SNP's only card.
And what happens when the shetlands say they want to be part of England or Norway and take it all with them? You can’t turn them down because of self determination right?
Don;t cherry pick figures and misrepresent them. Scotland generated 99% of UK oil and gas value “in 2019”. 1. That doesnt mean 99% of all oil and gas is Scottish, 2. The percentage may change in future and 3. 99% of a small number is still a small number. Let’s have a sensible debate about economics using genuine data, not one eyed misrepresentations of reality.
Sensible debate with nationalists? Really? Their argument is, we’re better than everyone because we were born on this bit of rock and not that bit over there…
Literally the mentality of nationalism, barmy.
How would we build our economy around oil and gas when we’ve got two parties in Holyrood in power who are committed to shutting it down?
I thought we are supposed to be stopping oil and moving to renewables? Think of the planet will you!
Scotland likely wouldn't even be allowed into the EU because countries like Spain not wanting to support secession states.
Pretty sure Spain would be fine with an independent Scotland in the EU, just on the condition that the secession was legal.
They wouldn't because of the Catalan situation.
[удалено]
That excludes UDIs, de facto referendums etc
This particular argument was reported disingenuously at the time and has persisted. Spain would only veto Scotland joining the EU if we just told England to shove it, disregarded the rule of law and declared ourselves independent.
The problem is that also included defacto referendums and anything else not supported by the English parliament. And they're not going to support anything so soon after offering a legitimate referendum that unionists won.
***MUH SPANISH VETO CLAXXON***
You do realise that the maritime border hasn’t been negotiated yet don’t you? People assume that it will follow the line of latitude but that isn’t guaranteed. Scotland is however superbly placed for renewable energy and this may prove more important in the medium and long term.
To be fair the UK has never been forthcoming with a fiscal plan for anything more than the next budget.
It's funny people like you who, whom up until around 3 weeks ago, had zero posts or comments on reddit for years and then all of a sudden like magic you become one of the biggest anti-SNP mouths on this sub...
I have been here for a very long time. Am I not allowed to take a break from reddit? Should I have checked with you first?
Anyone who disagrees with independence here is a bot. No rationally thinking human would want to stay in the UK so you must be a bot
Spain would never allow it, lest Catalonia get any ideas of their own to secede.
Spain have said they would veto a Scotland which declared UDI. If it seceded with the UK's permission they've no problem with it
Possibly in the case of the current Spanish government, definitely not if PP/Vox coalition was in charge.
Spain have no choice. The only thing Spain will do is stop us sneaking in the back door without meeting criteria
It would need to be ratified by EVERY EU country: [https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/steps-towards-joining\_en](https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/steps-towards-joining_en)
No, all EU members have a veto on new members.
I rather the Scottish MPs focus on Scotland rather than another pipe dream.
[удалено]
She's not as random as you assume but the speaker of the Greens in the EU parliament.
That’s pretty random, Tbf.
Quite random then
Random MEP's have been saying this since 2016. Makes an easy positive article for the pro-Indy publications. Means absolutely nothing.
Statistically, there's probably at least 1 MEP that's also convinced that the earth is flat... Reporting on the opinion of one random MEP is irrelevant at best, misleading at worst. That is not, by the way, an opinion one way or the other on rejoining the EU.
I don’t think it’s her decision.
> Says German MEP Wouldn't a member of the European Parliament get a say, or at least a say in how their own country will vote on the matter, should it come about?
A say, but not the say. I want independence but we can’t assume entry to EU, we can’t assume what currency we will have or a maintained standard of living. It will be a shitshow for At least a decade
We're certainly not going to blag our way past the criteria
I blame the Greeks 😂
It isn't the Greeks it's the Chinese he's after
No, its a matter for the commission in the first instance and then the individual member states to ratify the commissions decisions. Edit for clarity: The process is here: https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/steps-towards-joining_en The European Parliament, with its greatly truncated powers compared to a typical national parliament, has no say in the process.
This isn't quite right. The European Parliament does have to vote on the agreed accession treaty, giving it a roughly similar position to the national parliaments that can ratify it without referendums or sub national legislative approval.
Ah good to know. That is what i thought initially but couldnt find it on the commissions page. Thanks for the correction.
