Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Boris]

That would be good but I fear "jam today" if you vote for us and "Armageddon" if you vote for them will be wheeled out by all sides. Hope I'm proven wrong.

 

Yep, I think the same.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

What's the point in being able to run your own stuff if you are reliant on Westminster for funding?

 

And who says tax increases would be a bad thing?

 

Taxation needs reset and looked at. Make it transparent, rather than hidden as so much of it is. Lose the hidden taxes and increase income tax and people may actually be better off!

 

Would you want us to have any power to intervene in external affairs? How much has the UK spunked (in financial & human terms) on ill advised forays into the desert, for example?

 

The risk with higher taxes is the well-off claiming English residency. Investing in property in Berwick could be a shrewd move.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Which is what I said Geoff. To trade with the EU.

 

Sure, the rest of the world may have other requirements, but would seem daft to dismiss the biggest market on your doorstep, doesn't it?

You missed the word "free" there.

 

I would also say that Scotland's major export market, in whisky, is outside the EU.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Scotland could take this matter to international courts and/or the United Nations and would win based on our continental shelf. The apparent alterations made by War Criminal Blair in 1999 aren't worth the parchment they're written on, either. It's Scotland's oil.

 

I'm sure you can only tax oil where it is landed and not where it is found. If the North Sea Oil is diverted to Norway then Scotland would get no tax revenue. If it was decided (and not a dine deal by any matter) that it was in Scottish waters then the Scottish gov could charge for exploration. But that would not raise the same sort of revenue.

[Vincent B.A]

What's the point in being able to run your own stuff if you are reliant on Westminster for funding?

 

And who says tax increases would be a bad thing?

 

Taxation needs reset and looked at. Make it transparent, rather than hidden as so much of it is. Lose the hidden taxes and increase income tax and people may actually be better off!

 

Would you want us to have any power to intervene in external affairs? How much has the UK spunked (in financial & human terms) on ill advised forays into the desert, for example?

 

 

For me, the most important thing is ensuring that there is enough budget rather than where it comes from.

 

Tax increases are only ok if the personal wealth of individuals is increase proportionatly higher. I'm not convinced it will be. Why would you want to increase VAT when a few miles down the road you can buy something with less VAT. I know where I'd be buying my expensive goods.

 

I would like to have the option of being involved in external affairs should the need arise. I'm not defending all historical Brittish military decisions.

 

Your right about the taxes, there should be greater transparancy and I agree, lets get rid of hidden taxes. But I really cant see an independent Scotland setting up a brand new radical tax system like this. If anything, I think they'll mirror the one already in place.

[davemclaren]

For me, there is too much focus on short term economic advantage or disadvantage when it is likely ( imo )to be relatively marginal either way and depends on whoactually wins any post-independence election. Independence is about having the right of self determination, to be able to shape policies which are specific to Scotland and its people.

[Patrick Bateman]

Scotland would not have the locus standi to take this to the international courts until it had seceded from the United Kingdom. It would not secede without reaching agreement with the UK on these matters. Therefore any claim it would subsequently make would be inadmissible because the claim would seek to overturn an agreement freely entered into by Scotland.

 

You omitted to deal with the issue of debt share apportionment.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/mar/02/oil-revenues-if-scotland-became-independent

 

On the debt share apportionment, all I can say is that I assume there are precedents and I see they've been mentioned above. It could become an incredibly tricky issue; sure the UK Government could try to claim some sort of exit fee, but what about Scotland giving up her rights to UK territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands? Shouldn't we be compensated for giving up rights to them? IMO, this is one of the biggest reasons why the British Government will fight this by all means necessary; they fear Scottish independence because they believe it will emasculate their sense of geo-political importance.

 

I'm not naive or romantic when it comes to independence, it won't cure or change anything in itself. What it will do is give us the tools to make changes that will suit Scotland that simply don't exist whilst we're part of the UK. Take Ireland, for example, despite Ireland's financial problems, I don't see much of a clamour to rejoin the UK; why is that? They're often cited by Unionists as an example of independence going *hideously* wrong, yet I haven't met a single person from the Republic of Ireland to even suggest at rejoining the UK. Or any other country which is struggling at this moment in time. That's something worth considering.

[Coco]

Your Norwegian allusion in relation to the EU is a good one.

 

Do you know that for Norway to trade with the EU their parliament HAS to pass laws harmonising aspects of Norwegian law with EU law? At least within the EU you would have a voice to debate these things, unlike the Norwegians...

