Plenty would argue that there is no such thing - there is a Scottish School system and there is an English School system, although it's only relatively recently that Scottish schools commenced teaching the history of their own country at the expense of England's. Perhaps the change was forced, I don't really know, but I do know that when I started going to school in England (after near one year of secondary in Scotland) I knew the bare bones about 'English' (that's exactly how it was couched) atrocities whereas my peers in Watford knew nothing about them - atrocities such as the Irish and various Indian famines, the concentration camps in Kenya and South Africa - and literally scoffed at me. Maybe being forced to ignore Scotland's history for so long caused some 'rogue' Scottish teachers to teach about the dark side instead of delivering the propaganda they were meant to.
Britain’s economy is being kept afloat by an “unsustainable” spending binge last seen just before the crash, the Treasury watchdog has warned. It means people are spending beyond their means on credit cards and by dipping into their savings, to cope with an incomes squeeze. At a post-Budget briefing, the OBR also highlighted the economic pain ahead with disposable income per person forecast to fall by 0.7 per cent in 2017. That meant households were poised to go further into debt – a total set to reach 153 per cent of disposable income by 2022, up from 149 per cent on the OBR’s forecast in November. Holidaymakers are to face even steeper phone bills if they try and use their mobile abroad following an announcement in the Government’s Budget. Chancellor Philip Hammond announced that mobile phone roaming charges outside the EU would be subject to VAT, a 20 per cent tax paid by the consumer. So the economy is doing well on the basis of consumer spending which is based on credit cards and dipping into savings for those lucky enough to have any. Just as the EU produces measures to do away with roaming charges altogether, the UK uses them as a means of increasing income. Looks as if some of the forecast problems for Brits are just starting to appear.
I noticed that Angus Robertson said yesterday that at the current rate it could take 50 years for all applications for UK citizenship to be processed. A couple of friends here have decided to apply for French passports and due to the flood of applications their paperwork is now stuck in a system that was never built to cope with such a rush. Their circumstances are different to ours because of age, but everyone I know here is keeping the situation under review.
Something to do with the size of the application forms. UK application is, I believe, 85 pages long (and costs around £1 per page to submit), whereas France, Germany, for example, are mere pamphlets in comparison - and cost far less too. Far be it from me to cynically suggest Westmonster are merely after the money...
It has been admitted by the UK Border Force that it is impossible to safeguard the borders and stop people getting into the country. The following article shows how the Irish border is already being used for entry, something that can only get worse. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-39249081
So, the Lords gave way in the end, it was really expected. The House of Lords has a responsibility to do what it believes to be right, free of bullying and coercion - in this case to protect citizens rights, on the one hand, and, on the other, to ensure that people can vote in the future once they know exactly what they are voting for. Both reasonable and laudible aims - yet they have given way in the wake of TM's threats of 'dire retribution' and another chapter has been written in Britain's slow descent from democracy. I hope, and pray, that Scotland can extricate itself from the mess that Britain has become, whatever the economic consequences for itself.
The unelected Lords finally respected the decision of the elected MP's and the will of the people. Democracy working to perfection. The anti democratic shenanigans by remoaners were soundly defeated by a smart and determined PM. Scotland will not get a vote until the UK has left the EU. At that stage there will be so many financial reasons why Scotland leaving the UK would be suicidal. There would be no facility for Scotland to enhance it's position at the back of the queue for entry into the EU. It could be the death knell for the SNP.
Before going on about 'the will of the people', and 'democracy', you might like to consider that the British voted to embark on a journey - but they did not choose the destination. The House of Lords was not disputing the decision itself - as TM. would say 'Brexit means Brexit', but the populace have no idea exactly what that means, or, where we are going. Every attempt to pin down exactly what Brexit means - or to make sure that Parliament, and the people, have a say in determining the destination, is shouted down and bullied into submission. This is not what I expect from a democracy. As for Scotland - it would, of course, be difficult for them to break away from the UK - it would be just as messy and expensive as Brexit will be. I am hoping that it does not come to the stage where Scotland declares itself independent - without asking for 'permission' to hold a referendum. Did Britain have to ask for 'permission' for such a thing ?
I'm not too sure that your use of 'consequences' is appropriate. In spite of what Westminster put out as 'economic fact' and in spite of MSM who parrot Westminster's claims, Scotland can stand on it's own two feet very nicely. After all, if it couldn't and was, as claimed, being subsidised by England, this mob would have ditched it years ago.
The only reason that the debate and votes took place in the commons was because the government was taken before the courts when they were trying to get around the proper democratic procedures. Huge shame that it took private individuals to point out that we expect MPs to be our voice, and not the echo of someone with an axe to grind.