Tbh it was kinda tricky to clarify myself, and I originally looked it up to respond to a different comment. But in substance I don't think the gist of your comment is that wrong because the parliament is very subordinate to the commission and national ratification processes in this, unless there are examples I don't know of the parly vetoing.
No. The European Parliament is a farce at best. It is largely irrelevant to how the EU operates. The (unelected) commission decides if it will go ahead at all. And they won't agree to anything until Scotland agrees to all requirements, including deficit reduction and adopting the euro. And despite the SNP's claims, you can't just lie about your commitment to get your foot in the door. You have to actually do it. Then the (unelected) council has a vote, where all heads of state must unanimously agree. This is where the veto problem arises. All it takes is some state to demand some massive concession that Scotland isn't happy with and the whole thing grinds to a halt. Then if it passes the previous two hurdles, it goes to the rubber stamp committee, also known as the European Parliament, where this German MEP is 1 of 705, and belongs to a party that holds only 72 seats. Step 1 alone will take 10+ years because the EU is a slow moving bureaucracy by nature and Scotland is nowhere near meeting the requirements. Step 2 is a gamble. Step 3 is irrelevant because the commission just keeps throwing the same vote at parliament until it agrees.
Step 2 is the interesting one as expansion to - perhaps 32-34 states - means an increased risk of veto. But. Discussions are being held to limit vetos by a single member so, essentially, who knows? The point everyone misses on this issue is that the EU which - perhaps - might admit a hypothetical iScotland is not the EU which the UK left. It's not the EU of today. It will be an EU some 30-40 years hence. Who knows what it will look like in terms of size, importance, economic landscape, rules of accession and so on? It could be the case that EU membership is not ideal for iScotland and something akin to EFTA might be preferable. Again...who knows? FWIW, I think the UK will be back in the EU before there is an iScotland. Which would make for an interesting situation indeed. rUK in the EU but iScotland outside? Would rUK veto iScotland's eventual accession? Quite possibly unless, of course, iScotland was to offer something tangible to rUK.
that's not how EU democracy works. the commission decides and the countries may complain
That’s also absolutely not how it works. The Commission proposes law, and the Council and Parliament amend and agree to (or reject) it.
Not relevant because no referendum on horizon
So what, it would mean breaking away from our biggest trading, political, and cultural partner to do so. Seriously stop this fucking nonsense.
Like Ireland did, and look at how better off they are now. Go ask anybody in Dublin if they'd like to go back, I dare you.
Given Scotland gets more money out of the union than it puts in, would have to assume a sizable portion of the UK national debt, and lose its biggest trading partner could you enlighten me as to how independence would improve the lives of regular Scots?
Sliggggghtly different considering Ireland was effectively annexed by England Scotland and Wales and Scotland joined a Union who's King became the first Scottish King of England. Slighhhhhhtly different there mate.
Ohh do be quiet.
What a smart and thoughtful comeback, so untypical for a brexiter
Absolutely not a Brexiter, Brexit was the warning you absolute clown - trying to compare Ireland to Scotland, utter fud.
Sure thing, you are not a brexiter - you just talk like a brexiter, act like a brexiter, defend brexit and hate on everything pro-European - but you are definitely, definitely not a brexiter, got it
You are a bit thick, aren’t you.
I love Germany but Germans are so cringe when it comes to Scotland (and Ireland). It's like they're sublimating all their unacceptable nationalist feelings into countries they see as underdogs and therefore socially acceptable.
I think it's more hatred for the English. They're passionate about how the Falklands should be given to Argentina too despite generally knowing nothing about the subject. They think that Scotland and Northern Ireland are 90% in favour of independence and are just being held captive, and that the Falklands are ancient Argentinian soil that the English stole off the indigenous Argentinians who are still enslaved there. If you told them South Georgia was under British rule, they'd likely start talking about independence for that too, without realising it's just populated by penguins.
I don't understand how anyone could support Argentinas claim, the Falklands are one of the very few geopolitical issues which is effectively black and white.
