UKC

So Alex Salmond wants independence for Scotland. He wants to keep Sterling, the BBC, the Queen as Head of State and the revenue from North Sea oil. But he doesn't want nuclear subs based based in Scotland.

Seems to me that he wants to retain all the nice bits of the UK but get rid of the naughty bits.

Talk about wanting your haggis and eating it.

In reply to FesteringSore:

It's hard for Scotland to lose Sterling really ....

In reply to cander:

or even Stirling

In reply to FesteringSore:

Maybe he wants rid of the "naughty" bits, such as nuclear subs, as that has been the prevailing attitude with regard to locating them up to now?

In reply to FesteringSore:

Yup, keep the bits from the Border upwards, lose the bit from the Border down. Can't see what is wrong with that really. And I like haggis.

In reply to cander:

Without Sterling no one in Scotland would know where Tillicoultry is.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I assume he'll be reimbursing the Welsh and English taxpayer for RBS and HBOS too?

In reply to rlines:

And setting up a new central bank, NHS, DVLA, Police, Fire, Border security, MOD, etc etc.... seems unlikely in a few short years.

In reply to rlines:

Why given the evidence?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Will Dougie Donnelly still do the adverts? I must have a cast iron guarantee on this!

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I've been through it when the A9 was blocked - although until this moment I was completely unaware of it.

In reply to rlines:

It may have escaped your notice, but Police and Fire services and to a great degree the NHS already operate under seperate leadership. Can't imagine setting up a more effective DVLA than what we have across the UK at the moment could take longer than a few months, Border and MOD stuff will take a little longer, but they don't seem to be at risk of being overrun at the moment, unless of course you are expecting the English to invade as soon as the Scots declare their independence

In reply to FesteringSore:

I'll be opening an offie on the southbank of the Sark

In reply to Saor Alba:

Have you managed to download the white paper yet? I'm not getting anywhere fast but there is a download slowly running in the background. I have sent an email (somewhere, can't remember) asking how to get a paper copy.

In reply to rlines:


No, the central bank is staying in London.

In reply to drmarten:

I haven't. I haven't gone onto the main site yet as I hear it's being overloaded. Will try to tonight.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

We will have oil, just got rid of nuclear weapons, and a military going through considerable change. I'm more worried about the Americans...

In reply to Saor Alba:

Since he doesnt even know what currency we'll all be spending if he gets the goahead, I cant see it all happening as soon as he thinks. My view.

Cant see MOD puming money into the clyde BAE shipyard if Scotland is a foreign country. Changes the landscape of clyde ship building as we know it?

So many little thkngs that would really change the way of life. The SNP just seems like a romanticised group of oldtimers. I often wonder, what would Robert the bruce and W. Wallace say? They'd say ' thingas arent the same as they were' Scoland is not being presecuted anymore, calm down..

That's my view. I'm sure others will disagree, but it seems liek one mans quest at the expense of a nation.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'm going to give up for the moment, it's given up the ghost again at about 13%. I'll try again later tonight.

In reply to rlines:

You make some going points but I think it is worth bearing in mind that the entire political set up of what we call the UK right now will change. In other words, whilst there is no precedent of building warships outside the UK currently, given the best place to build them is on the Clyde and Scotland having some of the most strategic waters in the world (the most?), a new arrangement will be found which doesn't have a precedent in current times. Unless Westminster decides to become like North Korea and all isolationist.

If you think this is anything to do with William Wallace you have a lot of catching up to do on this subject.

In reply to rlines:

NHS Scotland and Police/Fire services are already devolved and do just fine. I can't imagine things wouldn change too much.

The MOD already pay for ship building outwith the UK - Daewoo picked up a contract to build ships in South Korea.

In reply to Toby S:

fair enough.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Free Uni education for the all the English and Welsh in Scotland though!

Might even consider doing another degree!

cheers
mark

In reply to Toby S:


Only because there are no British shipyards capable of doing the work. Anyone who thinks that warship building would be done in Scotland in preference to Portsmouth is being optimistic in the extreme.

In reply to Scomuir:

You might not have as much oil as you would like - extrapolate the England Scotland border across the NS - looks to me a diagonal cutting through blocks 28 and 22 - so a chunk of the Central Graben would remain English.

In reply to drmarten:

You can get both versions here: http://wingsoverscotland.com/scotlands-future/

And a lot more info besides.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Will I be able to migrate there once the independence is set

In reply to puppythedog:


Get in with the yes campaigners now!

I have, and Been guaranteed citizenship. Im off up north of the border, if vote goes yes.

Wouldnt stay here in what would be perpetual Tory land. Itd be hell.

In reply to cander:

I was joking. I hope you are too with regards to your simplistic line drawing approach to dividing up the North Sea!

In reply to rlines:

"but it seems liek one mans quest at the expense of a nation".

My view precisely. Talk about trying to raise a monument to oneself. It won't happen anyway.

In reply to Scomuir:

You'd be surprised how important simplistic linedrawing in the sea is .. or maybe you wouldn't

In reply to Scomuir:

Wouldn't worry about that, the Americans don't know where you are

In reply to cander:


As the IFS report of last week pointed out, although it was obvious to anyone who has read up Scotlands economics without wearing tartan tinted spectacles, oil revenues will drop to a fraction of what they are now within a few years. How fast is a matter of some debate but we're not talking about that long before revenue enters an irreversible decline.

After that an Independent Scotland would be stuffed, regardless of all the other issues of currency, EU membership, the loss of much of the defence industry. The SNP's paper last week on how the economy of an independent Scotland could be grown offered no great ideas, it merely fiddled around the edges of the tax system and pointed to a few initiatives carried out in other countries as our passport to riches. The reality is that an independent Scotland would have to plug a 15% gap in it's economy in 15 years.

For those reasons the white paper, as summarised on the BBC website this morning is really a wish list.

You can't redistribute wealth if there isn't any wealth left to re distribute.

In reply to FesteringSore:

I can understand why Scotland would prefer the Pound over the Euro right now, and having the Bank of England as 'lender of last resort' sounds pretty comforting. What's in it for England/Wales?

In reply to cander:

It was with reference to the "diagonal" of the border. For starters, it's not a straight line, and secondly, following your approach, we would gain some of Cumbria.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Sadly Trump does. Well, his pilot does anyway.

In reply to Craig Mc:

Thanks for that, I've downloaded a pdf copy. Just in time to go to work..

In reply to Removed User:

I think it's important to see the oil industry in the UK in more than just the mature Central North Sea oil fields. West of Shetland and the Atlanic Margin do offer some significant prospectivity - so the story that the UK oil industry is going to pack up and go away in the 10 to 20 years isn't probably accurate. So as far as Scottish revenues go it's actually reasonable for the SNP to include it in economic forcasts.

In reply to Scomuir:

You can have Silloth, Maryport, Workington and Whitehaven - and we'll chuck Calder Bridge and the surrounding land in coz we're nice like that

In reply to cander:

See, that's the problem. Happy to give us the duff bits, but hang onto the nice bits

In reply to Scomuir:

You get the bit where Henry 1st died - that should cheer you all up.

In reply to cander:

I can't speak for everyone up here, but my general feeling is that we don't get "cheered up" by places where people died, whether you hang onto them or not.

In reply to FesteringSore:
I would rather the scots stayed with us , personally , for no particular reason .
The only thing about the whole process which is annoying me is that 16 year olds in Scotland are being given a say in it . Obviously a huge number will vote yes , carried along on a wave of Braveheart inspired enthusiasm . They will influence long term future of Scotland , but 16 year olds in England and Wales are not even trusted to have a say in the next 4 years of Government !

In reply to FrankBooth:



A big bargaining chip, should there be a 'yes' result?

In reply to SethChili:

This. the majority of 16 years olds I've met in the central belt are far too immature to have a clue about politics. mind you, we could guarantee a NO vote if we told them all there'd be no more buckfast if scotland became independant.

In reply to Removed User:

Interestingly I have been in communication with the authors of the IFS report (Gemma Tatlow).

I asked her several questions and in particular what cost base they were basing an independent Scotland on. She confirmed that the costs used to calculate those for Scotland are merely a proportional sum of the current UK costs and that any cost the UK currently has has been included (including Trident, HS2, Crossrail etc) in the nominal costs of an independent Scotland. Further, she confirmed that the oil forecasts are based upon the OBR's most negative scenario (not shared by oil and gas UK) and thus in their analysis costs are maximised and income minimised. In other words it's a presentation of the worst case scenario dressed up as hard fact. I wonder why????

It did not say an independent Scotland would be stuffed. That is your own, narrow, view. I say narrow, as it's very clear that no matter what is said, you firmly believe in keeping control of important things that affect peoples' lives with an institution which is utterly out of date and incompetent.

No matter what is said you firmly believe that the Tories should have power over Scotland despite them only having one MP. That is backward and utterly unsustainable.

What is becoming more and more clear is that the agenda is increasinly being set by those with vision, regardless of whether you agree with that vision. What is also apparent is that no matter what is said, the UK Government will do everything to frustrate any drive for control over anything (regardless of benefit to population) unless it's on their terms.

Everything is a wish list to an extent. All party manifestos and policies are.

People are asking for cast iron guarantees over things that can't be guaranteed. Of course they know this but simply banging their same old tired argument and constant stream of negativity is becoming less and less effective. Only time will tell if the next few months will see that view weakened to the point of more turning to yes.

In reply to SethChili:



That's possibly not true. There was a sample poll of 16- and 17-year-olds a few months back, and the overwhelming majority voted No.

In reply to Saor Alba:

"Mr Salmond also made a raft of pledges for voters to encourage them to vote for independence, including a three percentage-point cut in corporation tax, a 50 per cent cut in air passenger duty and free childcare for all one-year-olds. The paper also says there would be no rise in general taxation to fund public spending."

Surely these are party political policies that have nothing to do with independence, or are they going to be codified into Scotland's new written constitution?