The truth is BB that I'm not an economist and I don't know what the consequences could be for Scotland, or who subsidizes who. What Westminster says would have to be taken with a pinch of salt by any thinking person. Scotland has been moving away from England, politically, since the 80s, and the glue which stuck Britain together - the heavy industries once common to Glasgow, Newcastle and Manchester, have all gone. England has since moved on to a neo liberal agenda in which the 'I'm all right Jack' mentality appears to be the only vibrant ethic - which will lead, eventually, to England becoming even more Americanized than it is already. Which will lead to the creation of an off shore tax haven, ripping off its former partners on the one hand, and establishing a bargain basement economy on the other. Scotland cannot go along this road.
A few helpful facts from The Telegraph business section. The five charts that show how economically risky Scottish independence would be 53 Comments please log in to view this image Patrick Scott , data journalist 14 MARCH 2017 • 6:00AM Nicola Sturgeon has announced that she intends to ask for a second referendum on Scottish independence because Brexit will result in Scotland being withdrawn from the European Union against its will. The SNP was widely believed to have lost the economic argumentduring their first stab at independence in 2014, and it is difficult to see how they could win a re-run this argument in the current climate. Falls in the price of oil have taken a hefty toll on Scotland's economy since 2014 and, coupled with the country's huge deficit and sluggish rate of growth, independence is an even riskier prospect now than it was two and a half years ago. Scotland's oil revenue is running dry Back in 2014, the SNP made a big noise about just how well an independent Scotland could perform on the world stage. Central to this thesis was the amount of money the country could make from North Sea oil. Estimates as to just how much revenue could be producedfrom North Sea oil varied significantly depending on who you asked - but the price of oil itself seemed to be relatively stable at between $90 and $110 per barrel. In September 2014 - the month of the referendum - crude oil prices were ticking along at $91 per barrel. Four months later it had nearly halved to $48 per barrel. The price continuing to fall over the course of the subsequent 12 months. It reached a low of $33.6 in January 2016. Although the price of oil has recovered somewhat - back up to $48 dollars on average so far this month - the huge reduction in the value of Scotland's prize asset hit the economy. [Scotland's North Sea oil reserves] cannot be regarded as anything other than a substantial asset.Alex Salmon (2014) The North Sea is an extremely expensive place to produce oil, with recent estimates putting the cost at $44 per barrel. This leaves little room for profit and makes it almost impossible to compete with countries like Saudi Arabia who can produce oil for less than $10 per barrel. This led to Scotland's share of North Sea oil revenue falling to just £60m in 2015-16, down from £1.8bn the previous year. Scotland's deficit is larger than that of Greece Nicola Sturgeon's pitch for independence looks set to centre on a desire for Scotland to remain in the European Union and the single market. However, the terms by which an independent Scotland could enter the EU are extremely uncertain. Countries face a lengthy application process in order to become members and Scotland may well be forced to adopt the euro as the price of membership. One of the target metrics the EU enforces on its members is for each state to aim for a budget deficit of no more than 3pc of GDP. Show more Scotland is a terrible performer in this regard, spending £1,200 a head more than the rest of the UK and receiving £400 per head less. The Scottish government's latest annual estimate puts the country's deficit at £15bn or 9.5pc of GDP. This would be comfortably the worst score for any EU member state. Scotland may have to prove it can reduce this deficit before EU membership becomes a possibility and this would take time. Could Scotland go it alone? While it could be argued that, with greater fiscal autonomy, Scotland might be able to reduce its deficit were it to become independent, its general economic performance is less that impressive. In the first quarter of 2015 Scotland outperformed the rest of the UK, achieving 0.75pc quarterly growth. Since then, growth has been slow with the UK as a whole outperforming Scotland in every quarter. Scotland's economy only narrowly avoided contracting in the first quarter of 2016 with growth of 0.01pc based on the previous quarter. Scotland is successfully closing it's productivity gap compared to the UK as a whole, but given how poor the UK's productivity is in comparison with other nations, this doesn't inspire confidence. Similarly, employment levels and wage growth in Scotland are slightly lower than the UK average. Scotland's economy isn't exactly ailing but nor is it excelling to the extent where independence is anything other than an extremely risky proposition. The SNP have a lot of questions to answer if they want to turn some optimistic polling numbers into a viable plan for going it alone.
Are we going back to the dark days of having to scroll down through long imported material. I'm not debating with the Telegraph, I'm debating with you - if I wanted to read what that rag has to say I would buy it.
If you read the full article online it explains why Scotland really is not in a viable financial position to contemplate leaving the UK.
