So has any member of the Spanish government stated opposition to Scotland in EU? Just asking where previous poster gets his spanish veto claim from.
Printable View
So has any member of the Spanish government stated opposition to Scotland in EU? Just asking where previous poster gets his spanish veto claim from.
From the man who is in charge with the economic case, an admission that he could see a recovery of the position it now finds itself in now over a five to 10-year period post independence. (big emphasis on "could"). He also says they should run a steady as it goes economic policy with no tax rises. This would mean cutting services dramatically and hurting the poorest in Scotland as we cannot continue to run a $15bn deficit or borrow and still be within the rules for joining the EU.
So get independence and make the poorer suffer is the opinion of the SNP's economic guru. With friends like this... who needs enemies...
A big thank you goes out to the SNP for making the case for a no vote themselves.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...-back-10-years
Scotlands poorest are better off in a Union with a Conservative government? Good luck with that argument
Daily Mail from Spanish foriegn minister Alphonso dastis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jormungand
not me saying it... its the top SNP economic advisor! He is saying Scotland economy could recover in 5 to 10 years. He also says no more taxation. Therefore with a £15bn deficit (the highest of any western economy) we would need to cut services. We could not just borrow and stay in the rules of EU membership. Therefore services will need to be cut. Cutting services hits the poorest hardest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason89
It's just simple logic.
The 5 to 10 years recovery would be presumably would be by both cutting services and increasing business in Scotland. i.e. highly optimistic. Good luck convincing people that a recovery on this basis in 5 to 10 years is ever going to happen.
He did not say that though did he? I think he said that Scotland will be out of the EU and would need to reapply. He did not explicitly state that they would veto?Quote:
Originally Posted by claw84
The veto is a mute point because it will be years before any other country joins the EU anyway, lots can and will change with the EU in this time and there are several countries in front of Scotland to join the EU anyway.
So Sturgeon has called the referendum to leave the UK on the basis that she wants to remain in the EU, which we would not be able to join for years after independence anyway (if at all) but in the meantime their own top economic advisor says that there would be a penalty economically that would take years to recover from and as a result of leaving we would need to cut services dramatically.
Thanks. I checked the Independent's story on this, but all they have is him saying that Scotland would have to join like any other new country - it doesn't mention anything about a veto, or Spain refusing or being hostile to Scotland, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by claw84
I think you're more or less correct about the economy. If we flicked a switch and became independent tomorrow we'd have some pretty serious problems financially and would have to either cut spending drastically, borrow, or raise taxes. I'm under no illusion about that. I spent most of the last referendum making that point on here and it was one of the main reasons I voted No. The situation is now much worse than it was then. There are some long-term arguments that could be made (e.g. that the fiscal picture can change quite rapidly - five years ago in 2011/12 it was much more positive so in five years it's possible it changes again) but I don't see much point in denying the fact that there's a pretty weak short-term economic case for independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Getintaethem
On the EU, though, I think the situation is more positive. The EU is ultimately just a vehicle for the views of its member states. If they wanted to make an exception for Scotland then they could. It's happened before - e.g. Greece was fast tracked into the EU without much thought about the criteria for joining because at the time there was general anxiety about the country falling to communism/Russian influence. When there's some political imperative, the EU has a track record of ignoring its own rules and Scotland might fall into that scenario given the ill-feeling that exists in the rest of the EU over Brexit.
Spain would be caught between a rock and a hard place so all bets are off on that - on the one hand they could veto Scottish membership to send a message to Catalonia, on the other hand Rajoy has gone to great lengths to argue that Scotland is completely different from Catalonia so vetoing our membership on that basis might send the wrong message entirely. Then there's the realpolitik argument that it makes sense for Rajoy to oppose Scottish membership now, but a few years down the line with the heat taken out of the issue and Scotland simply being an independent state like any other, the situation changes. Genuinely, I don't think there's any real possibility we'd be denied EU membership in the long-term, it's a matter of the process and how long it would take to join.
Another great post Sancho which I pretty much agree with. Given the size of our posts, I think we are probably just talking to one another - but that is OK.
Most people make most decisions on balance. On the economy, Scotland is so reliant on oil from a tax revenue basis and considering how much we spend through the public sector, that this revenue cannot be made up realistically in 5 to 10 years without a significant increase in the price of oil. Even if it did pick up, being so reliant on oil means that our economy is hugely imbalanced. No political party has addressed this imbalance - including the SNP.
I am no oil expert but it does seem to me that shale (US Shale and deposits world-wide) has fundamentally changed the dynamics of oil pricing on the world market with OPEC no longer in full control. Yes, shale is more expensive than OPEC oil to produce but when price rises from $50 it makes it more economical to invest and price will level out. I think this is a major reason why predictions around the price of oil in the next 15 years do not go above $80 or so per barrel.
It could be driven up by either a huge pick up in world-wide economic activity or a major conflict but given the new supply dynamics these are likely to be short term boasts.
All politicians from all parties should have been looking to rebalance the economy for the past generation - they have just not done this. We are in the position where independence makes no sense economically because of their failures. A bad economy hits the poorest in society because spending goes down. This is not progressive - it is regressive.
Instead of reducing spending, you make the point that Scotland could raise taxes or increase borrowing. That is right, however, the SNP's own top economic advisor has seemed to have ruled out raising taxes. Hitting the rich in Scotland will not come close to providing the amount of revenue required and they could easily relocate somewhere in the rest of the UK. That would mean taxing the majority a lot more - which would be political suicide. So, they could just borrow more. Even taking the fact that the cost of borrowing in a new country will be a lot higher given the financial situation and there being no history or repayments etc. the fact is that the EU has rules about joining of running a 3% deficit or less. This means we cannot borrow more.
Therefore, we are stuck with cutting spending. These figures could be wrong but the principles hold. Say we currently have a £15bn deficit. To reach 3% we would need to cut spending by £11.5bn per year. We spend £50bn on the public sector. Therefore, in order to reach the EU rules we would need to cut spending by £1 in every £5. That is 20 times more severe than the UK Government's austerity program.
That just wont happen - no political party would allow that to happen. We would realistically borrow more, reduce spending and raise taxes. However, Scotland would have no realistic way of meeting entry requirements into the EU for years to come (I would argue decades). That is the reality but this is meant to be the whole basis of the second referendum. But the EU could wave these rules? Unlikely in my opinion, but who from the EU if going to say that during indyref2? Given what has happened to Greece through waving rules around Euro entry who would even make the case that waving these rules would be a good thing - the rules are there for a reason.
So the choice is to remain in the UK or go independent and have a far weaker economy and reduced public spending with the promise that we may join the EU at some point in several years time if every member of the EU agrees. Hardly the most convincing argument. The SNP could say that we will go for a Norwegian type deal with the EU, but if the UK Government get's a free trade agreement with the EU as part of Brexit then why go through this pain of this huge reduction in public spending in order to get a Norwegian deal which is essentially a free trade deal?
This is why Jim Sillars is absolutely right. He is no fool. This is the worst possible time to call indyref2. The last time Salmond was at least justified in saying that the the better together campaign were scaremongering. I thought he was wrong and I think economically a number of the things they said have proven to be right. This time, however, the figures are there for everyone to see and no bluff and bluster can hide it.
petition reached 100K signatures in less than a day...
will be debated in parliament most likely.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642
you can see that the majority signed from Scotland and where they signed on this link.
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting...etition=180642