In reply to Saor Alba:

"No matter what is said you firmly believe that the party voted in at a general election should have power over the united kingdom regardless of how many MPs that party has in Scotland or England or Wales or N.Ireland. That is democracy."

fixed that for you

In reply to tony:

Yes you are right and that mirrors my experience and also the vote at Nairn Academy last week.

In general young people are pretty conservative and the slightest hint that the X Factor might not be available then it's straight to No. I've seen it a fair few times.

In reply to graeme jackson:

?

Not sure who you are quoting there?

In reply to graeme jackson:


And the majority of adults are? Judging by the amount of copy that the Express/Mail/Record sell I'm not so sure. Had a chat with a 15 year old here in the office who was doing work experience and he seemed remarkably clued up. My daughter is 12 and her many of her mates seem to have a pretty good grasp on politics for their age.

They've carried out mock elections in a number of High Schools across Scotland and the trend so far is that the 'No' vote has had the higher percentage.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

You would think so but given that the UK has spent about 80 years using domestic issues or those subject to the policies of one party as justification for voting no or that it wouldn't work that cat got out the bag years ago.

People are perfectly entitled to ask questions and have been doing so on these issues so it's good to get a take on them.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


I think there's quite a lot of that. It's one thing saying that these are things that an SNP Government would like to do, it's another thing trying to consider what would actually happen, and yet another thing trying to consider what would happen under a different Government.

In reply to tony:


Except it's already happened... or are you saying that keeping the Clyde in preference to Portsmouth open is a post-referendum bribe...?

In reply to Saor Alba:

In reply to Saor Alba:


>No matter what is said you firmly believe that the Tories should have power over Scotland despite them only having one MP. That is backward and utterly unsustainable.


In any democracy it's always going to be possible that some area will vote heavily for a party that loses in the country overall.

Does that mean that the resulting parliament doesn't represent those areas? No it doesn't. There's nothing democractically illegitimate about a fairly-elected parliament in which Party A has a majority, even though area X voted en masse for Party B.

The only way of making it even seem illegitimate is to treat area X as a different electoral entity from the rest of the democracy.

In other words, this kind of result only looks illegitimate if you start by assuming that Scotland ought to be separate.

In other words again, this familiar Nationalist argument is question-begging.

In reply to Toby S:


It's obviously a pre-referendum bribe. If Scotland became independent, warship building would resume in Portsmouth. It's really not complicated.

Mind you, I don't really know why it's held up as much of an issue. It's not as if Scotland's success as an independent state would rest on its ability to build its own warships.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

No that isn't the case unless you disagree with the Act of Union that recognises both nations are nations, not a small region like Yorkshire.

To the argument has legitimacy due to the very thing you wish to preserve

In reply to tony:

Agree with you there Tony and given the massive decline in ship building jobs in the UK (poor industrial strategy (in fact is there one?)) it is not a massive issue on one side but in terms of pride of the Clyde it is.

In reply to Saor Alba:



Hmm. I think you need to think this through a bit more.

(I expect to be saying that to Nationalists a lot in the next year or so. Along with everyone else.)

In reply to tony:


'Pre', that's what I meant. I've lurgy so my head's fuddled!


I think it's only the Better Together campaign that like to go on about it.

In reply to Choss:


http://blog.scottishelections.org.uk/2012/10/would-tories-rule-forever-afte...

In reply to Tim Chappell:

You are a nationalist yourself Tim as you believe in an independent Britain.

In reply to FesteringSore:

Flicked through the white paper over the last hour and it makes depressing reading. Too much aspiration and not enough (in fact not any) realisation of the harsh realities that a newly independent country faces.

Two things keep cropping up. Firstly a drive to make Scotland a 'fairer' society. Noble sentiments indeed and I don't think anyone would disagree. Most of this seems to involve spending, though, and I simply do not believe in the magic pot of money in the sea. So that means tax rises ('only for the richest in society' of course). The problem with this lies with 30% of your income tax being paid by 1% population (and 50% by 10%). There is discussion of simplifying the tax system to increase revenues by £250m but no mention of the inevitable exodus of high tax payers. And a fair Scotland would not be able to charge students from England for University as is claimed which would leave a pretty big hole in the already cash-strapped Scottish Universities.

Secondly, and most importantly, the majority of the argument for independence seems to come down to economics (thankfully there isn't too much of patriotism and all that nonsense). So many contradictions such as re-industrialise Scotland (good idea) while forcing minimum wage to rise at a faster rate than our immediate geographical neighbour (bad idea) - a 3% cut in corporation tax will not cover this after a few years. Creating a Scottish Energy Fund (good idea) presumably to borrow against (like Norway) while carrying a very high national debt (even higher than rUK if division is proportional and you account for pension commitments too - bad idea).

Sadly, for someone sitting on the fence, the paper is just a predictable list of wants with no attempt to allay the concerns of those with a greater understanding of national finance. A lack of trust in the SNP is pushing me to the no camp.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: reposting myself from another thread..

Nicola Sturgeon's response to not already offering childcare (this has already been devolved) to 1 year olds in Scotland was that the extra working women would be contributing tax to the UK, not Scotland alone. Therefore they won't consider it unless Scotland in independent.

Obviously this is another manifesto policy of the SNP rather than a guarantee from independence. But, if true does that seem completely fair and understandable? It seems a bit selfish to me to not help out Scottish mothers whilst part of the union. Is it just politics/spin/feel good teasers? I may have this wrong, interested in others thoughts

In reply to FesteringSore:

I downloaded the document and have read through to the end of the Summary and hope to get into the detailed sections later.

A key point for me is that "“Even without North Sea oil and gas, GDP (national economic output) per head in Scotland is virtually identical to that of the UK as a whole. With oil it is almost one-fifth bigger.” In other words, oil is just the icing on the cake.

Another key point is that "The pound is Scotland's currency just as much as it is the rest of the UK's.” This is also true for all the other assets that are currently part of the UK. It is not up to the UK or Westminster to decide what Scotland gets to keep. Scotland has a right to its fair share of the UK's current asset base for everything.

The argument that you can't be an independent country without your own currency is bogus. France, Germany etc are all part of a currency union and no one would seriously suggest they are not independent!

In reply to craigloon:

If Scotland chose to have a "pound" (I guess it would be known as the SP rather than GBP) what is the mechanism that allows it to tie it's value to the GBP - the same way as for example the Barbados dollar is tied to the US dollar - does the "parent" currency have a veto on whether the "daughter" currency can link to it?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Well since we have a single UK government, we kind of do disagree with this interpretation of the act of union. I don't want to come over all Al Evans, but this splitting of the UK into convenient bits for your argument is gash, folk in yorkshire or hampshire can feel just as hacked off when the party they did not vote for gets into power, but that's life in the UK as currently set up.

I'm all for a far more devolved UK system, and after looking at the summary of the white paper on the BBC website, that also appears to be what the SNP want....

In reply to craigloon:



but they are not. ask the greeks.

In reply to Saor Alba:



If you like. So what? <shrugs>

In reply to cander: There's nothing to stop an independent Scotland using the pound, or tying the value to the GBP, but that's not a currency union. It's not clear why rUK would want a currency union with Scotland.

In reply to cander:

No. As I understand it, the proposal is to be part of a full currency union, not merely pegged to the Pound. Monetary policy would be decided by the Bank of England as it is now, but with input from Scottish representatives.

“Under such an arrangement, monetary policy will be set according to economic conditions across the Sterling Area with ownership and governance of the Bank of England undertaken on a shareholder basis.”

In reply to cander:

That's a pegged system...from wiki

" Reserve currency standard[edit]In a reserve currency system, the currency of another country performs the functions that gold has in a gold standard. A country fixes its own currency value to a unit of another country’s currency, generally a currency that is prominently used in international transactions or is the currency of a major trading partner. For example, suppose India decided to fix its currency to the dollar at the exchange rate E&#8377;/$ = 45.0. To maintain this fixed exchange rate, the Reserve Bank of India would need to hold dollars on reserve and stand ready to exchange rupees for dollars (or dollars for rupees) on demand at the specified exchange rate. In the gold standard the central bank held gold to exchange for its own currency, with a reserve currency standard it must hold a stock of the reserve currency.

Currency board arrangements are the most widespread means of fixed exchange rates. Under this, a nation rigidly pegs its currency to a foreign currency, Special drawing rights (SDR) or a basket of currencies. The central bank's role in the country's monetary policy is therefore minimal. CBAs have been operational in many nations like

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Like I said before, it is not for the rUK to decide. The pound and a share of the underlying gold assets are as much Scotland's as the rUK's.

In reply to craigloon:

Yes, it seems AS is suggesting that an independent Scotland becomes a shareholder of the BoE so it can have influence on monetary policy.

On the face of it and without understanding it more, that seems slightly arrogant and presumptious

In reply to All:

Ta - I understand now

In reply to craigloon:

We have a fiat currency and most of our gold was sold off by Brown.

In reply to craigloon:

So what if the Bank of England says no to the money union, what do you do then, and why would you want this, surely your giving away a key element of national sovereignty?

In reply to cander:

Set up a separate Scottish pound or join the Euro. But do you really think that will happen? That the rUK will really decide to destabilise its own currency in this way? The pound would be shredded over night without the asset base of oil and untapped reserves. Given the debt basis of the City and personal debt the rUK economy would suddenly face very tough times.

This is one of these ones you just have to take your view on.

In reply to cander:

Why would it say no? The paper argues that it would be in both Scotland and the rUK's interest to maintain a currency union (Sterling Area if you like.)

On the second point, I refer you to my earlier answer re the Euro countries.

In reply to craigloon:



And why would that be a good thing for Scotland? Wouldn't it be better for Scotland to set its own monetary policy?

In reply to tony:

Scotland would have bigger input than it does currently so it would actually have a lot more control.

In reply to craigloon:


Gold assets? What, all 6 billion pounds worth? Is it all about the shiny baubles?

In reply to craigloon:
>The paper argues that it would be in both Scotland and the rUK's interest to maintain a currency union (Sterling Area if you like.)

