Scottish Independence

[hibby rae]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

True but if he can't pick and choose when to get involved in the issue. He either gets involved or says nothing and lets the No campaign handle it themselves.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

I find it quite patronising actually, on two counts:-

1. the suggestion that ex-pats know better than those who live here.

2. the assumption that ex-pats would vote No if they had a vote.

I read a Twitter page this morning (and I have no idea how representative it is) which had hundreds of comments from ex-pats telling voters to vote Yes. It's no definitive guide, of course, but Cameron's comments may have just hardened a few attitudes.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

He either should take a back seat and shut up or man up and stand toe to toe with the first minister.

[heretoday]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any debate between Salmond and Cameron would be an enjoyable sideshow at best. I'd rather see the Scots politicians on both sides raise their game than see Salmond's crude attempt to reduce the referundum to an anti-English Tory vote indulged.

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

[lucky]

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK PM to address the rUK on Scottish independence. Why is salmond feared of facing Alaistair Darling in a tv debate

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I love how anything that appears on yesscotland.net or similar cybernat sites is deemed interesting when actually all they are doing is preaching to the converted.

Marinello, I think you may want to have another look at this because deeper analysis really does make for interesting reading as 7 Hills initially suggested - just no where near in the way he/she intended.

The NIESR report - actually it is a series of six reports - pretty much brutally damages the Yes campaign on a number of issues. The misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the conclusions of these reports by the article on the Yes site is utterly grotesque. I can understand each side of the campaign wanting to make their case and putting the best shine possible on their position but what we have here from Yes looks totally dishonest compared to what the reports actually say.

Call me sad but I have gone and read the actual reports or what is available from them and here is what they say:

Paper 1 Economic and fiscal implications for Scotland of moving to independence highlights hole in Scottish public finances and no oil fund

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "In terms of its fiscal balance, Scotland's independence would require taxes derived from its offshore (North Sea) activity to be sufficient to offset the extra monies (in per head terms) currently transferred from the rest of the UK (via the Barnett formula system) in order to pay for the current level of public services. Based on current projections, such North Sea related tax revenues would amount to less than the likely Barnett transfer, leading to a net loss in funding at the time of independence. Under such circumstances the question of whether or not Scotland could afford to initiate the building up of an ‘Oil Fund', is largely a redundant one."

Paper 2 Scotland: Currency Options and Public Debt questions capacity to sustain pound monetary union due to tight conditions of rest of UK

Conclusion:
"The amount of public debt that an independent Scotland would inherit is critical to the optimal currency choice. The lower Scotland’s initial debt and debt servicing burden, the smaller the fiscal tightening necessary to return to a sustainable debt burden, and the less painful any further spending cuts or tax rises would be to the electorate. The less painful is fiscal adjustment, the more likely are markets to believe it to be a credible adjustment mechanism. If Scotland were to find itself with high debt and interest rates, and in the throes of an already painful austerity drive, and were to face a further adverse shock, then markets might question the commitment to remaining in the monetary union. The Scottish government’s acknowledgement that the decision to remain in a monetary union inevitably depends on future governments implies that the commitments cannot be binding in all circumstances."

Paper 3 Funding pensions in Scotland: Would independence matter? pensions cheaper to buy, but higher taxes/service cuts to pay for them

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "The liquidity premium would make pensions cheaper to buy, but taxpayers or the consumers of public services would have to pay the cost."


Paper 4 Can an ageing Scotland afford independence? ageing costs more with independence though govt finance damage smallish

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "The comparison suggests that Scotland is worse off in the case of independence. The effective labour income tax rate in the independence scenario has to increase further compared with the status quo scenario.......The difference for government finances between the status quo and independence scenarios is thus relatively small."


Paper 5 Fiscal challenges and opportunities for an independent Scotland independence means even bigger cuts and/or tax increases than UK

Conclusion: "Our projections for Scotland’s long-term public finances are sensitive to a number of assumptions. However, our broad conclusion – that Scotland faces a tougher long-run fiscal challenge than the UK as a whole – is robust to a variety of alternative, sensible assumptions. Our modelling suggests that the UK as a whole would face a long-run fiscal gap of 0.8 per cent of GDP. Under the most optimistic scenario considered, we estimate that the fiscal gap for Scotland would be 1.9 per cent of GDP – or more than twice as large. This suggests that Scotland would be required to make more spending cuts and/or tax increases after independence (in addition to those already planned by the UK government) in order to ensure long-run fiscal sustainability.

However, the long-run fiscal pressures that our model suggests would face Scotland might point to a higher level of taxation there."


Paper 6 The political economy of small European states; and lessons for Scotland - neutral conclusion

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): It is not possible to pick and choose items of different models since they have an internal coherence. The Scottish White Paper on independence supports the social investment state. Scotland has some, but not all, of the prerequisites for this so that independence would require internal adaptation.


The Yes article linked to turns all this into a Banderson style response.

