H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 And lose massively. Not going to happen. I don't think you understand (well of course you don't - you are an idiot) how applications for membership of the EU work. It's not a Eurovision style vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Maybe stm is playing devils advocate a bit on this subject? I don't agree with his "optimistically fantastic" comment - the numbers look sensible & realistic to me! There is an awful lot more economic information in the BfS post than just Oil by the way! I was kinda doing that in relation to what I thought of the article, which OP posed. As H_B notes some trading is likely to occur with the boundaries and hundreds of thousands of treaties, so those figures are optimistically fantastic in that they are based on the extreme scenario of us gaining everything. The article looks to come over as a snippet of academia but makes little or no reference to the range of government figures published in the cited documents. I originally mentioned points 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 so here goes. I could apologise for it being long but it's a big issue, so tough Fact 2 - Scotland is a net contributor to the UK (only if the, yet to be confirmed, full geographical share is used. If a different assumption was made, Scotland is not a net contributor to the UK. We would receive 9.3% of Treasury spending but only generate 8.2% of revenue). Fact 3 - Scotland generates far more tax than the UK average (if you're applying the geographical share, correct. If total revenue are shared equally among the nations of the UK according to population size, then the same figures show that Scotland would be taking more out than putting in, compared to rUK. Scottish contributions can be viewed smaller than the UK average if another data set is chosen). Fact 5 - Scotland has a lower deficit and lower public spending than the UK (only if data is taken from geographical inclusion. Using the per capita share data, the UK spends 45.5% of GDP whilst Scotland would be spending 50.6%). Fact 7 - Scotland's oil field remain a massive financial asset (you already know where I'm going here. In the Kemp and Stephen report, The Hypothetical Scottish Share of Revenues and Expenditures from the UK Continental Shelf 2000-2013, they have used the median line as the foundation for their study as it does provide a recognisable foundation. However, the report does note 'some legal opinion holds that this has set a predecent for the determination of the boundary for the division of the Continental Shelf but this is open to dispute). Fact 10 - An independent Scotland can support business in tax, regulation, the labour market, innovation and global exports (assuming the assumptions made previous hold true). Regarding the articles data and that quoted above, Scottish government publications and, in particular, the GERS document notes that despite it being the only detailed estimates currently available, 'the development of the dataset is on-going and users should therefore consider it experimental'. The article presents their best case facts, I've presented the others ones from the same publications. Perhaps the article would be better entitled: Some chosen experimental economic figures which could make Scotland (assuming everything holds true) a wealth independent nations. It doesn't sound as catchy though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't think you understand (well of course you don't - you are an idiot) how applications for membership of the EU work. It's not a Eurovision style vote. How can you apply when you're already in it & your populace all citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 How can you apply when you're already in it & your populace all citizens? Ah yes - I was hoping you were going to expand on your previous hilarious gambit of a Scottish secession seeing the break up of the UK resulting with two equal entities emerging. You disappeared disappointingly quickly from that one. Scotland isn't already "in it". The UK is "in it" and the UK will still exist and be a member whether Scotland secedes from it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 How can you apply when you're already in it & your populace all citizens? No such thing as a citizen of the EU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 No such thing as a citizen of the EUSo in the event of a yes vote I lose my passport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't think you understand (well of course you don't - you are an idiot) how applications for membership of the EU work. It's not a Eurovision style vote. I know you don't know how politics or economics work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 We'll if Scotland won't be in it, neither van the remainder Union. As it will be a "New" entity as well. Bearing in mind that Scotland will STILL be part of the "UK" as the monarch will STILL be our Head of State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 We'll if Scotland won't be in it, neither van the remainder Union. As it will be a "New" entity as well. Sigh. Wrong. No it won't. See for example when Ireland left the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I know you don't know how politics or economics work. If only there was a college course that covered it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Perhaps the article would be better entitled: Some chosen experimental economic figures which could make Scotland (assuming everything holds true) a wealth independent nations. It doesn't sound as catchy though This post should be entitled "I have no understanding of international law and believe that a sovereign nation might be willing to "horse trade" its mineral rights away in perpetuity in exchange for short-term gain". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 This post should be entitled "I have no understanding of international law and believe that a sovereign nation might be willing to "horse trade" its mineral rights away in perpetuity in exchange for short-term gain". I don't think given your embarrassing history on the topic that you would be wise to compare international law knowledge with any poster on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 No one knows at this point what a non-existent border will look like. I do, with 99% certainty. It would run from the Solway to the Tweed, encompassing the same designated offshore waters drawn up (largely without Scotland's consent) less than twenty years ago. It won't run from Ayr to Haddington, nor from Morecambe to Newcastle. Everyone is fully aware where the "non-existent border" lies, except your usual law-trolling self. Sigh. Wrong. No it won't. See for example when Ireland left the UK. lol wut In what sense is the salami-sliced process of 'Ireland' 'leaving' the UK (date for secession would be advisable) comparable to Scotland/rUK today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 In what sense is the salami-sliced process of 'Ireland' 'leaving' the UK (date for secession would be advisable) comparable to Scotland/rUK today? We already have a precedent for secession of a constituent part of the UK creating a new entity, without affecting the internatinal law status and position of the UK as an entity. We've established long ago that you understand nothing about international law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I do, with 99% certainty. It would run from the Solway to the Tweed, encompassing the same designated offshore waters drawn up (largely without Scotland's consent) less than twenty years ago. It won't run from Ayr to Haddington, nor from Morecambe to Newcastle. Everyone is fully aware where the "non-existent border" lies, except your usual law-trolling self. Interestingly, I think New Scotland would certainly contest your view. They would almost certainly seek a different line than that currently in place domestically within UK waters, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I was kinda doing that in relation to what I thought of the article, which OP posed. As H_B notes some trading is likely to occur with the boundaries and hundreds of thousands of treaties, so those figures are optimistically fantastic in that they are based on the extreme scenario of us gaining everything. The article looks to come over as a snippet of academia but makes little or no reference to the range of government figures published in the cited documents. I originally mentioned points 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 so here goes. I could apologise for it being long but it's a big issue, so tough Fact 2 - Scotland is a net contributor to the UK (only if the, yet to be confirmed, full geographical share is used. If a different assumption was made, Scotland is not a net contributor to the UK. We would receive 9.3% of Treasury spending but only generate 8.2% of revenue). Fact 3 - Scotland generates far more tax than the UK average (if you're applying the geographical share, correct. If total revenue are shared equally among the nations of the UK according to population size, then the same figures show that Scotland would be taking more out than putting in, compared to rUK. Scottish contributions can be viewed smaller than the UK average if another data set is chosen). Fact 5 - Scotland has a lower deficit and lower public spending than the UK (only if data is taken from geographical inclusion. Using the per capita share data, the UK spends 45.5% of GDP whilst Scotland would be spending 50.6%). Fact 7 - Scotland's oil field remain a massive financial asset (you already know where I'm going here. In the Kemp and Stephen report, The Hypothetical Scottish Share of Revenues and Expenditures from the UK Continental Shelf 2000-2013, they have used the median line as the foundation for their study as it does provide a recognisable foundation. However, the report does note 'some legal opinion holds that this has set a predecent for the determination of the boundary for the division of the Continental Shelf but this is open to dispute). Fact 10 - An independent Scotland can support business in tax, regulation, the labour market, innovation and global exports (assuming the assumptions made previous hold true). Regarding the articles data and that quoted above, Scottish government publications and, in particular, the GERS document notes that despite it being the only detailed estimates currently available, 'the development of the dataset is on-going and users should therefore consider it experimental'. The article presents their best case facts, I've presented the others ones from the same publications. Perhaps the article would be better entitled: Some chosen experimental economic figures which could make Scotland (assuming everything holds true) a wealth independent nations. It doesn't sound as catchy though Why ought the economic comparison not be made on a geographic basis? Do you think an independent Scotland would have a substantially reduced territory from that of the Kingdom of Scotland and the current offshore division? A simple yes or no answer for the second part will suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Windermere's not a lake. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 We already have a precedent for secession of a constituent part of the UK creating a new entity, without affecting the internatinal law status and position of the UK as an entity. When did 'Ireland' 'secede' from the UK? Be very specific, because the entity that is 'Ireland' today is not even remotely the same as the Irish Free State. We've established long ago that you understand nothing about international law. Ditto yourself, though it was cute to see you playing a miserable lower postgraduate qualification against the likes of Professor David Schaefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 This post should be entitled "I have no understanding of international law and believe that a sovereign nation might be willing to "horse trade" its mineral rights away in perpetuity in exchange for short-term gain". I've never claimed to have understanding of such but I am aware that law can be open to dispute. We would need to agree boundaries in accordance with international law. I'd expect both sides to advance claims affecting licensed areas. It could be that international courts decide this as rUK is now 'foreign' in relation to an independent Scotland. International Court of Justice boundary cases, on average, take around 3 - 10 years. Let's assume this results in uncertainty during the time period involved. It may affect the figures presented in the original article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sigh. Wrong. No it won't. See for example when Ireland left the UK. With no debt, you mean? Marvellous, can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.