That would be the Nationalist's rather biased Paper would it? I'd prefer to see some unbiased facts and figures thank you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

OK, whatever assets underwrite the Pound.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Have you read the paper?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Why would it not be better for Scotland to set its own interest rates and exchange rates?

In reply to graeme jackson:

You can't as the UK refuses to consider, negotiate or discuss multiple areas before the vote. In short create as much uncertainty as possible. Making an informed choice is not on their agenda.

In reply to tony:

I am referring to the currency union scenario, not the separate currency in which case it would be.

In reply:

With respect, you're all looking at the wrong questions...ask yourselves this EVERYONE....

...why does the UK Westminster Government so fervently want to keep Scotland in the UK?

Once you realise what the answer to that question is, it's only possible to have one standpoint....

ANdy
(A proud Yorkshireman, living in Scotland who will be voting FOR independence)

In reply to Saor Alba:


So if the ability to set its own interest rates and exchange rates would be preferable with a separate currency, why is that not the option being proposed? Why the insistence on allowing a London-based central bank to determine interest rates?

In reply to craigloon:


I didn't know the act of Union had a pre-nup.
You want out, why shouldn't that be at your expense?

In reply to tony: Because they know people are concerned about currency (well, the whole financial aspect) and want to be able to reassure voters that independence won't have any real effect.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

To a point Andrew but there is a religious, fanatical element to the No vote camp also who no matter what, will find error with someone's ideas.

I was in Islay last week, Glenfinnan, Fort William and Port Rìgh yesterday. I've asked this question of many No voters and not once have they been able to answer it: Can you show me one thing, object, anything which I can touch, photograph, see, which you can say would have not been there if Scotland was independent. Not once have I had an answer.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

They want to keep scotland because when independence fails they will want to come back to the uk. Not letting them go independant saves the cost of this.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Would you care to let the rest of us in on the big secret then?

In reply to Saor Alba:

...you will never get an answer to this from anyone involved with the NO campaign....because they can never admit the truth...
ANdy

In reply to itsThere:

...ridiculous.....

ANdy

In reply to craigloon:



You take that at face value? What happens if rUK doesn't want Scotland in this Sterling Area? If it does, why would a ~10% shareholder be given any power at all? Have you noticed the problems with Greece being part of a large currency with a remote central bank and no fiscal unity?

In reply to graeme jackson:

Why do YOU think they want to keep Scotland in the UK? It's no secret....

ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

No one wants to "keep" Scotland. It's not a possession.

In reply to MG:

Because as I said above, the rUK currency would be shredded without the asset base that Scotland would then have.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Here you go

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=firefox-a&q=union+Road+Fort+willi...

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:
I have no idea which is why I'm asking you as you appear to have an answer. Why don't you come out and tell us?

In reply to Saor Alba:

You don't really believe that do you?

In reply to MG:

...clearly wrong...as far as the NO campaign and Westminster is concerned, Scotland is a possession and they DO want to keep it in the UK...presumably that's why they called their NO campaign Better Together!
ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:


Surely if that was the case it would be "oi you belong to us"?

In reply to graeme jackson:

Guess what.....MONEY.....

ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:



A fundemental nationalist misunderstanding


and they DO want to keep it in the UK...presumably that's why they called their NO campaign Better Together!

Probably they called it that because that think we are, umm, better together. Just a thought.

In reply to dissonance:

..and you wonder why people want an independent Scotland....

ANdy

In reply to MG:

...so ...by your logic, you're back to the question why......

Don't make the mistake of thinking i'm a nationalist......

ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:



Why better together?
Deeper broader economy. More influence in trade, economics etc. Shared history, language, culture, religion. One (main) island. Etc. And Union St for SA to photograph.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:


I am simply curious as to how you jump to it being considered a possession from "Better together" rather than a phrase which would indicate that it is considered a possession?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Well there wouldn't be any staff in the RBS head office in Edinburgh now apart from security guards keeping the looters out

In reply to MG:

No....simply wrong...
Deeper broader economy - according to the NO's Scotland's economy can't stand on it's own two feet.
More influence - over what? Europe? The Banks? Look where that got us...
Shared History etc - and this all goes if Scotland is independent?
One main island - so France and Germany should be one country.

..and this is my point...all these things England/Wales/NI will continue to have after independence...so WHY do you want to keep Scotland in the UK?
...silence...
ANdy

In reply to dissonance:

...back to the question...WHY do Westminster want to keep Scotland in the UK?
...waiting....
ANdy

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

...not worthy of a reply....

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Considering "Westminster" consists of a whole bunch of people who are often at odds at each other I am somewhat confused at how you expect anyone to give you a definitive answer.
That you seem to think this is a killer question indicates there isnt going to be much useful discussion though.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:


No one serious is saying that. They are saying both Scotand and the rest of the UK are better off as one economically.



Yes look - two major banks still standing. Also strong influence on all sorts in EU matters, WTO matters, etc etc. Much more say than would be possible as separate entities.



Well it wouldn't continue.



There are not an island - look at a map.





Well no, you have had several answers that you just dismiss childishly.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Someone seems a bit wound up. I didn't even get an ANdy.... lol

The smiley was there to indicate it was a tongue in cheek joke not to be taken too seriously.

In reply to MG:

Yes I do. 15% of all UK corporate tax is from oil, presently, never mind the future. That doesn't include spirits etc and everything else.

To believe that there will not be some affect is very naive and it's not going to be positive.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Because just as in any marital divorce, there are no winners except the lawyers. In this particular divorce, only one party seems to being given any say over it.

In reply to MG:

...don't describe someone as being childish just because you don't like the answers....

Agree with me or not, that's your right which I would defend....

But the NO campaign can't have it both ways...on the one hand they say Scotland cannot stand on it's own two feet, and on the other that Scotland is wonderful and they want to keep it in the UK. SO, I ask again (and again, and again) WHY is Westminster SO DESPERATE to keep Scotland in the UK?

ANdy

In reply to MG:



I do wonder about you at times Martin. Do you come from a privileged background?

There are people using food banks, being evicted from their homes, infrastructure is pish and so on. The majority in the UK don't benefit from this supposed power. Quality of life is lower than the countries Scotland seeks to use as a model.

And could you answer this, with detail as you are clearly worried about it:

If Scotland becomes independent, in what way will that have any affect on language, religion or alter this being an island???????

This is like your definition of rare from another thread which was actually more often than not. Plain weird.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Who cares about the motivation at Westminster?
There's a referendum due so ask the question "WHY does the Scottish electorate want to keep Scotland in the UK?" if you want to win the vote.

In reply to dissonance:

Yes, I would deem it a killer question, and I would like an answer from someone/anyone from the Better Together standpoint...
So yes, still waiting....
ANdy

In reply to MG:







Can I just clarify something - you count your post above as "answers" - but a worked out government paper is not?????? If that is the BT campaign I think my £10 is fairly safe.

More seriously though, I don't think the BT/Union campaign has the staying power here. I don't mean just up to September 2014, but in the event of no vote next year it won't last another time.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Apologies, your smiley didn't appear. Not wound up, just enjoying the debate and waiting for someone to nail their own colours to the mast....
ANdy

In reply to ByEek:

...correct, people living in Scotland.
ANdy

In reply to elsewhere:

...mmm....thanks for that.
ANdy

In reply to Choss:




Goodbye

In reply to tony:

Realistically I think a Scottish currency is a no-go - it would be too weak. So it's probably a choice between interest rates etc being set in Westminster, or them being set in Brussels and joining the Euro.

A bit of a Hobson's choice really.

Neil

In reply to ByEek:


The question of independence should only be asked to the Scottish electorate, however I would hope that in the event of a Yes the rest of us would be given a vote on accepting any major separation settlements etc.

I would also hope we would get a vote in the case of a No vote but greater devolution powers. greater financial devolution in Scotland could potentially affect the rest of the UK so we should all get a say in a referendum. The system should look to improve devolution in England also either to an English parliament or to the counties not that regionalisation stuff Prescot tried to implement.

In reply to Saor Alba:


ah the classic keep asking until people give up and agree with you approach?

In reply to Alan M:


I think you could get around all of that expensive rigmarole by simply disallowing MPs representing constituencies outside England from voting on matters that only affect England.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:


Various people have been answering eg MG. Unfortunately you seem to want binary answers which obviously arent going to happen.

Personally I am ambivalent, there isnt the information to make any sort of informed decision and since I dont have a vote I only have a vague interest. So only become relevant to me if its a Yes vote and then need to do the terms and conditions.

In reply to Alan M:

Do you think that is workable? The whole point of electing people is to get them to do it on our behalf.

What happens in the event of the agreement being rejected?

My goodness. Just read the BBC summary of some of the things Scots are going to enjoy once independence comes including:

- Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds.
- Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation.
- A safe, "triple-locked" pension system.
- Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living".

Impressive stuff, but I can't help thinking that these are politicians promises that quietly get forgotten after the event. You know like "We will not introduce £9k tuition fees" or "I have abolished the days of boom and bust".

In reply to Neil Williams:

A scottish currency could become like a petro dollar and be very strong if it is backed by the north sea reserves. This in itself can be problematic as it fcks up other exporting industries (whiskey for example) as they become much more expensive for the importers (Dutch disease)

In reply to Neil Williams: I wonder, in the event of independence, would entering a currency union have to be voted on by rUK parliament? Or would entering a currency union with a foreign country be a big enough question to ask the electorate directly? Possibly by means of a referendum.

In reply to dissonance:

These aren't answers. They are vague, debatable notions which are not universally applied.

You can't seriously ask for detailed answers on subjects such as membership of the EU as it suits you, and then when someone asks questions about why stay together your own answers are stuff like we live on an island. On that argument the Republic of Ireland should unify with the North. You and MG can wade into that one. Good luck

In reply to FesteringSore:

As far as im aware, any country can choose to Adopt any Internationally Tradeable currency it wishes.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Corporation tax accounts for about 10% of the total tax income, so oil-related corporation tax accounts for 1.5% of the total tax income. I don't think that loss would lead to a catastrophic slump in Sterling.