 

Again, not true.

 

To be part of the quasi-Europe schemes then certain things have to happen. China is not part of these schemes.

 

Edit - I see you've responded partly to the above point. If Scotland was independent I'd like to see a floating currency not tied to Sterling or the Euro - and a Scotland which didn't join the high cost bureaucratic yesterday's story peace loving EU!

Edited October 16, 2012 by Coco

[Coco]

For me, there is too much focus on short term economic advantage or disadvantage when it is likely ( imo )to be relatively marginal either way and depends on whoactually wins any post-independence election. Independence is about having the right of self determination, to be able to shape policies which are specific to Scotland and its people.

 

I agree.

 

And my Mo Farah test comes into this.

 

Do you believe that you have more in common - in terms of self determination - with Glaswegians/Highlanders than you do with people from Manchester/Newcastle etc.? Why?

 

And subsequent to that ... why would you think that people in Scotland would be any better at making public choice decisions than the UK as a whole?

[Patrick Bateman]

And subsequent to that ... why would you think that people in Scotland would be any better at making public choice decisions than the UK as a whole?

 

Because decisions made in Scotland regarding healthcare, welfare and justice are infinitely better than the ones being made at Westminster. I could flip that around and say why do you think Scots based decisions could be any worse than the UK's? The British Government can't even handle basic sums for Train franchises, let alone handle an economic recovery or, speaking previously, drag us into a ludicrous, immoral and costly war, and occupation of two countries. fourth largest military budget in the WORLD? Is that *really* benefitting us in any way? Shouldn't we be investing in infrastructure and education rather than throwing money away on bombs and bullets?

[Vincent B.A]

Because decisions made in Scotland regarding healthcare, welfare and justice are infinitely better than the ones being made at Westminster. I could flip that around and say why do you think Scots based decisions could be any worse than the UK's? The British Government can't even handle basic sums for Train franchises, let alone handle an economic recovery or, speaking previously, drag us into a ludicrous, immoral and costly war, and occupation of two countries. fourth largest military budget in the WORLD? Is that *really* benefitting us in any way? Shouldn't we be investing in infrastructure and education rather than throwing money away on bombs and bullets?

 

I agree that I think the NHS in Scotland probably out performs the NHS in England. Free presciptions for everyone though for me is wrong and a waste of money. Justice - We let out a convicted terrorist on compasionate grounds which I think was wrong and then embarrassed the country further by Libyan's waving the scottish flag on his return home, I would have prefered the UK government to make a call on that one I'm affraid. For me the Jury is still very much out on the single police and fire service.

 

Rail network - To blame the UK government for not being able to handle "basic sums" is wrong. The procurement staff who are civil servants ran the process which is by no means basic.

 

I agree about your points about the military budget and costly wars but I feel that this issue is being slowly addressed already. Its not really enough of a reason for independance.

[Patrick Bateman]

Justice - We let out a convicted terrorist on compasionate grounds which I think was wrong and then embarrassed the country further by Libyan's waving the scottish flag on his return home, I would have prefered the UK government to make a call on that one I'm affraid. For me the Jury is still very much out on the single police and fire service.

 

Rail network - To blame the UK government for not being able to handle "basic sums" is wrong. The procurement staff who are civil servants ran the process which is by no means basic.

 

 

Al-Megrahi was released under section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/9/body - The law was there, the precedent was there, and keeping him in prison to die would have served justice no benefit. If he had been refused, it would have gone straight to appeal, costing taxpayers a lot of money, and in all likelyhood, he'd have been released anyway. It was the application of Scots law, whether people agree with it or not. The UK Government would have traded him for oil deals in Libya, as Blair and Brown had clearly tried, and that would have made a mockery of justice.

 

On Network rail - That's what they are elected/paid to do, they failed spectacularly, including failing to take inflation into account. Even aside from their lack of competency, is it not a bit depressing to say that people in Scotland are somehow inherently incapable/inferior at making these decisions, particularly when Westminster routinely messes up?

[Craig_]

Because decisions made in Scotland regarding healthcare, welfare and justice are infinitely better than the ones being made at Westminster. I could flip that around and say why do you think Scots based decisions could be any worse than the UK's? The British Government can't even handle basic sums for Train franchises, let alone handle an economic recovery or, speaking previously, drag us into a ludicrous, immoral and costly war, and occupation of two countries. fourth largest military budget in the WORLD? Is that *really* benefitting us in any way? Shouldn't we be investing in infrastructure and education rather than throwing money away on bombs and bullets?