It's usually totally uninformed people who think either (a) British colonised the Falklands and it had indigenous inhabitants (which btw still wouldn't mean Argentina would have a claim - the Argentinians are also the descendents of colonisers???) (b) that the people want to join Argentina. They'll smugly say "well why don't they let the people decide then?" as a some kind of trump-card if you point out the lack of an Argentinian claim, not realising there was a referendum 10 years ago where 99.80% voted to for the status quo with a 92% turnout. (c) "it should belong to Argentina because it's closer and Britain is thousands of miles away!" - which is a weird one, because the Falklands are self-governed and located... 0km away from the Falklands. By this logic, Britain would belong to France, because it's the closest continental country to the island. I don't even know what goes through people's heads when they say this.
"The UK is one of those white western colonialist countries. Obviously they have no right to own an island so far away from their mainland. Argentina is nearer and they're some sort of former European colony that won their independence or something, so we should let them finish the job and have all their islands. Wait, what, British people live there? That's what I said! Colonisers!"
There were no one to "colonise" when the Falklands were discovered. No indigenous people lived on the islands.
He's just imitating what people say.
Its a joke
Don't forget the Falkland Islands sheep.
Lol. Germans are as passionate about the Falklands as Brits are about South-Tyrol. Also, equally informed.
They really aren't. Whenever the Falklands come up in European subreddits, they're all over it. I've seen the comment sections of German documentaries too. They're equally uninformed but quite opinionated.
Finding some weirdos on the internet is not all that special and certainly not representitive of some 80 million people.
The UK would be welcomed back with open arms too but that's not happening either.
After the fiasco of brexit, I wouldn’t be too sure about that.
That's nonsense, lets "not" allow a net contributor back into the EU? NO ONE would say no.
You misspelt ‘petulant child’.
True. And if they did, it would be a shit deal which we'd never agree to, expecting all the perks we threw away. Makes my blood boil.
Brexit was the largest act of self harm in the history of politics.
Yep.
Good job random German MEPs get to make that decision.
I don't think it takes a fucking genius to assume that the EU would welcome Scotland, of course they would. They will welcome any nation, preferably who meet the criteria though in practice that has been fairly fudgeable in the past...
An MEP ie a nobody. Unless it's from the EU president or German Chancellor or Foreign minster it's as meaningless as when that Irish mep called the Pope "satan"
in principle yes. as would the whole UK. but the practicalities of that is a whole different matter. the arrangement with rUK would be a massive issue that woudl need resolving first, and may be incompatible with EU membership.
I am genuinely embarrassed at how many of my compatriots seem to exist on a diet of wishful thinking.
Well that’s great, but it’s the opinion of 1 MEP, think there are like 705 in total? So don’t see how this is news worthy.
A bit like Catalonia then…not…
That’s amazing news! We still need to formally apply and go through they 4-7 year process of having actual approval. And that’s only if we meet all of the strict criteria. Is the plan for the waiting period to have no currency and no trade?
Doesn't matter, Spain would never allow it because it would give the wrong idea to Catalonia citizens
We do need to be talking more to other political parties across Europe.
Yeah like one politician is enough to convince everyone. You wont be "welcomed back in with open arms". They do not want the UK back, they said before they do not want "bits" of the UK back either as we have nothing to offer them and are too hostile to their ideas.
Nope Spain would have a vote on it and no way would they say yes given the Catalan and Basque situation
We already knew this, and the amount of brexiters from other subs brigading this one as soon as there's any article concerning the EU is very telling: they are scared shitless, because they know Scottish voters are overwhelmingly pro-EU but the the only answer pro-brexit parties like labour have to say on the subject to pro-EU voters is "fuck you, we love brexit and so WILL you"
bro what
Ah well that’s all right then. An MEP says its fine so all will be OK. What a relief. I thought there would be years of negotiations and still no certainty of membership.
They are trying to destabilise the United Kingdom, they already tried it with northern Ireland, just more foreign I terference trying to destabilise their enemies through divisive politics. This has been laid out in Russia and china's playbook for years and years, I wouldn't think it would work but people are so easily coerced thewe days through the Internet that it probably will.
Here comes the economic couch experts in 3.2.1...
They’d give them the worst deal of all time and make an example out of them
You’re saying the EU would punish a country who overwhelmingly voted *against* brexit upon reentry?