Given the importance of the oil and gas sector to the Scottish economy, it's a bit surprising that a dollar currency union isn't being suggested, since that the currency in which oil is traded.

In reply to tony:

You must be looking at different figure from me then:

"It shows how important oil and gas has been to Britain since the flow started nearly 40 years ago; in jobs (supporting 450,000 of them), in balance of trade (£32bn last year) and in tax revenue (more than £300bn in production tax over the years, £6.5bn of it in 2012-13, or 15% of corporation tax last year)."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-23776950

In reply to Saor Alba:


To an extent but as the breaking up of the UK was not in any of the ruling parties manifestos when we elcted them the decision on separting the UKs assets is surely outside of their remit. If the government thinks they can hold a referenduman on Europe after a renegotiation, im sure its possible to do between rUK and Scotland. The settlment has to be ratified by the electorate in my opinion of course.

Simply back to the boad room to negotiate a bit further. Might take a few goes but im sure there is a settlement agreeable to all with a bit of creative thinking.

In reply to Alan M:

Remind me of the date for the EU referendum and how negotiations are going? Oh wait, no ones's got the faintest idea.

There is no chance of any settlement being put to a referendum.

In reply to Choss:


That's true, see Dollariazation.

The problem is any county that does this has no autonomous monetary policy of it's own, and no 'lender of last resort', in our case the Bank of England.

The SNP want to keep the BOE as lender of last resort but that will be up for discussion.

In reply to Saor Alba:





Total tax revenue reported in the 2012 Budget was £592bn. £6.5bn is 1.1% of that total. I'm not saying it's not important, but I am suggesting that the loss might not be the catastrophe some are suggesting.

In reply to Neil Williams:




Interest rtes are not set in Westminster. They are set by an independent monetary committee of the Bank of England.

“The Bank of England is the central bank for Scotland, as well as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was formally nationalised in 1946 and is therefore an institution and asset owned both by Scotland and the rest of the UK.”

In reply to tony:

Total corporate tax revenue or total tax revenue?

So you are saying the BBC has got it wrong by a factor of ten?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Why do you say that? You clearly underestimate the London press and the fear they put into the government. If the deal put together appears to favour Scotland to England's loss, you can bet your last English pound that English opposition to the ending of the union will suddenly come into play.

At the moment, this whole topic is probably best described as the "Alex Salmond's side show" but once reality beds in, that is when the hard questions will be asked on all sides.

In reply to dissonance:

...so, no answer then....
ANdy

For Scotland to be part of a Sterling Area would be in the rUK's interest because:

“Scotland is the second largest export market for the rest of the UK. It would be damaging to jobs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to the economy of the rest of the UK, if Scotland did not continue to use the pound. It is estimated that the rest of the UK exported £59 billion to Scotland in 2012 - trade that supports tens of thousands of jobs elsewhere on these islands.

Continuing to share the pound with Scotland will also be beneficial for the value of Sterling. The Sterling Area's balance of payments will be supported by Scotland's broad range of assets and exports, including North Sea oil and gas. North Sea oil and gas production boosted the UK's balance of payments by £39 billion in 2012/13.”

In reply to Saor Alba:


Total tax revenue.

In reply to Saor Alba:

...you would think that everyone could work out why they want to keep Scotland in the UK from this....!
ANdy

In reply to craigloon: The SNP white paper which you've pasted from will be furiously debated till the next election. I certainly wouldn't call it objective.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Not the point I am making the date is irrelevant. Im saying if the government thinks it can hold a referendum in that scenario then it could do the same in the event of any rUK/Scotland settlement.


You might be right you might be wrong who knows? If Scotland votes yes in 2014 by the time of actually breaking away the rUK could have new government. The settlement package could start under a conservative dominated coalition and end up being finalised by a sole conservative government or even a Labour government.

I am pretty sure the nature of the discussion will change after a Yes vote. Both labour and conservative will not want to be seen as weak in negotiation isolating themselves from core English votes.

In reply to craigloon:



Is the corollary of that the notion that if Scotland chose to use a different currency, albeit one in which it could set its own interest and exchange rates, it would be damaging to jobs in Scotland?

In reply to ByEek:







Except the SNP government has kept its no tuition fees promise! Their record on keeping prmises is pretty good as far as I can see.

The list of "benefits of independence" you quote is the list of the current government's commitments up to the first general election in an independent Scotland. At that point, other parties may put forward different policies and if the electorate prefers those, they will be elected. Independence is not about one political party.

In reply to tony:

The Scottish Government seems to think so, otherwise they wouldn't be pushing for a currency union.

In reply to craigloon:


So the Scottish economy is such that it couldn't support a separate currency without suffering job losses?

In reply to Papillon:

I hope it is debated furiously! There are objective facts in it as well as subjective interpretation. They are making the case for independence after all.

In reply to tony:

I don't think that necessarily follows. The paper is saying that a common currency would be *better* for both Scotland and rUK.

Monetary policy is just one of the levers of economic policy. Fiscal (ie taxation) policy is also important.

In reply to craigloon:


sounds like you may as well stay in the UK then?

I take the point about the larger asset base to support the currency, but if we assume AS is correct and the Scottish economy leaps ahead of the weak, hampered rUK - how will the currency union reflect the requirements for differing interest rates in the two areas? if Scotland has 10% of the shares, who will win the argument?

In reply to craigloon:



As far as debates are concerned...The more furious the better. In fact a frenzied, apoplectic, warpath type approach is my preference.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:




Because the UK with Scotland as part of it is a stronger country (in every sense) then with Scotland outside it?

Part of that is of course the natural assets that Scotland has.

Beyond that though a larger country, with a more diverse economy, can be argued to be more stable than a smaller one with a narrower base.

And being bigger can allow some other advantages - Having a bigger overall budget allows countries to have niche 'services' that may not be available to smaller states - that might be funding research in odd areas, or having particular specialist services in the medical or military fields.

There is also for me an emotional aspect - I feel British, and I think a lot of other folk do as well - I'm fairly sure that this is a factor for a fair proportion of separatists - not in a bad way, just what folk feel they are.

I think there are some good arguments for independence - small flexible state, quicker response time etc. But think on balance that further devolution (especially in England) would allow a more balanced UK which could maintain the 'large state' advantages whilst gaining some of the 'small state' benefits.

In reply to FesteringSore:
I work in a multinational company, (also operating allover the UK) at a recent seminar, the management were asked had they made any contingency plans for Scottish Independence.

Answer - No.

They would take it as it comes, if the new government ( of whatever political party) made it more difficult to operate in Scotland they would react accordingly
( same as if was made more difficult to operate in England or Ireland)

For what I can hear, the only people who seem want to make it more difficult for business to operate in Scotland is the UK government .

They seem strangely attached to the scrounging Scots who get more per head ( apparently) than others in the UK. This makes me suspicious that maybe someone has been telling porkies.

.If YOU got a chance to get rid of a liability, you would jump at it. The UK government seem to be rather more reluctant . Why?

In reply to Jim C:



in a business yes, not perhaps in politics ( not that I think Scotland is a liability)

In reply to Jim C:
It would be pretty unusual for the UK govt to regard any part of the UK as a liability they want to get rid of.

I can't think of any current examples where a government is trying to dispose of some territory - are there any?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Why? What currency you use is not the be all and end all of the independence argument.


There is a lot more convergence between the Scottish and rUK economies than between the core Euro countries and the Mediterranean periphery.

In reply to craigloon:




That is true now - but might not be in the future. I thought one of the points of Scottish independence was to unleash the economy which has been held back by the dead hand of Westminster?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

So let me get this straight. Are you arguing Scotland should be independent, but not be part of a currency union with rUK?

In reply to FesteringSore:
On a different tack :

Had to smile at the one about all the mothers that would suddenly return to work, providing extra income tax revenues, when the new childcare proposal started.

Where exactly are they going to get jobs ? It's not as if there is currently full employment and lots of jobs not being filled. The latest unemployment figures are that 7.2% of the working population ( 199,000 ) are unemployed. All this will do is add to that figure ( I accept it will create some new jobs for nursery teachers, but a lot less than the number of people who will suddenly be looking for work ).

I'm not saying that providing nursery care for kids is bad, just picking holes in the extra income tax revenue part of the message.

In reply to cander:


I'm aware of these oil fields and while they may be substantial they don't change the situation I was outlining.

The OBR assume 12 billion barrels left the SNP assume 24 billion. We can probably assume it will be somewhere in between.

Have a look at this link youtube.com/watch?v=x2F-H01Qm1I&

He echoes what most other experts seem to be saying on oil reserves.

In reply to tony:



There are about twenty thousand jobs at stake in the defence industry as a whole.

That's a pretty big deal.

In reply to Removed User:

If Scottish shipyards offered the best value for the rUK's naval procurement, why wouldn't they use them? Except out of spite.

In reply to craigloon:



What you haven't said, probably because the white paper doesn't explain it, is that our spending is proportionally higher as well. So, it's not just icing on the cake. It's what allows us to maintain higher spending on services than the rest of the UK.

Even at that I think the SNP are being a bit careless with actualities there. I can't find the figures right now but I think if you take away oil Scotland's GDP per capita is lower than the UK average.

In reply to craigloon:

Because there are jobs at stake.

These decisions are hugely political.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Hi AnDy.

No one appears to be pressing you for an answer.

Think you should do the decent thing ,and divulge ,or perhaps maybe give us more of an idea.

The blinkered ,and uneducated amongst us could be floating unnecessarily.a bit of enlightenment might point us in the right/wrong direction.

Is part of it cos Big Alec keeps the puddin industry in Yorkshire afloat?

In reply to Removed User:

And how is that different today?

In reply to FesteringSore:

http://www.blipfoto.com/Feorlean

In reply to craigloon:



Yes but..

