Scottish Devolution

[thundril]

Latest post of the previous page:

Nationality, sports team, political party.... there are so many areas in which 'loyalty' is a serious hindrance to human flourishing.

[Altfish]

Salmond talks total bollox about HS2...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ur-salmond

The trouble is, it isn't beyong Milliband to accept Salmond's proposal

[lewist]

Salmond talks total bollox about HS2...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ur-salmond

The trouble is, it isn't beyong Milliband to accept Salmond's proposal

Alex was not talking entirely seriously, I suspect. However, if we are to have high speed trains in this union of equals, why should they not start in Inverness? Personally, if that happens, I hope they take a new route because I live two hundred yards from the railway and at the moment the trains are quiet and interesting.

Why does everything has to start in London? This railway will serve the south of the country next door to us and we are being expected to pay a huge amount for it. Now that's bollox.

[Altfish]

**Warning - HS2 is a topic that I know a lot about. It has become a bit of a hobby-horse!!**

The reason it HAS to start in London is because HS2 has two functions.
The main function is relieving congestion, the by-product of this is that we get a high speed railway as the solution.

The congestion problem is at the south end of both the West Coast Main Line and the East Coast Main Line (You could also add the Midland Main Line), i.e. the 50-miles or so approaching London. The problem with these lines are that they are at capacity and carry a mixture of inter-city express trains, semi-express passengers, commuter trains and freight; those do not mix! The freight and the commuter trains slow down and restrict the express passenger trains.
Building a dedicated high speed line frees up the express trains and allows more freight and commuter trains on the existing lines.

There are of course other areas of congestion, notable the approach to Manchester Piccadilly.
Scotland will benefit from HS2, even if it only reaches Crewe, because it will take an hour off the Glasgow/Edinburgh (and all other places in Scotland) to London services. This will be a solution that has environmental benefits because at 2.5 hours to London the airlines start to become much less attractive.

[animist]

**Warning - HS2 is a topic that I know a lot about. It has become a bit of a hobby-horse!!**

The reason it HAS to start in London is because HS2 has two functions.
The main function is relieving congestion, the by-product of this is that we get a high speed railway as the solution.

The congestion problem is at the south end of both the West Coast Main Line and the East Coast Main Line (You could also add the Midland Main Line), i.e. the 50-miles or so approaching London. The problem with these lines are that they are at capacity and carry a mixture of inter-city express trains, semi-express passengers, commuter trains and freight; those do not mix! The freight and the commuter trains slow down and restrict the express passenger trains.
Building a dedicated high speed line frees up the express trains and allows more freight and commuter trains on the existing lines.

There are of course other areas of congestion, notable the approach to Manchester Piccadilly.
Scotland will benefit from HS2, even if it only reaches Crewe, because it will take an hour off the Glasgow/Edinburgh (and all other places in Scotland) to London services. This will be a solution that has environmental benefits because at 2.5 hours to London the airlines start to become much less attractive.

FWIW, you're converting me, Altfish

[Nick]

FWIW, you're converting me, Altfish

You must share your secret, Altfish!

I feel a bit like Cassandra, but be warned Scotland (again!) Where's the money going to come from?

With thanks to the FT

The SNP’s preferred forecast assumed an independent Scotland would receive £20.2bn in revenues between 2016-17 and 2018-9, based on a price of $110 a barrel. But the UK government in January estimated that if prices stayed at then current levels the newly independent nation would have raised £1bn in the same period.

So where are those cuts of £19 billion (equivalent, of course- you won't have the pound) going to fall?

[Alan C.]

(equivalent, of course- you won't have the pound)

Getting tedious Nick, The pound belongs to Scotland every bit as much as it does to England and Wales.
And for ffs forget the price of oil! Scotland has a GDP to match the rest of the UK without the oil, the oil is the icing on the cake, Scotlands cake.
How many times does this have to be pointed out.

[lewist]

(equivalent, of course- you won't have the pound)

Getting tedious Nick, The pound belongs to Scotland every bit as much as it does to England and Wales.
And for ffs forget the price of oil! Scotland has a GDP to match the rest of the UK without the oil, the oil is the icing on the cake, Scotlands cake.
How many times does this have to be pointed out.

There was never any chance of our not using the pound, Nick. It became apparent after the referendum that was one of the many lies told to frighten people away from opting for freedom. The worst of the lot, of course, was 'The Vow', little of which is coming to pass.

Oh, gosh, I forgot we are to have control over road signs. Sorry.

[Alan H]

Oh, gosh, I forgot we are to have control over road signs. Sorry.