 

The infrastructure issue is something which is absolutely fundamental to this debate. Take transport for example - looks to me that while high speed rail links, bypasses around two-bit towns in the home counties and additional runways are being planned for the south-east, the main road stretching the length of Scotland is still mainly one lane! Even the M8, one of the busiest motorways in the country, turns into an A road at one point.

 

 

While I'm in no way decided over the independence issue, it does look to me as though the SG are making attempts to address infrastructure problems in this country which Westminster have shown absolutely no interest in, and if this continues more and more people will be convinced of the appeal of independence.

[Coco]

Because decisions made in Scotland regarding healthcare, welfare and justice are infinitely better than the ones being made at Westminster. I could flip that around and say why do you think Scots based decisions could be any worse than the UK's? The British Government can't even handle basic sums for Train franchises, let alone handle an economic recovery or, speaking previously, drag us into a ludicrous, immoral and costly war, and occupation of two countries. fourth largest military budget in the WORLD? Is that *really* benefitting us in any way? Shouldn't we be investing in infrastructure and education rather than throwing money away on bombs and bullets?

 

There are problems with public choices in Scotland too. Look at infrastructure spending. Rather than spending the money on reducing deaths/unlocking economic potential by improving the A9 - the Scottish politicians have chosen to spend one and a half billion pounds on loss making tram and Borders toy train lines ... both of which will lose vast sums when operating.

 

In addition, the evidence has been that Scottish politicians at Westminster have made bad decisions too ... look at the devastation caused by Gordon Brown (a key figure of course in taking us into the many disgraceful illegal wars under Labour).

 

The supposed successes you point out have been achievable due to enormous financial settlements far in excess of the tax raising capabilities of independent Scotland ... there would ceteris paribus have been large deficits in virtually every year of the Scottish Parliament ... all to have been funded by an untried Scottish Treasury.

[Boris]

Again, not true.

 

To be part of the quasi-Europe schemes then certain things have to happen. China is not part of these schemes.

 

Edit - I see you've responded partly to the above point. If Scotland was independent I'd like to see a floating currency not tied to Sterling or the Euro - and a Scotland which didn't join the high cost bureaucratic yesterday's story peace loving EU!

 

The importance of the EU as a trading partner ensures this and even extends beyond the continent with, for example, the United States and China having to pay detailed regard to the REACH legislation on chemicals if they want their manufacturers to trade with, say, Germany.

 

Source: European Information Association, "Let's go back to the EEC", May 2010

 

So while not part of the schemes, trading partners with the EU have to take into account EU legislation if they are to do trade.

[Boris]

I've read several views from people, mostly in England, who feel it is unfair that only those in Scotland are getting to vote on Scottish Independence as the result will affect the rest of the UK. Now obviously only Scots can vote on Self Determination for there own nation, but I wonder if it is unfair that the other parts of the UK don't have there own referendum on the same day.

 

It would be interesting to see how much of England actually wants to keep the union rather than splitting themselves. it would also make for a better debate if the true value of the Union was shown to each part rather than the tired you need us to survive arguments.

 

Blame the ill thought out plans for UK wide devolution post 1997 election and that perennial English habit of mixing up Britain and England.

 

The thought of English seperatism from the UK is not really there because their perception is that England IS the UK! (this is obviously a very sweeping statement and in no way is meant as anti-english)

[Boris]

why would you think that people in Scotland would be any better at making public choice decisions than the UK as a whole?

 

 

Here's why...

 

 

That's the types making the decisions in the UK at the moment. I'd back a someone up here to do better than that lot.

[Coco]

Here's why...

 

 

That's the types making the decisions in the UK at the moment. I'd back a someone up here to do better than that lot.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Source: European Information Association, "Let's go back to the EEC", May 2010

 

So while not part of the schemes, trading partners with the EU have to take into account EU legislation if they are to do trade.

That proves nothing. The quid pro quo happens in the US so I don't get your point. It's equivalent to BSI kitemarks.

[Marvin]

Has anyone got a link for the petition that may or may not allow Scots living in Engerland to get a vote? As a Scot who lives in England I feel its only right that the whole of the country gets to vote on the break up of the Union. .

 

If you do get Independence, wont you have to apply to join the faltering Euro anyway, and wont you need to apply to join the EEC.