"There’s nothing stopping an independent Scotland continuing in its use of sterling. But the implications of that are huge.

In order to use sterling, an independent Scotland would have to accept limits on its budget deficit and government debt.

The UK government has said that a negotiated agreement “would be likely to include rigorous oversight of Scotland’s economic and fiscal plans by the UK authorities”.

What’s more, by entering a “sterling zone”, Scotland would forfeit the ability to set its own interest rate. That would be set by the Bank of England."

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-scotland-hands-economic-futur...

A definition of independence is a country's ability to set it's own policies on tax and spend. How can any country be independent when it has to get it's budgets approved by another country?

..and in reality it's unlikely that the UK government would allow an independent Scotland to use the BoE as a lender of last resort.

People who want a properly independent country should plump for their own currency and staying out of the EU. If you want economic stability then Scotland's best interests lie in staying in the UK.

In reply to Removed User:


“Over the period from 2007/08 to 2011/12 the ratio of public spending to GDP was estimated to be lower for Scotland than in the UK as a whole.”


“Even without North Sea oil and gas, GDP (national economic output) per head in Scotland is virtually identical to that of the UK as a whole. With oil it is almost one-fifth bigger.”

Be interested to hear otherwise if you can find the source.

In reply to craigloon:

Today Scotland is part of the UK and the UK government needs to consider the interests of those in Scotland just the same as those anywhere else in the UK. We're citizens of the UK.

In reply to craigloon:


Your being bamboozled by people cherry picking the data they want you to see.

http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/2013/04/scotti...





I'll have a look but I can tell just by looking at that sentence that they're having you on a bit. Oil revenue is about 16% of GDP, not 20%.

In reply to craigloon: Virtually identical does not preclude it being lower.

What's your source?

In reply to craigloon:


Because it would retain the money within their own economy. Unlike a company knock on costs become a lot more important eg saving x million sending work offshore aint bad for a business but may result in paying y million in unemployment benefits. It would be rather foolish for a government not to consider that as well.

In reply to Removed User:

an independent Scotland continuing in its use of sterling. But the implications of that are huge.


Which are projected to be lower than rUK.



Well they would say that wouldn't they? This is part of the "Vote no or the puppy gets it" strategy.


Which is an independent policy body in which Scotland would have a share.



See above.


Why not? Unless, again, out of spite. In fact, that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The trend is towards more international cooperation in aid of financial stability, not less.

“The Bank of England, accountable to both countries, will continue to provide lender of last resort facilities and retain its role in dealing with financial institutions which posed a systemic risk.

"Where financial resource was required to secure financial stability, there will be shared contributions from both the Scottish and Westminster Governments based on the principle that financial stability is of mutual benefit to consumers in both countries.

"This will reflect the fact that financial institutions both in Scotland and the UK operate - and will continue to operate - with customers in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland and their stability will benefit all concerned.”



I'm sure France and Germany would be surprised to hear that they are not proper independent countries.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I was quoting from the Scottish Government's white paper.

In reply to craigloon:


Interests rate are set in order that the UK economy does what the government wants it to do, most importantly keep inflation below a certain figure.

If and I doubt the UK Government would ever want Scotland to use the BoE as it's central bank, interest rates and monetray policy as a whole would be set in the interests of the rest of the UK, not Scotland.

In reply to craigloon:



In fact they aren't really but as they are the largest economies in the Euro zone, they call the shots and economic policy is skewed to suit them. In order to do well the reality is that other EU countries have to adopt the same kind of economies.

In reply to Removed User:




You're right to be sceptical of the claims in the white paper. They need to be challenged and tested. That is the only way we will arrive at the facts. But I would be equally sceptical of counter-arguments from the Treasury and unionist think tanks.

In reply to Jim C:

Yes Jim, my question exactly.....why?

ANdy

In reply to craigloon:


No, I'm suggesting that if the SNP's arguments for independence are correct, that the currency union does not make sense.

If they argue that currency union makes sense, then at least part of the argument for remaining in the union is made.

In reply to andymac:

...Big Alex IS the puddin' industry !

Back in the days of the referendum in the '70's, the Westminster Government of the day lied about Oil & gas revenues (they were supressed) - that was shown to be true in released government & cabinet papers and is no longer disputed nor denied. The then UK government was willing to do anything to avoid losing the revenues that the oil & gas generated because they were being used to prop up old state industries, such as coal, car & steel.
Apply the same principal now and look at the figures. The loss of the oil & gas revenues would leave a huge hole in the balance of payments and tax revenues of Westminster. The sooner that everyone in Scotland wakes up and realises that the ONLY reason Westminster wants to keep Scotland is for its' money the better it would be for Scotland.

And anyhow, why would anyone in Scotland NOT vote for independence when the alternative is a UK government who's only idea for how to regenerate its' economy is to create yet another short term housing boom which is the process by which we got into a mess in the first place ?

I'm convinced...I hope others become so too.

ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:



Hi Andy, I've given an answer at 18:09, but in brief, symbiosis rather than parasitism.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

....quote:

"Former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey has sensationally admitted that his party hid the true worth of Scotland’s oil in the seventies in order to persuade Scots against voting for home rule.

Speaking to Holyrood magazine, the former Cabinet Minister said that the current UK government is "worried stiff" that Scots might vote Yes in the 2014 referendum which will mean Westminster losing billions in tax receipts from North Sea oil."

NOTHING has changed.....

ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Apart from the fact that Denis is now 94 and probably isn't really on the pulse of what the UK Coalition Govt is thinking.

And ignoring any debate as to the actual net contribution. BTW a couple of billion is pissing in the wind for ENG/SCO/GBR so all in all if you are basing such a major decision on this quote from Denis Healey, then well............

But don't worry, AS is obviously telling the truth about the reserves, 24 zillion billion barrels (the top end of every estimate from what I can find with a couple of minutes googling, and yes I know it's 12-24 billion). What happens if he is 10% out, which is extremely likely as the estimates include, likely finds, probable finds, possible finds and finds that might become economic once oil hits a zillion dollars a barrel.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson: Oh yeah, and shock horror. Politicians lie. Apart from SNP ones of course, they are always truthful.

In reply to andymac:
I'll take a guess at OIL
Probably withdraw troops from both Iraq & Afgan for "domestic duties" once they do lose another part of the empire

In reply to craigloon:


I do look at figures with a critical eye. Regarding the IFS report which Donald went on at length to criticise. I was careful not to quote it verbatim because I knew it was pessimistic. It's the OBR's job to be conservative. However the general thrust of their argument s valid. Oil revenues are dropping and will continue to drop. It will take longer than five years for the oil to dry up but it won't take anything like 50. A decade or a decade and a half before they become a minor part of the Scottish economy. I realise too that their borrowing figures were conservative but the trend is the same. We may not have to raise income tax by 6%, it might be "only" 2% but why would we want to get ourselves in that position anyway?

Regarding the currency thing. Rather than hoping that the UK Government would play ball with a Scottish Government and let them use the BoE as the Scottish central bank thus effectively letting the UK dictate strict limits to Scotland's monetary policy, why not just stay in the UK and have, as a minimum, a load of MP's directly lobbying the UK chancellor who is responsible for the financial well being of the whole of the UK? You never know, you might even end up with a Scottish MP actually running the UK economy .

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Hi Graeme,

Love your positive approach....

ANdy

In reply to Removed User:

This retort to the IFS projections is far more eloquent than I could hope to be:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-loch-ness-monsters-underwear/

In reply to Removed User:

No, I went to explain my communications with the author of the report which underpinned what I wrote. This may not fit with your view but it wasn't criticism per se, more point out the flaws.

As for a 2% rise in income tax, I would be happy with that apart from on the lowest tax bands and want it on the upper bands.

So to answer your question, in a mature discussion it may be that it's best to look at the whole picture beyond your own personal tax situation and think that to create a better society some might have to pay more.

Oh and we have to cut out the Lords and other unelected people who cost too much.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Just a little question, when you say "Westminster" in your questions higher up the thread, what exactly do you mean - the present government? People who live in Westminster, the MPs in Parliament? Donald used to like this word in previous threads, and he wasn't very clear either, could you be clearer?

For example, if you mean the present Conservative + 1 government when you ask why "Westminster" wants to hang on to Scotland then one of the reasons is easy, they are conservative so they like to conserve things as they are, they dislike change. If you mean the elected reps of the British people in Parliament then one answer could be that they have a memory and remember the strategic interest on having no land borders... if you mean the good citizens of Westminster, it's hard to say, except that being mostly rather wealthy they are likely to be Conservatives, so see answer 1, although that would just be a guess.

If you are more precise in your questions, and avoid spin words like "Westminster" maybe you would get more answers... if your really want answers, that is, as it isn't very hard to work out for yourself any number of reasons for maintaining the present union.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Lets get positive then and embrace AS's guesses. 24 billion barrels, the top estimate. Yeah, they are all there, every single drop. And with every single drop that AS promises he can deliver every single socialist pledge that he has made. Yeah get real.

I happen to believe in the caring society that AS is promising, it would be brilliant if it could happen. But it won't. The big corps that run the world also run Scotland so they won't let it happen.

In reply to Saor Alba:


No you haven't and unfortunately never will. The big corps that run the world already own Scotland and always will. As a little player you will get f*cked over even more on your own.

In reply to the thread:


Here's one thing that sways me: because so much of Dundee's infrastructure depends on things like UK research grants to Dundee University's Life Sciences, I personally know at least 4 people here in Dundee who will lose their jobs if Scotland votes Yes. And I know *of* hundreds of others who will also lose their jobs in that case.

But I don't know a single person who will lose his job if Scotland votes No, except possibly Alex Salmond.

Just to be clear--apart from that last bit about Eck, none of this is speculation about people possibly losing jobs. It is what is going to happen if Dundee loses access to RCUK funding.