Control over road signs? Are they to be in Gaelic as well or will they now just be different for no good reason?

[lewist]

Control over road signs? Are they to be in Gaelic as well or will they now just be different for no good reason?

I'm not sure, Alan. We already have some in Gaelic. I don't see how it would benefit anyone if we adopted different road signs.

[Alan H]

Control over road signs? Are they to be in Gaelic as well or will they now just be different for no good reason?

I'm not sure, Alan. We already have some in Gaelic. I don't see how it would benefit anyone if we adopted different road signs.

Agreed. Maybe they're thinking of driving on the right...

[Nick]

(equivalent, of course- you won't have the pound)

Getting tedious Nick,

I've always been tedious, Alan.

The pound belongs to Scotland every bit as much as it does to England and Wales.

Er... no it doesn't. It is Scotland leaving the UK, not the other way round. Of course Scotland could use the pound, just like some countries use the dollar. But to build up Scotland's reserves would take huge austerity measures. Hmmm... how popular would that be, I wonder? But just imagine, for a moment, that some sort of agreement was concocted by a separate (and Tory, of course,) England and an SNP Scotland. The first casualty for Scotland would be their ability to borrow a single penny more than permitted by the English Government. Just look at Greece for a living example.

And for ffs forget the price of oil! Scotland has a GDP to match the rest of the UK without the oil,

I don't actually believe that is the case, but even if it were, it is the spending per head which is way out of line. Spending could not be maintained without England and the out-dated Barnett formula.

the oil is the icing on the cake,

And that icing is melting. Fast.

Scotlands cake.

Dangerous ground there, Alan. Is the revenue from London therefore London's cake?

How many times does this have to be pointed out.

A few more, it would seem....

[Alan C.]

I've asked before but will ask again, (Nick) Why is England sooooo desperate to hold on to Scotland? And don't give me (again) That egalitarian excuse 'that it's for our own good'

[lewist]

I've asked before but will ask again, (Nick) Why is England sooooo desperate to hold on to Scotland? And don't give me (again) That egalitarian excuse 'that it's for our own good'

They won't admit it, but England depends on our resources, Alan. If we had been independent all these years, south of the border would have been a developing nation and we might have been giving them foreign aid.

That's what David Cameron means when he talks about pooling and sharing. We give and they take.

[Nick]

I've asked before but will ask again, (Nick) Why is England sooooo desperate to hold on to Scotland? And don't give me (again) That egalitarian excuse 'that it's for our own good'

I do try to answer queries, Alan, really I do! If I believe it is for the benefit of the Scots, what on earth should I say? Even if, or especially if, you don't like it?

I don't speak for "England" as such, and nor am I desperate, not even slightly, but I'll give you a number of reasons, some personal, some political, some economic.

First of all, I regard myself as British. I have an affinity with Scotland by virtue of our combined history. We have both prospered by the free flow of people and ideas North and South. I like Scotland, and I like the Scots I have met at last as much as any English.

I think Britain makes an optimum political area, in terms of shared culture, international influence, defence, internal travel and various other areas. This does not preclude further devolution, of course. I have no desire to tell Scots how they should , say, educate their children.

And I think Britain makes an optimum economic and currency area. Both England and Scotland benefit from sharing a single currency, and an open trading economy. For both countries, employment and living standards are higher than they would be if we went our separate ways.

Could we each go it alone? Certainly, but we would both be diminished by so doing. And more specifically, I really, sincerely, believe that Scotland would be severely disadvantaged by ploughing its own furrow. Certainly Scots have made huge contributions to Britain (Just think of the Scottish regiments or contributions to science), but Scotland would be severely weakened economically without England. And, IMO, much of Scotland's business wold migrate south. I wouldn't call it egalitarian, but I am willing that England supports Scotland, because that helps England too.

Prior to the discovery of oil, revenues flowed north. Oil has been a boost to Scotland (but maybe also a distraction) but what will happen as oil declines? I am willing to countenance the argument that too much of the North Sea revenues have been used for tax-cuts instead of some sort of sovereign wealth fund, but that implies running a budget surplus, year after year. Hmmm... how does that sit with the Left, as well as the Right? But looking at Scotland now, there seems to me to be no prospect of a better outcome outside the UK than within.

Peak oil revenues have passed, and the oil price has plummeted, with devastating consequences to revenues for at least a few years (who knows..?) Economic development shows no sign of making up the shortfall, nor is it even really possible, not if Scotland want to continue to spend money like water and to hobble the economy with growth inhibiting restriction. The sums just don't add up.