A neo liberal agenda? An I'm all right Jack mentality? The only vibrant ethic? England an off shore tax haven? I'm not often roused enough to comment, but this is casual generalisation of the worst kind. There might be individuals whose outlook would support such a sweeping analysis but it's a totally inadequate representation of the range of opposing views in this country. England as a whole does not have an agenda, never mind a neo liberal one. Even supposing an ethic can be vibrant it can't be assumed all who live in the country or govern the country hold to it. England is no more Americanised than anywhere else with access to film and TV or than America is anglicanised for that matter. As for ripping off its former partners, much of northern Europe takes advantage of its less efficient southern neighbours. I've no wish to leave the EU, but I don't think treating England or Scotland as a corrupt or virtuous individual adds much to the argument.
If I wanted more knowledge about Scotland's economic performance I would look for it from a number of balanced sources. What I effectively said was that Scotland should go for it regardless of the economic consequences.
I'm not trying to offend anyone Theo. I am aware that there is an 'opposition' to rampant neo liberalism in Britain. However, Britain does have a democratic deficit, and I am not apologizing for saying that. It is the only country in Europe where such a sequence as 36% = a majority, majority = a referendum (for inner party reasons, not because the country needed it), referendum = 52%-48% = winner takes all, actually works. No other country in the EU. has such a system. Britain is the only one party state in Europe - although it does rotate every few years. The character of the referendum campaign was no different to the character of the Trump vs Clinton facade in the USA, and election campaigns have been becoming progressively more Americanized. By a whole range of criteria: eg. gulf between rich and poor, disappearance of 'community', Britain has become more Americanized. Talk of establishing Britain as a kind of tax haven, and of expanding trade with America, as an alternative to the EU. - which means, also, closer political connections, a kind of mini TTIP, justifies my claim about Americanization. As for neo liberalism, whatever the people may think, the political system has not sufficiently distanced itself from the ideology of Thatcherism. The political elite still believes in the idea of things like the 'trickle down' theory (even if many people don't), and so I stand by the description 'neo liberal'.
I'm not offended, Cologne. Democratic deficit sounds like a term invented by a politics lecturer. Democracy is not simply about who gets 51% of a vote. Britain is not a one party state and saying it rotates does not make it one. Election campaigns have been increasingly dependent on media performances in most countries of the world, not just America. There were personally insulting and misleading ones before Trump and Clinton. There are strong communities in parts of Britain, as well as divided ones, as there have always been. The political system doesn't do anything; individual politicians do. If there is such a thing as the political elite it is highly unlikely they all hold to a 'trickle down' theory. Radio and TV interviews would suggest that many these days appear to follow few theories at all other than ad hoc pragmatism. Sorry, I'll shut and up and let you get on now
I'm no economist either - in fact I'm only marginally nearer to being one than my dear wife, who handles her monthly salary with all the aplomb of a three year old. But you're right - a pinch of salt to anyone believing any 'financial figures' that come out of Westminster, either directly or via its Express, Sun and Telegraph mouthpieces. The plain and simple fact is that there are absolutely no structures in place to allow the government to garner the information they would need in order to provide figures accurately. Beyond the recently implemented (and still not properly functioning) Scottish tax code, there is no way that, for example, VAT or Corporation Tax revenues can be accurately determined, simply because HMRC don't ask for them. What many apparently fail to realise is that the UK government views its bailiwick as a unitary state, not a federation nor a confederation, and Scotland is viewed as one of twelve regions - therefore there is neither the need, nor obligation - never mind the ability - to gather relevant statistics. In other words, they don't exist - they are just pure guesswork, from people with a vested interest in making sure that that guesswork favours themselves. And of course, the same problem applies to Balance of Trade figures. Whilst they may well accurately reflect a UK wide situation, the simple fact is that they cannot reflect internal trade movements within the UK. Being a unitary state, there is no need to know whether or not Lancashire is a net exporter to Norfolk, Sussex is a net exporter to Wales or Scotland is a net exporter to Somerset - meaning that, again, such 'produced' figures are simply guesswork favouring the guesser. Add to that the fact that those 'guessed' trade figures only include Goods and don't include the too-hard-to-guess Services (hence excluding a probable half of UK trade) - and it's fairly easy to come to the conclusion that Westminster's supposed Scottish figures are manipulated in their favour. And then there is the indisputable fact that 'Independence Will Change Everything'. No current figures will have any validity after the event, and to use them now to project what will happen is pointless. On another note - I recently found this video covering a study conducted by Edinburgh University on the reasons for the 2014 referendum result. If accurate, the main reason for the No vote was the way English ex-pats here voted. extrapolating the findings suggests that 300,000 voted No. Given the high Remain vote, it would be interesting to find out what percentage of that number would change their vote in view of Brexit. Add to that the probable change of mind by EU nationals - always assuming they are allowed to remain on the register - and it's fairly easy to predict a large enough swing to Yes.