Economically, Dundee University is one of the mainstays of this city. If Dundee votes Yes we are cutting our own throats: not literally, but not that far off literally.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Donald used to start his proselytising rants with, its not about 'politics'...then rambled on and on,about 'Tories, westminster, The Lords' , etc etc.... I just got bored shitless with his same old agenda, we've been hearing it for ever!

(Still undecided Btw!)

In reply to Saor Alba:


My flat price wouldn't be there, my savings would have gone too, my job and probably me would be gone, as I'd have to follow the rest of the educated to get work after the crash, leaving only the yes voters in Scotland to complain about the mess the countries in and how it isn't their fault and no-one could have predicted this.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Ah but Tim, that will not happen, because the SNP will:
"Maintain a "common research area" across the UK between universities"

apparently.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Explain please. I am asking for exacts

In reply to Saor Alba:

I think what he is alluding to, is that , like Iceland (AS favourite poster boy before the crash) had Scotland been independent and RBS was still headquartered in Edinburgh then there would have been an economic collapse that the government would not have been able to contain. The resulting collapse of RBS would have had ramifications globally but particularly for the Scottish government and would have affected his savings, flat price and possibly his job.

All speculation of course, because as we know, the UK as a whole stepped in to rescue RBS.

In reply to Saor Alba:


You've some cheek asking for "exacts," when the entire argument for independence is made up! Even the waffle about Scottish government more able to make decisions for Scotland is flawed. Still, you "feel," it is right, so it must be ok.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Its not difficult. Westminster = the UK Parliament. Westminster Government = UK Government

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Not really, you just need to look at what fish face is bribing voters with to see that the country will crash fairly soon after. Free childcare, tax relief, "locked," pensions (otherwise known as government stepping in to cover the difference if the pension company lose money,) bigger homes for those on benefits all cost money that doesn't exist. Yes, it can be borrowed, but that just costs more when it needs paid back so is passing the problem on. There isn't enough earners in Scotland to support the level of welfare, education and health that is wanted,so it's going to crash...

In reply to Tim Chappell:

According to the white paper, in the 2011/12 academic year, UKRC grants accounted for 25% of Scottish research funding, while 1/3 came from the block grant of the Scottish Funding Council (devolved budget).

I'm not minimising the effect of losing a quarter of your funding in a worst case scenario, but would argue that this needn't happen and that the element of common funding could continue. The SG says it would be prepared to offer direct funding to UK-wide research councils based on population share. It could make up any shortfall from European sources or directly from its own budgets.

The SNP seem a lot more committed to funding research than the slash and burn Westminster crew.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Where do you get that the money doesn't exist? It is a question of priorities. i would rather my tax money was spent on a fairer society than nuclear weapons and high speed trains that don't come anywhere near me.

In reply to Dr.S at work:




That sounds like another area where the existing Union has sufficient merits that the Scottish Government want to keep it.

In reply to craigloon:

all very laudable but one can't help but wonder where the f*ck they're getting the money from? Payday loan companies perhaps?

In reply to graeme jackson: Oil.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ah! the mythical infinite resources of the Scottish oilfields. i should have guessed

In reply to jonnie3430:


It's a trick question that can not be answered without a time machine. You could equally ask a Shetlander what they wouldn't have if Shetland was independent from Scotland etc.

If Scotland had always been independent then perhaps we would have joined/made a North Sea pact with Scandanavia. Then maybe we wouldn't have had the roads and bridges that Europe have funded, or maybe we would. A question that is impossible to answer.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Sorry but these things are open to debate. Not certain. You cannot say that your flat price would fall or rise in an independent Scotland or that that is the result of the union. It may be your opinion but it's just that.

I am talking about things that are tangible to which we can say, with certainty, would or would not be there.

In reply to craigloon:

Aye but remember Jonnie wants spending allocated on per head of population only which would result in massive cuts in many areas of Scotland which are in severe need. I think we are fairly safe from that extreme Tory view in terms of electorate in Scotland, but the irony is we have the policies as a result of the Union.

In reply to graeme jackson:

No one is suggesting they are infinite, but there could be as much to come as has already been extracted. The proposal to set up an Oil Fund along the lines of Norway's is a sound one.

Also, according to the white paper, even without oil GDP per head in Scotland is virtually identical to that of the rUK.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Correct Dave as are multiple ones that the No camp are asking. Of course you knew that. They are even asking questions which only they can answer (EU membership).

In reply to Thread: The Editorial from the FT (pro union)today on the white paper (it's behind a paywall so I thought I would post it for general consumption)

"With the publication of its massive white paper on the case for independence, the Scottish government has sought to silence critics who claim it has not thought through the implications of separation.

The 670-page document may be short of Braveheart-like passages designed to tug at the heart strings. But its purpose is not to fire up the committed. Instead Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National party, has crafted a highly detailed technocratic treatise designed to reassure the fearful. He is after converts, not the allegiance of those who have already made up their minds.

Whatever the result of next September’s referendum, much will remain the same north of the border. In the nationalist vision, Scotland would keep the monarch and the pound. The country’s frail fiscal condition would inevitably constrain the use of its new economic freedoms. But this has not stopped Mr Salmond from scattering a few fiscal goodies over the post-independence gruel. Business taxes would be cut and promises made to fund free childcare for two-year-olds. Unpopular measures, such as the “bedroom tax” and the Tory-backed married couples tax allowance, would be scrapped.

While the Financial Times strongly favours the continuation of the union, we accept that there is an arguable – if flawed – case for independence. Scottish voters must ultimately decide whether Scotland would prosper more under Holyrood than it does as part of the UK.

However, what must also be acknowledged is that a hard choice must be made. Scotland cannot demand a free hand while also freeriding on the rest of the UK.

Mr Salmond has been criticised for publishing what amounts to a wishlist in the guise of a prospectus. The precise terms of any separation would need to be negotiated subsequently should Scotland vote for exit. Many of the decisions required to give effect to his programme would require the consent of non-Scots and Scots alike.

Perhaps Mr Salmond’s most contentious demand concerns Scotland’s post-independence currency arrangements. There is nothing objectionable about wanting Scotland to continue using sterling as its currency. What raises eyebrows is the expectation that the rest of the UK would create a single currency area simply to accommodate 5m Scottish citizens alongside its 58m remaining inhabitants. Such a move would risk replicating the euro-muddle of monetary union without full fiscal union. This is not a comforting precedent.

The white paper argues that currency union would be in the interests of the UK because its balance of payments would deteriorate were Scottish oil receipts to be excluded from the balance of payments of the sterling area. This is a highly questionable assumption, and ignores the possible benefit to the UK of a weaker currency.

Another nationalist argument is that Scotland would be entitled to a continuing say in the Bank of England’s operations, and hence to impose a currency zone on the rest of the UK, because of its historic stake in the central bank’s assets.

This is to misconstrue the nature of the divorce that would occur should Scotland leave. There would have to be a division of the UK’s assets and liabilities – a process that Mr Salmond aims to conclude in just 18 months. But while this might involve the transfer of assets and compensation where such transfers were impossible, it would not confer any continuing control over institutions.

Splitting up the UK would be very bruising. The SNP has already hinted that it might link its assumption of part of the UK’s national debt to Westminster’s agreement on the currency zone. This is not the language of politicians who believe in their own “win-win” rhetoric. It does however recognise the rancour that separation would entail. "

In reply to graeme jackson: Actually I'm a bit puzzled about the oil. In discussions about a currency union yesterday it was stated that as the BoE is owned by the entire UK an independent Scotland would be entitled to their share of the assets. Presumably the same applies to the oil and rUK will get their 90%.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Very true (re RBS I mean) and it's purely conjecture if it might have happened or not in an independent Scotland. You could say yes, I could say no. Both would be as right as the other.

But it is a funny world we live in when stability is measured in how many crashes there are.

Has the Iceland quality of life fallen to that of the UK as a result of their crash?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You are 100% right but it's on which system those assets are divided. My understanding is that debt is allocated by head of population and oil on territorial mineral rights which leave the majority with Scotland.

Most likely there would be an agreement drawn up as to which systems to use on these.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I can't find much to disagree with there but there is a notable absence of opinion on what might happen to the pound and rUK should they refuse a currency union. It certainly wouldn't be business as usual.

Thanks for posting it. "Paywall" - good term!

In reply to Saor Alba:

Well unemployment tripled, currency devaluation effectively cut salaries by 50% and pension funds lost up to 25% of their value. Quality of life is subjective. Having travelled all over Iceland, I can say that you cannot easily compare a lava moonscape country with barely any trees, no train network, rotten egg smelling water, high cost of food and crap weather with the UK. But suspect it is probably better than Scotland QoL would be had it been independent in 2008

In reply to Saor Alba: Not debt, assets. If you want to argue that the oil is Scotland's geographically then you can hardly complain if someone claims that, geographically, the BoE is rUK's. Otherwise it looks a little like you're saying "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine".

In reply to craigloon:

A fairer society than the one we have? At the moment you work hard to get knowledge, then people pay for the knowledge and your time. The less hard it is to get the knowledge the less money you are paid. You think that people who work less hard should get hand outs from the government to allow them to make as much money as the harder workers and think it is fair? I disagree. Why is this unfair?

Where has all this "unfairness," argument come from anyway? I don't remember it being harped on about last year. It looks like the SNP is realising they are going to lose so have borrowed another parties election promises again.

"Right, we want the green vote, so build wind turbines and tell nuclear subs to go away, they will forget that we will be turning Scotland into an nation relying on selling oil and gas to exist."

"OK, so the liberals want free education, lets copy that too, and win the youth vote by making the education really easy."

"How about getting the socialist vote by offering loads of benefits so people that don't want to work don't have to? If we offer a solid pension we get labour too."

"Hmm, it's still not working, how about winning the conservatives over by offering independence but not changing anything? You know, keep the pound, the BBC, the Bank of England."

"I like that, the nationalists will still vote, if we offer a Scottish passport they'll be even happier."

"We can tell women they'll get more work as well!"

"An embassy in Pakistan should encourage their vote."

"Shall we rename? The Scottish Green Liberal Socialist Labour Conservative Nationalist Feminist Islamic Party?"