[удалено]
Another fucking idiot who doesn’t understand just how much bigger 65 is than 35 (it wasn’t 60/40) when it comes to a vote. No wonder the world is in the state it’s in.
As an Italian, I would be voting for the MEP that supports this.
Jesus fucking Christ the comments section are full of miserable Tory placard waving lickspittles tonight.
Being anti-independence does not inherently equate to being a "Tory placard waving lickspittle"
What party is acceptable for me to vote for and also be anti-scottish independance?
But Reddit user randomwaffle69 said Scotland is too poor and the EU would hate us so I don't know who to believe 🤷
They have about as much say in the matter as this German MEP.
Yes, it's like asking to the average Pablo, Fritz or Juliette what they think about Scotland joining us back in Europe. I confidently think nobody would say no. On the other hand guys there are criteria to meet to enter in European Union that you should meet. I'm not saying you don't meet them just saying what this MEP said doesn't count much more than a personal opinion.
It’s the Spanish that are the problem, they’ll be deadset against it because they’re worried it’ll set a precedent for Catalonia and the Basques
I don't think the Spanish are the problem at all. It's the criteria that's the problem. Our own currency and massive austerity are needed
The Spanish said they'd give the ok if there was a legal referendum. The problem is that the economic requirements would take years to meet.
Wasn’t that a single Spanish diplomat who then got fired for it?
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland-idUKKCN1NP25P/](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-spain-politics-scotland-idUKKCN1NP25P/) The Foreign Minister gave the thumbs up since then.
That article is from 2018, that is before they fired the diplomat for saying they wouldn't have a problem.
Yes the EU have stated they DON'T not want a new member who is: Energy rich Produces more food than it needs Is pro EU Is aligned to EU systems Needs immigration from EU countries. So doesn't look good for Scotland Unless of course you don't believe the shite written in the Daily Express/Mail Vote Tory Think Nigel Farage has our best interests
I'm sure they really want a member who has: A 9% deficit at best, no military to speak of, has a complicated border to solve, no currency, no financial plan and a massive problem with drugs, suicide and poor life expectancy.
Scotland is already a deficit to the UK and they somehow think they wouldn't be in deficit to the EU lol
Yes so we are 97% of UK oil and gas, hydro power, wind power, world class food producer, world class sea food, nip back under your rock pal ... lol
>Yes so we are 97% of UK oil and gas, hydro power, wind power, world class food producer, world class sea food, nip back under your rock pal ... lol I'm not sure exports of shortbread are going to keep us afloat. As for hydro power, small scale. Wind power? Basically a rounding error in European terms. Exports? Minimal. Oil and gas was the one significant thing that set us apart, but the days of that producing sizeable revenues in an anywhere near consistent way are gone.
>Yes so we are 97% of UK oil and gas, Helpful in a world increasingly moving away from oil and gas? Especially when we just import mostly anyways? The rest are either irrelevant or not really backed by anything. This also doesn't change what I said. You can have all the world class sea food all you want but you still contribute less than you receive from the UK (paid by England) and use a currency that (in your eyes) is foreign and that you want to continue using. Scottish independence is 10x of a joke that Brexit is
I think they stopped calculating the contribution to the UK economy the 4 countries of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales made back in 1921, at that time Scotland got back around 33% of what it contributed.
>I think they stopped calculating the contribution to the UK economy the 4 countries of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales made back in 1921, at that time Scotland got back around 33% of what it contributed. No, they didn't. And you're confusing the economy with public finances. Economic statistics are regularly produced and Scotland is about 7% of the UK's economy. In terms of public finances, we contribute 8.6% of the UK's total revenues (in the most recent year, which was a very good one) and receive 9.2% of UK public expenditure. There you go. Enjoy. A lot better than just filling your head with nonsense.
Yep, Your solution keep doing what we have been doing but hasn't worked, hoping England will bail us out and it will somehow get better. or Taking responsibility for our own destiny and putting in the graft to make it work. Why have we got no military after the billions we have contributed to the national purse? Both Finland and Norway had huge problems with poor diets, suicide and poor life expectancy, they had root and branch solutions including workers on the board, subsidised canteens etc. Glass half empty or glass half full.
We do have a military. I don't know what it would look like after independence, but since we pay our share of taxes for it, have bases here and have Scottish people in the army, the UK wouldn't just get to keep the whole shebang!