Report says: 'Massive Holes in Independence case.' Yes says: 'Scotland could be even wealthier than has been previously estimated'

I'm not surprised that the Yes page doesn't hyperlink to the actual reports anywhere from their site.

I blame AMC for drawing me into reading up on this stuff in detail. However the more I do, the bigger the unanswered economic questions for independence clearly are.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I must have missed the facts and figures in his speech. All I kept hearing was "We're better together", with no real explaination as to why.

I said if he had just spouted off about facts and figures it would just turn folk off.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It is people like yourself that dont have any interest in politics that is a worry, if you decide to vote. Especially if you are impressed by Dave.

If it will put your mind at rest let me know how you want me to vote and you can consider it done.

[Phil D. Rolls]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

There will be a referendum to sort this nonsense out. As for Salmond starting it, it's been going on for longer than that.

[allmodcons]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

I think you'll find it's the Westminster system of government that AS dislikes. I can't recall AS saying he hates the English. Maybe you could substantiate your comments by providing some evidence?

[allmodcons]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Yes article linked to turns all this into a Banderson style response.

Report says: 'Massive Holes in Independence case.' Yes says: 'Scotland could be even wealthier than has been previously estimated'

I'm not surprised that the Yes page doesn't hyperlink to the actual reports anywhere from their site.

I blame AMC for drawing me into reading up on this stuff in detail. However the more I do, the bigger the unanswered economic questions for independence clearly are.

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or pissed off at being held responsible for you being 'semi engaged' again but, anyway, here's something else for you to read which, as it happens, is somewhat at odds with your take on the NIESR report.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8...de.html#slide1

Both sides of the debate can, and will, pick pointers from reports that support their case. On balance, I think it is fair to say that an iScotland would have nothing to fear in an economic sense and do hope you're not being as silly to suggest we'd be some kind of economic basket case.

[stoneyburn hibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If it will put your mind at rest let me know how you want me to vote and you can consider it done.

Cool, I like that idea. My initial response wasn't meant to be a dig at you personally.

[Glory Lurker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK PM to address the rUK on Scottish independence. Why is salmons feared of facing Alaistair Darling in a tv debate

Hang on, you are defending Cameron here. He said the debate is one for Scotland to have. Are you saying that, despite Cameron saying that, it's in order for him to keep butting in?

As I posted above, Salmond's opposite number is Cameron. Darling is a back-bench MP. Salmond's got no fear of debating with him, it's just that it's the wrong line-up.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

Can't ever remember Salmond being quoted as saying he hates the English. This old chestnut that folks who want independence hate the English is utter ***** and cringe worthy. Most of us just really want Scotland to be governed by Scotland, hate doesn't come into it.

[green glory]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

Sorry, but pretty much all of that isn't true.

[steakbake]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There will be a referendum to sort this nonsense out. As for Salmond starting it, it's been going on for longer than that.

Around 300 years in one form or another...

[lucky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hang on, you are defending Cameron here. He said the debate is one for Scotland to have. Are you saying that, despite Cameron saying that, it's in order for him to keep butting in?

As I posted above, Salmond's opposite number is Cameron. Darling is a back-bench MP. Salmond's got no fear of debating with him, it's just that it's the wrong line-up.

Not defending Cameron. Just stating a fact. Darling is the leader of the recognised No campaign. Just like he is of the yes one. So it would make perfect sense for a tv debate between them. Cameron has no vote in the referendum. Only reason the mats want a debate with cameron is make the referendum about Scotland v the Tories. Sadly the *******ised offer on the table is not independence but a mixed up mess which leaves Scots with less control of its destiny.

[Sylar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

I don't think this issue will be addressed before the referendum. It's been raised ever since the original plan of joining the Euro became a very bad idea. When inconvenient issues like arise, we're just going to continue to be told that it makes no sense not to let us in or get repeated references to "Project Fear" and "Project Bully". Such is the quality of the debate.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

If we vote Yes then this will be subject to negotiation with both sides having to concede ground. I'm not so sure that a Tory chancellor playing hard ball at this stage is helpful. A currency union would have benefits to the rest of the UK so to simply dismiss it now without any meaningful debate seems wrong.

[Hibercelona]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can't ever remember Salmond being quoted as saying he hates the English. This old chestnut that folks who want independence hate the English is utter ***** and cringe worthy. Most of us just really want Scotland to be governed by Scotland, hate doesn't come into it.

I don't hate the English. I just hate Westminster and their group of cronies.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

Biggest problem for the Scottish pound( which has been around for a good few hundred years ) is that if independence is agreed, our pound may become very strong with the wealth of the oil revenue, similar to the Norwegian Krone. Linking the Scottish pound with the English will make sure it doesn't become too strong in the market place, also remember our banks are now linked up with their English counterparts, RBS with Natwest and Bank of Scotland with Halifax, how can you have this happening, 2 companies working with separate currencies.

[southfieldhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

An interesting and radical development, if they actually do come out and 100% refuse any currency union.I'd be be very,very surprised if they do, so lets wait and see.