"Aye, a true Scottish Peoples Party."

In reply to Saor Alba:

I have seen a good question posed, wondering if anyone has an answer to it

"The Scots currently get more per head in public spend than the rest of the UK. What would be the net effect of this against the loss of North Sea oil revenue for the rUK should they leave?"

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

So why are you comparing it then if you say you cannot easily compare it?

I think Ireland and Norway have the best comparisons both of which are double edged swords for both camps.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well yes but given the international precedents of allocating assets (not mineral ones I mean) I don't think there is any big issue. The fine detail is where the disagreement will be.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

From the FT editorial:

"The white paper argues that currency union would be in the interests of the UK because its balance of payments would deteriorate were Scottish oil receipts to be excluded from the balance of payments of the sterling area. This is a highly questionable assumption, and ignores the possible benefit to the UK of a weaker currency."

So what's stopping them from devaluing the Pound now?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



I don't understand the question?

In reply to Saor Alba:

>[...] what might happen to the pound and rUK should they refuse a currency union. It certainly wouldn't be business as usual.


Let's say you and I were business partners, running a furniture shop. I own 80% of the business and you own 20%. You want to leave and set up another furniture shop right next door to mine.

Why should I act as guarantor of your loans? What possible benefit do I get from that?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Agree.

In reply to craigloon:

interest rates are at record lows and they are still applying QE. They are trying to keep it weak

In reply to Saor Alba:


Ha, I see you now understand what an opinion is! If the UK stayed the same, we would continue the slow rise in investments we have. If Scotland left we may continue the rise, or they may fall. I don't see the need for the gamble. What is so great about an "independent Scotland," compared to Scotland that it is worth the risk?



If there is no change why bother? Do you like your tax being spent on rebranding? New computer systems for the DVLA, nationalising the Post Office? New overseas emabssies? Or will the extra benefits offered cover the extra taxes needed for the rebranding?

In reply to craigloon:

Scotland vote "yes"

The rUK loses oil revenue but gains from no longer having to pay for the public spend in Scotland (which is apparently higher than the rest of the UK)

What is the net result of this for the rUK?

In reply to jonnie3430:

I think the value of the gamble, more an informed choice I would say, is that we would be able to implement policies which are more suited to Scotland. I don't just mean on the economy. I mean social policy as well.

For example on the Crown Estate which extracts from communities putting very little back. (I haven't been to the Glenlivet Trails yet

On rebranding, I have no problem with that. We could pay for it out of the savings on HS2.

In reply to FesteringSore:

B0110cks.

We need rid of the Queen and all the other anachronistic garbage that passes for government in the UK.

The BBC could never have been what it is today without the work and vision of John Charles Walsham Reith of Stonehaven, now resting in Rothiemurchus. If the English think it was all their idea then they can think again.
Currency union is, and always has been, a quite common thing around Europe. Presumably, any English people who want GBP to continue to be the fourth most traded currency on the planet will want the Scots to keep it since that position is largely about OIL.

Talking of oil, that is the funding source that the DEVIL BITCH used to persuade all tiny-minded cretins in the UK that we could run an economy on this scale with income tax at these ridiculously low levels. It has been spent on political gifts to morons so that they could spend it on frivolous and meaningless cheap Chinese goods instead of having it invested in our futures.


'Nation shall speak peace unto nation'

In reply to Saor Alba:


But Scotland is made up of many different areas that are all better at looking after themselves. There is no point in Scotland being independent if the Borders are going to run differently to the Central Belt, which will be run differently to the west coast, to the Highlands to the Hebrides, to Orkney, Shetland and Grampian! A policy that works well in one place won't in another! That is why we have councils!!


But they will at least get a railway from it. We will get new signs and well off design agencies. They are borrowing the money as well so we'd have to do the same.

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Seeing as that is not going to change will you vote for or against independence?


And morons will spout rubbish. 30 years on from your memories, the current system is quite different. I honestly think that retired people should not get a vote as they will not have to live with the consequences of it. Funny that you mention Chinese goods! How do the pandas at Edinburgh zoo cost again?

In reply to FesteringSore:

Arguably the single biggest catalyst for the indpendence movement in the past fifty years was the damage that an interest rate policy appropriate for England did to the Scottish economy in the 1980s.

Why is the movement so keen to maintain subservience to an interest rate policy over which it will have even less influence?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Obviously not the mineral ones, that would be silly.

In reply to jonnie3430:

They already are run differently through local authorities.

You are right, they will get a railway and we are paying £5billion for it with no railway. That, by itself, is good reason to vote yes.

Scotland can't borrow much as it's a reserved power apart from recent changes to the Scotland Act.

If you are worried about signs and design agencies then I think you have ever so slightly, missed the point of all this.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't think I have ever heard a single person mention that when talking about independence and reasons why. In fact, I think anyone would be hard pushed to find someone to even mention it.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Or you will have missed the point that the whole thing is unnecessary and it is all money being chucked down a hole.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I see. That's something for the rUK to consider. But I think the higher public spending in Scotland per capita is in any case a result of how the Scottish government chooses to allocate its priorities. It comes from the devolved budget.

In reply to Saor Alba:


So don't think the Thatcher era and what she was perceived to have done to Scotland was a driver for the independence movement?

In reply to jonnie3430:

Well if you are happy with everything the UK does then yes, it is unnecessary but I amn't. For example, the infrastructure in Scotland is rubbish. Roads are falling to bits and it's not through lack of powers are Holyrood, it's lack of money. And if you look at year 16-17 and don't shiver at the budget cuts to come then look soon.

What is your job btw?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No I didn't say that. I just said that what you identify as a catalyst isn't really the main catalyst. It's part of a bigger picture. I'd say oil, a growing sense of identity within Scotland (long before I was born), the 1979 referendum, run down of industry and more travel (leading people to compare and contrast) have been the main catalysts.

What Thatcher did, is a secondary motivation, terrible as that was but it really isn't what people are saying in meetings and in the street etc.

In reply to Saor Alba:



But the run down of industry is consistently blamed on Thatcher! Anyway, how do you think Scotland can be genuinely independent if its interest rates are set by a foreign country?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes it is, and rightly so. but I don't think that is the primary catalyst. Not so hard to understand?

It depends what you mean by genuinely independent. A currency union is an agreement. That is the point of independence - you agree to things you want to do. We might have joined the Euro in other circumstances which is still a possibility. If there was one the same would true for rUK as Scotland would then be foreign to them.

With independence there is the facility to join or otherwise other countries in doing things. Without it, there isn't.

If you mean genuinely independant like North Korea then, no.

So the fact that rUK is "foreign" is not an issue, it's what the agreement is. Maybe in fact we could be in a currency union with Norway as the rUK pound would be in real trouble without the currency union.

In reply to Saor Alba:


It's the councils that should be fixing the roads, but they are more interested in internal politics, pay rises and pensions than doing a job. Having several layers of government above them doesn't help to control them.


Civil Engineer, don't see how that helps!

In reply to Jim Fraser:







Nice balanced view of the case for Scottish independence there Jim, good work. :0)

In reply to Saor Alba: "So the fact that rUK is "foreign" is not an issue, it's what the agreement is. Maybe in fact we could be in a currency union with Norway as the rUK pound would be in real trouble without the currency union."

So then Norway sets Scotland's interest rates, how very independent.

In reply to Saor Alba:

>
The dominance of London and the damage it has done to Scotland would seem to me to be a pretty big catalyst. Look at the rise of the independent movement post 1980.

>
I mean the independent ability to control the main powers that effect the economy. If you were driving a car but a somebody else was changing the gears, regardless of your instructions, would you regard yourself as in charge of the car?

In reply to Saor Alba:

Why would the pound be in real trouble without a currency union?

In reply to tony:

This is a good question and relates directly to my question above (which nobody anywhere seems to have an answer for)

If Scotland vote "yes"

The rUK loses oil revenue but gains from no longer having to pay for the public spend in Scotland (which is apparently higher than the rest of the UK)

What is the net result of this for the rUK?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Em no, that is not a currency union.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


and in doing so, is removed from the volatility which accompanies the oil markets, which might seem to be a good thing.

In reply to tony:

Because with the astronomical debt the UK has and without the majority of oil, the asset base on which the pound etc is based is much lower. Importantly also, the rUK would have no access to potential new discoveries of oil and that coupled with a neighbour with new vigor to the north and no longer subject to the same economic restrictions then the pound would continue its fall from once the majority reserve currency to much less status.

In reply to tony:

Who knows? It's complicated. rUK loses the tax take from the working Scots and the oil revenue, so I suspect it's a significant net loss.

In reply to tony:


Because Scotland would almost certainly join the Euro. At which point everyone in Scotland plus all the businesses in England and that trade with Scotland would need to sell pounds and buy Euros. The banks would see this coming and start trying to get out of pounds in advance.

Even once this had stabilized any English business with trade in Scotland would need to have a Euro bank account. Shops in the North of England would get used to customers wanting to spend Euros. Chucking Scotland out of the pound could quite likely destabilize the pound to an extent that forced the whole of the UK into the Euro.

In reply to Saor Alba:


By how much is that asset base reduced relative to debt?


In that case, why would it not be better for Scotland to have full control over interest rates and exchange rates?

In reply to tony:


It seems to be an outdated view of sterling as a "petrocurrency" which is no longer really relevant. Essentially the rump of the UK would lose some oil related tax revenues and lose some spending on Scotland, which would roughly cancel each other out. I guess the balance of payments would deteriorate a bit but not enough to put sterling "in real trouble".

In reply to jonnie3430:

How [much] do the pandas at Edinburgh zoo cost again?

Have you mistakenly got the impression that the Holyrood Government is paying?

FYI http://www.rzss.org.uk/media/3995/PandaFactsheet_August_2013.pdf

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So instead of having its interest rates set by the Bank of England, Scotland would have its interest rates set by the Central European Bank.