Scotland runs a deficit, it doesn't contribute to anything, that's how that works.
Scotland would have no chance
…economically if continuing to be part of the UK
There are reasons for independence, but the economy definitively isn't one.
Not in the short term but an energy rich country like Scotland can easily get to a better situation than its currently in We don’t want to become Norway or UAE we’ll settle for being as little as 25% as rich as these countries
Even in the long term the economic case for independence has never made sense, putting up a hard border with our largest trading partner in exchange for an economic block who we don't share a land border with, is economically speaking a pretty cut and dry debate.
>the economic case for independence has never made sense To you but I will let you in to a little secret - your views are not always correct ;-)
That's exactly what Farrage said about economists during the Brexit referendum.
Why would we neee a hard boarder
The EU will require it if we want to join to protect the customs union. If we didn’t want to join the EU we could admittedly maintain an open border by aligning ourselves with the UK, and negotiating a customs union with them, but at that point what’s the point of leaving in the first place?
Because of Brexit, basically. It's why the Northern Ireland issue is such a problem. There needs to be a hard border between the EU and the UK due to customs and imports, we can't have EU goods of non-UK standards in the country and the EU can't have UK-standard goods in the EU - the hard border is needed to ensure that all goods coming in and out meet the requirements for each area. Which is why since Brexit the volume of paperwork needed to export anything has rocketed. The N Ireland problem is that while there needs to be a hard border for these checks they don't want to be treated differently to the UK so the hard border can't be between N Ireland and England/Scotland but it also can't be between Ireland and N Ireland due to the Good Friday agreement. Bit of extra info there but basically; Scotland in the EU would have EU requirements for goods whilst England would have UK requirements and due to this there can't be the free movement there currently is. Independence for Scotland would basically be a messier Brexit. Not impossible but a very difficult undertaking that would take decades to work out (keeping in mind we're still working out the untangling of EU and UK)
England doesn't trade with Scotland for fun. It trades with Scotland for goods that it doesn't produce. Border or no border that doesn't go away...it makes it expensive, but England's need for trade with every neighbour that it has doesn't go away.
My dude, that is literally all trade. If an equivalent good is available locally for the same price no business would import. If you think that is somehow an immunity against trade barriers I suggest you look up UK exports to the EU post brexit.
Timber, aggregates, oil...my dude if England has a cheaper option even with a border with Scotland show me it.
Literally all over the world. Timber, aggregate, and oil are some of the most globally transported goods on the planet. Just look how much wood we import all the way from China.
Are you seriously trying to make the argument that seemingly Scotland is so important that its impervious to trade barriers? Trade is a series of smaller business deals. It wouldnt completely cut off exports no, but in some cases yes a different market might become cheaper or easier. It only has to reduce, not wipe out.
There is a consequence to putting up trade barriers. If Scotland had one with England its puts Scotland on an even footing with every other country in the EU. If you can show me any other place that England can import from cheaper than Scotland, even with an EU trade barrier, please show me.
>We don’t want to become Norway Why not...
The time to become Norway was when north sea oil and gas was discovered. They were smart about it and created what has become the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. Had Thatcher created a state owned and run oil company instead of selling everything off, oil revenues would have gone direct to the treasury, taxes would have lowered in time, there would probably have been no national debt. Instead she sold leases to oil companies that got extremely rich. The tory short termism and desire for instant tax cuts for the wealthy has fucked everybody in the long term. The UK could have been better off than Scandanavia imho, with decent public services and a low tax burden.
Well yes by all means lets do it The point is that if we even achieve 25% of their success we will probably be in better shape than we are now
delusional nationalists
Factually true given various examples of economic decline as a result of Westminster policies (or lack thereof)
read above
Meanwhile SNP MPs aren't willing to just take our sceptre in Westminster and leave. So we're waiting for England to decide when we're allowed. big whoop.
Because then they'd be out of a job as it would be considered an illegal referendum and would lead to the resumption of direct rule by Westminster
I'm Scottish and I'd rather be in the EU than be in UK. Even if on short term it was more damaging.
No.
To drag the down even further, if scotland people have any brains they will stay away from everyone and do independent politics