As Sturgeon said this morning, no currency union= no share of debt and all sorts of mess for balance of payments etc.


Wonder when the question of coulport/faslane will be brought to the fore....

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Biggest problem for the Scottish pound( which has been around for a good few hundred years ) is that if independence is agreed, our pound may become very strong with the wealth of the oil revenue, similar to the Norwegian Krone. Linking the Scottish pound with the English will make sure it doesn't become too strong in the market place, also remember our banks are now linked up with their English counterparts, RBS with Natwest and Bank of Scotland with Halifax, how can you have this happening, 2 companies working with separate currencies.

That happens all over the world, though. Multi-nationals, including RBS, already work in Sterling, in Euros and US Dollars, and others.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

An interesting and radical development, if they actually do come out and 100% refuse any currency union.I'd be be very,very surprised if they do, so lets wait and see.

As Sturgeon said this morning, no currency union= no share of debt and all sorts of mess for balance of payments etc.


Wonder when the question of coulport/faslane will be brought to the fore....

That's just completely wrong.

Currency union is not functionally related to share of debt except in so far as Sturgeon/Salmond etc may try to make it a negotiating position that they would not take a share of debt unless the rest of the UK agrees to the currency union they are demanding.

The problem with that nuclear option is the effect it would have on both the capacity to borrow and the interest rate at which any borrowing would require to be paid by a separate Scotland. Money markets seeing that one of the first acts of a separate Scottish Goverment was to walk away from any debt responsibility would take a pretty dim view of any prospective future lending. In other words they would loan less and charge much more because of the risk premium.

That means taxes up to pay for the higher costs of borrowing, public spending further restricted to pay for the higher costs of borrowing and a smaller capital expenditure budget all round. But greater freedom to raise and spend more money on capital projects like infrastructure is one of the main public finance arguments John Swinney prays in aid for independence. They're shooting their own fox if they pursue this line.

[lucky]

The refusal to take a share of debt will lead to no sharing of assets. I'm just glad it's very unlikely Scotland will vote yes

[southfieldhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's just completely wrong.

Currency union is not functionally related to share of debt except in so far as Sturgeon/Salmond etc may try to make it a negotiating position that they would not take a share of debt unless the rest of the UK agrees to the currency union they are demanding.

The problem with that nuclear option is the effect it would have on both the capacity to borrow and the interest rate at which any borrowing would require to be paid by a separate Scotland. Money markets seeing that one of the first acts of a separate Scottish Goverment was to walk away from any debt responsibility would take a pretty dim view of any prospective future lending. In other words they would loan less and charge much more because of the risk premium.

That means taxes up to pay for the higher costs of borrowing, public spending further restricted to pay for the higher costs of borrowing and a smaller capital expenditure budget all round. But greater freedom to raise and spend more money on capital projects like infrastructure is one of the main public finance arguments John Swinney prays in aid for independence. They're shooting their own fox if they pursue this line.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The refusal to take a share of debt will lead to no sharing of assets. I'm just glad it's very unlikely Scotland will vote yes

Of course Scotland will take on its share of debt, she was making the point that both options aren't really very sensible.It's time for both sides to become sensible.

There are two main points, one on either side which are pretty vital to the other lot.BT have the power of the £, Yes has Coulport.Both are essential to the opposition, possibly coulport being more important to Westminster than the £ to Holyrood.

Why not have an agreement, currency union for 10 years followed by Scotland floating its own currency (allowing us to build up a track record of repaying loans to the market) and Faslane/Coulport stays home for the subs for the same length of time?It's time to be pragmatic, to meet half way and show the voters that both sides can be grown ups instead of dafties.

[steakbake]

I) RBS is a dysfunction and insolvent publicly funded company, already headquartered in London. If they want to "leave", we should be glad to get shot of them.

II) Osborne is playing a political game. Mark Carney has already stated that they could find a way of arranging a currency union. As for seeking a lender of last resort that isn't your own national bank, I believe both the federal reserve of the USA and the European Central Bank put their hands in their pockets when Brown bailed out the banks.

III) Yes Scotland should be a bit braver. As unionists were celebrating the collapse of the Icelandic economy, little did they realise that a few years later, having left their dysfunctional banks go to the wall, Iceland would be back and about to launch the worlds first viable virtual currency: the aurora, they've ridden out the storm and are experiencing growth beyond that of the UK.

Fact of the matter is, that politicians on all sides should admit that if people voted Yes, they'll get on with it and make it work - like the Chairman of Barclays said the other day and to a more nuanced degree by Carney of the Bank of England.

The rest is just political manoeuvring.

[lucky]

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

[southfieldhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

I'm not sure they have actually said this yet?Lots of nods and winks suggesting this, but not one firm statement of this intent?Just like not one firm intent from SNP leadership they'd refuse the debt burden if no currency union.

Which brings it back to the point were they should all stop talking ***** and come out with firm and definitive answers.