One of the outcomes of the eurozone failings over recent years is the notion that all eurozone countries will have to have their budgets approved by the Central European Bank, which may mean constraints on public spending.

In reply to Saor Alba:

>
Thats not what moves currencies. What is relevant is the ability to pay the interest on the debt and there is no reason to think that would be significantly impaired.

In reply to Saor Alba: The UK is a net importer of oil, it doesn't affect the pound much.

You say it would be in 'real trouble', well it can either go up or down... down might actually be useful atm. The status of the pound as a reserve currency doesn't matter.

I do think the SNP have missed an opportunity here, and I say that as someone who sympathises with some of the nationalist arguments. Scotland would have little negotiation power in setting up this currency union, the SNP should have been bolder and set out what they would do if they could not get acceptable deal.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


And all the Scottish businesses doing business with England would have to sell Euros and buy pounds. Your argument is a red herring.

In reply to Cobbler:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/20/china-salmon-deal-bad

In reply to Papillon:


I though they said they would not take on a proportion of national debt. That would lead to an amicable split...

In reply to tony:

To that I don't know the answer straight off the top of my head. I also don't disagree with your second point either and I think the desire to keep the pound, from the the SNP hierarchy, is more a stepping stone to ensure some transition. It could leave if it wanted (Scotland I mean). If the Euro recovers beyond that of the pound and the rUK refuses this currency union then it might be in a lot more trouble. I think Tom is right.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Really, you don't think ability to repay debt would be affected by moving from having all the oil to having very little and no tax receipts? I do. It will change everything.

In reply to Papillon:

Agree with you. It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think there is a huge awareness that the SNP is not in a postion to set all policy for an independent Scotland and therefore pulls back from that understandably.

In reply to Saor Alba: > Em no, that is not a currency union.

So who do you think sets the interest rates in a currency union?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The currency union does, not one part of it as you are implying. That is the point of the union.

In reply to Saor Alba:


No, oil tax revenues account for less than 2% of UK tax revenues. Why would that (and losing expenditure on Scotland) "change everything"

In reply to Saor Alba:


And if, on the interest rate setting committee, Scotland has 10% of the voting power and rUK has 90%, who is setting the interest rate?

In reply to Saor Alba:


"In 2011, financial and insurance services contributed £125.4 billion in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy, 9.4% of the UK’s total GVA. London accounted for 45.8% of the total financial and insurance sector GVA in the UK in 2009. The sector’s contribution to UK jobs is around 3.6%. Trade in financial services makes up a substantial proportion of the UK’s trade surplus in services. In 2010-11 the banking sector alone contributed £21.0 billion to UK tax receipts in corporation tax, income tax and national insurance."

"Revenues from UK oil and gas production increased from £7.4 billion in 2007-08 to £12.4 billion in 2008-09, an increase of around 67%. Revenues fell in 2009-10 to £5.9 billion, a reduction of around 50% from the prev
ious year. This was mainly the result of record high oil prices for 2008 pushing up revenues to the highest ever level. A drop in oil prices, declining oil and gas production and increased capital expenditure
for 2009 led to the considerable fall in revenues in 2009-10. Although expenditure increased and production continued to decline for 2010, the increase in oil prices led
to a significant rise in 2010-11 revenues.
This trend continued in 2011-12 and receipts were further enhanced by an increase to the supplementary charge from 20% to 32%
from 24th March 2011. In 2012-13 however, revenues dropped by over 40% as a
result of lower production and higher expenditure."

"In 2010 there was record £8.5 billion gap between UK Government spending on welfare and pensions in Scotland and all the revenue raised from North Sea oil and gas."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/welfare-spending-in-scotland-three-times...


Just for some comparative numbers.
I wouldn't be basing my argument around how much worse off rUK is going to be without Scottish oil revenues if rUK isn't contributing to the Scottish welfare fund.

In reply to Postmanpat:

How many times do I have to say this? If the rUK suddenly has a lower revenue and less diverse base as well as huge liabilities then clearly the ability to repay debt is going to be affected.

The oil has put in £300 billion over time and Scottish tax revenues are (from memory) £47 billion. So you are going to keep Trident (where?), continue with HS2 without £5 billion from Scotland, build Crossrail 2 all with less money but zero affect on your ability to pay debt???? The pound would be shredded.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

As I keep saying to you, the committee does. Currently it has zero influence and as Postmanpat says the interest rate policy was a driver.

In reply to teflonpete:

What are the liabilities for that?

In reply to Postmanpat:


All the Scots assets are *currently* in pounds. They'd need to convert them to Euros. The pound would be a significantly smaller currency doing a much larger portion of its international trade in Euros.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I think Scotland would be ok sticking with the pound without a currency union. It would mean tighter fiscal conditions but as a means to setting up an independent country it is the best option, and paves the way for Euro adoption down the line.

In reply to Papillon: It's the only honest option, but there's more uncertainty which makes it a harder option to sell to voters.

In reply to Saor Alba:


How many times do I have to point out that the impact is tiny? Oil tax revenues were about £6bn last year out of total UK tax receipts of about £550bn. How on earth do you think the loss £6bn out of £550bn (and offset by lower expenditures) is going to have a big impact?

In reply to Saor Alba:


That is your opinion, you can say it as many times as you like.


Look at the figures above, oil revenues are running at about £6 billion a year. The £300 billion earned over time is history, it's been burned. HS2 and crossrail can quite easily be shelved if there aren't funds to pay for it, but Scotland's welfare bill and pensions can't just be shelved. I've no problem with Scottish independence, I think it will make not one jot of difference to the people and infrastructure of the area where I live, but your forecast of doom for rUK is, in my opinion, misguided.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Only their cash or quasi cash assets are in pounds. There would be one off conversion that would be managed to avoid volatility and that would pretty much be that
Assuming the trade balance between Scotland and the UK is in balance then there would be no subsequent impact.

The Tory Government know they'd be in a much better place if they didn't have all those non-Tory voters north of the border. Ask yourself this, just what is it about Scotland with its nuclear submarine base, higher tax take per head, huge energy reserves and vast contintental shelf that the Westminster Governement find so attractive?

In reply to drmarten:

The grouse shooting.

Bit of a loaded question there.

In reply to Saor Alba:



Thanks Donald. I'm sure that'll explain a lot to those who didn't already know that.

In reply to drmarten:


I've asked myself that. the financial flows are pretty much a wash and the energy reserves don't contribute all that much to the exchequer and have peaked. So it guess it must be the submarine base. Really.....?

In reply to Removed User:
I've just got a leaflet through the door asking for foodbank contributions. People have every right to be concerned about independence but they'd also do well to have a look around themselves and see the benefits the UK is currently delivering to those struggling to get by.
A biased report threatening me with a loss of £1000 a year under independence fell on deaf ears in this house as I wasn't sure if that was on top of the several thousand our house is already down under the present UK government.
Scare stories work on some people, they don't work on me.

In reply to drmarten:


Do you think that there are only people in Scotland struggling to get by and everyone in rUK is sitting pretty? Do you think that independence is going to bring an end to that?

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's all of the points I mentioned. Having said that, the loss of Faslane as a Trident base may mean the loss of the UK nuclear deterrent. Loss of UK nuclear deterrent may mean loss of a permanent place at the UN Security Council. That alone would concern Westminster - big style.

In reply to FesteringSore:

And another thing; it looks like 10 or 15 years from now most of England outside of London will have the majority of the population in unsustainable personal debt. Many in the other home nations will be the same.

What will eventually happen because of that will make anything in Greece or Spain or Ireland look tame. Yet government still ignores or stigmatises the poor, preferring to support gamblers in the financial sector and the poor underfed defence contractors. Everyone begs for more house price inflation so that in the short term they don't need to get off their lazy f4t 4r5es and in the medium term we can bring the country to its knees.

Something has to change.

In reply to drmarten:

Do you honestly think it is all some Macheavellian plot to "keep" Scotland by scheming politicians? Rather than say a genuiune belief that it makes more sense for everyone to have combined economic, defence, and foreign policy and so on, and a shared feeling of Britishness?

In reply to drmarten:


But as I said, only the Faslane point is really true. Doesn't seem impossible that the UK could cut a deal on that does it?

In reply to teflonpete:

No Pete I'd say that the UK is in a pretty poor state. That means I'm more inclined to take the opportunity to vote for independence. If you like I genuinely believe things couldn't get any worse under independence, I'm not sure if that is the case under the UK. I don't expect to wake up one post independence morning and find everything is milk and honey but I do know things will be better, even if only marginally so.

In reply to drmarten:


Why? Of the 4 countries which most popularly agitate for a permanent seat (Japan, Brazil, Germany and India) alongside the existing members, 3 are non-nuclear.

In reply to drmarten:


The history of the Security Council and Article 23 do not appear support your view. Daily Star readers might agree but, very fortunately, they do not have representation in the General Assembly.

In reply to drmarten: Which things do you "know" (as opposed to "hope" or "feel") will be better?

In reply to Saor Alba:


Nice. I do hope that scotland doesn't decide to go all stalin and kill half its people!

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, as I already said it's all of the points.

If the rUK wanted a deal on Faslane then that would be up to the people and politicians of the day on both sides of any new divide. It's fair to say it would be hardball but played by equals. Ultimately if Scotland says that nuclear missles have to be removed there is nothing rUK can do about it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
I know that Scotland will be governing itself, that is better. Perhaps you can't understand that simple notion but it is a fairly important one.

In reply to drmarten:


I understand, you want independence because you know it will be better. And you know being independence is better because it's independent.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I pointed that out yesterday. It all seemed to go quiet after that.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I don't know what you are reading in the Daily Star but articles and treaties can change, that is kind of what we are discussing.

In reply to drmarten:



Other than move them, presumably to another rUK base. Presumably, any defence shipbuilding contracts would go the same way. A nuclear free Scotland is noble idea, but what effect would the loss of revenue from those activities have on the Scottish economy? It may well be peanuts, I don't know.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No, you don't understand at all.