That is why I would have voted no, had I been asked.

[animist]

I've asked before but will ask again, (Nick) Why is England sooooo desperate to hold on to Scotland? And don't give me (again) That egalitarian excuse 'that it's for our own good'

I do try to answer queries, Alan, really I do! If I believe it is for the benefit of the Scots, what on earth should I say? Even if, or especially if, you don't like it?

I don't speak for "England" as such, and nor am I desperate, not even slightly, but I'll give you a number of reasons, some personal, some political, some economic.

First of all, I regard myself as British. I have an affinity with Scotland by virtue of our combined history. We have both prospered by the free flow of people and ideas North and South. I like Scotland, and I like the Scots I have met at last as much as any English.

I think Britain makes an optimum political area, in terms of shared culture, international influence, defence, internal travel and various other areas. This does not preclude further devolution, of course. I have no desire to tell Scots how they should , say, educate their children.

And I think Britain makes an optimum economic and currency area. Both England and Scotland benefit from sharing a single currency, and an open trading economy. For both countries, employment and living standards are higher than they would be if we went our separate ways.

Could we each go it alone? Certainly, but we would both be diminished by so doing. And more specifically, I really, sincerely, believe that Scotland would be severely disadvantaged by ploughing its own furrow. Certainly Scots have made huge contributions to Britain (Just think of the Scottish regiments or contributions to science), but Scotland would be severely weakened economically without England. And, IMO, much of Scotland's business wold migrate south. I wouldn't call it egalitarian, but I am willing that England supports Scotland, because that helps England too.

Prior to the discovery of oil, revenues flowed north. Oil has been a boost to Scotland (but maybe also a distraction) but what will happen as oil declines? I am willing to countenance the argument that too much of the North Sea revenues have been used for tax-cuts instead of some sort of sovereign wealth fund, but that implies running a budget surplus, year after year. Hmmm... how does that sit with the Left, as well as the Right? But looking at Scotland now, there seems to me to be no prospect of a better outcome outside the UK than within.

Peak oil revenues have passed, and the oil price has plummeted, with devastating consequences to revenues for at least a few years (who knows..?) Economic development shows no sign of making up the shortfall, nor is it even really possible, not if Scotland want to continue to spend money like water and to hobble the economy with growth inhibiting restriction. The sums just don't add up.

That is why I would have voted no, had I been asked.

well said Nick

[Nick]

*nick beams*

[Nick]

They won't admit it, but England depends on our resources, Alan.

Hmmm... such as? Renewable sources of energy are either unreliable, inefficient, expensive or intermittent or a combination of these things. What else? Whisky and shortbread?

If we had been independent all these years, south of the border would have been a developing nation and we might have been giving them foreign aid.

Been at the gin, Lewis?

That's what David Cameron means when he talks about pooling and sharing. We give and they take.

Any thoughts on that projected £19 billion shortfall cited in the FT? Or Miliband's £6 billion shortfall?

And are you really suggesting that those whom you think have the most, should actually keep it all to themselves....?

[Alan C.]

Could we each go it alone? Certainly, but we would both be diminished by so doing.

in your opinion!

And more specifically, I really, sincerely, believe that Scotland would be severely In a disadvantaged by ploughing its own furrow. Certainly Scots have made huge contributions to Britain (Just think of the Scottish regiments or contributions to science),but Scotland would be severely weakened economically without England.

how exactly?

much of Scotland's business wold migrate south.

Citations please.

I wouldn't call it egalitarian, but I am willing that England supports Scotland, because that helps England too

.
Well who'da guessed it!

Prior to the discovery of oil, revenues flowed north

Again citations needed, Scotland (Glasgow) Was the manufacturing capital of the UK.

Peak oil revenues have passed, and the oil price has plummeted, with devastating consequences to revenues for at least a few years (who knows..?) Economic development shows no sign of making up the shortfall, nor is it even really possible, not if Scotland want to continue to spend money like water and to hobble the economy with growth inhibiting restriction

. You do know that Total are as we speak building a new £80,000,000+ gas plant at Sulom voe? And the oil terminal has just had Millions spent on upgrading, because it's going to be needed for at least another 25 years, twice as long as the original forecast.

The sums just don't add up.

Yes they do!

[animist]

I am glad that Scotland decided for now not to go it alone, but it does seem amusing to hear David Cameron complaining that the SNP will get undue influence on British politics if Labour forms (or at least heads) the next government!

[lewist]

Some of the Scottish threads on Fb have reposted video of him last year in tears at the thought of losing us. What we are seeing is the rank hypocrisy of the Tories.