 

By the way just say "No"

[Boris]

Has anyone got a link for the petition that may or may not allow Scots living in Engerland to get a vote? As a Scot who lives in England I feel its only right that the whole of the country gets to vote on the break up of the Union. .

 

If you do get Independence, wont you have to apply to join the faltering Euro anyway, and wont you need to apply to join the EEC.

 

By the way just say "No"

 

The divorce analogy seems to get used a lot so here's my take on it.

 

Woman tells man she no longer wants to be with him and is leaving.

 

Man says, you can't do that I have a say. You're going nowhere.

 

Woman leaves as it's actually **** all to do with the man what she wants to do or how she feels.

 

So, the rest of the UK can think what it likes, but the choice is for those residing in Scotland at the time and on the electoral register.

[Boris]

That proves nothing. The quid pro quo happens in the US so I don't get your point. It's equivalent to BSI kitemarks.

 

I guess the point is that to trade with the EU you have to do some things that they wish you to.

 

In Scotland's context, as I said previously, it would seem strange to leave a trading block that you are already in.

[Boris]

 

I'd take Brown over Osbourne any day of the week.

[Coco]

I'd take Brown over Osbourne any day of the week.

 

Osborne is running with light-Brown policies in order to tread a fine line between antagonising the people lending the country money and quashing any private sector growth rebound while dealing with the worst economic and political inheritance for decades. There is no question of popularity while trying to sort this mess out.

 

The damage Brown caused will take decades to heal. A despicable man.

[Ulysses]

Ok, went and found some details in the Boundary Commission article on Wikipedia. Interesting stuff.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ission_(Ireland)

 

We didn't pay, and ended up having to cut Government spending by one-third over three years. In the end, we got off the hook for our share in the debt, and there are those who maintain to this day that the price of that was Derry and Newry.

 

And we still had to pay a percentage of the Land Annuities in return for regaining control of the Treaty ports.

 

If one was fairly apportioning part of Britain's national debt to Scotland, what would the amount be?

[Vincent B.A]

Al-Megrahi was released under section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 http://www.legislati...pga/1993/9/body - The law was there, the precedent was there, and keeping him in prison to die would have served justice no benefit. If he had been refused, it would have gone straight to appeal, costing taxpayers a lot of money, and in all likelyhood, he'd have been released anyway. It was the application of Scots law, whether people agree with it or not. The UK Government would have traded him for oil deals in Libya, as Blair and Brown had clearly tried, and that would have made a mockery of justice.

 

On Network rail - That's what they are elected/paid to do, they failed spectacularly, including failing to take inflation into account. Even aside from their lack of competency, is it not a bit depressing to say that people in Scotland are somehow inherently incapable/inferior at making these decisions, particularly when Westminster routinely messes up?

 

 

I disagree with your point on Al-Megrahi but thats a whole other topic. Fair enough though you've got your point of view and resaon for it.

 

My point about Network Rail is that the staff who carried out the process are civil servants and were not elected. Clearly there are a number of flaws in the process but I think you'll find that public sector procurement accross the whole UK is littered with flaws, this one however is high value/profile. I dont blame the elected government for the network rail fiasco.

 

I dont think that Scotland are incapable of making decisions. I'm sure there are certainly cases where we would make better decisions than Westminster. For me however there is not enough evidence to suggest that things will be better by seperating from Britain. The cons are far greater than the pros.

[The White Cockade]

Living in the Isle of Man now I won't have a vote but it seems unlikely Scotland will vote Yes

I would guess the Yes vote would be about 30% or so

One thing is for sure though that if the ordinary people of Scotland had been able to vote in 1707 we

wouldn't be needing a Referendum in 2014!

[Boris]

Living in the Isle of Man now I won't have a vote but it seems unlikely Scotland will vote Yes

I would guess the Yes vote would be about 30% or so

One thing is for sure though that if the ordinary people of Scotland had been able to vote in 1707 we

wouldn't be needing a Referendum in 2014!

 

Go back 700 years and you would have been part of Scotland!

 

Actually, I think it will be a lot closer and this is down to what I've said on this thread before and what Prof John Curtiss said on Newsnight Scotland last night.

 

Namely, the option with most support is devo-max however this is not going to be voted on.

 

So, do those in the devo-max camp say "No" and hope that they are listened to by the No camp[aign or do they feel obliged to vote "Yes" as it's better than the status quo?

 

The "No" campaign could easily sort that by saying in the event of a no vote, there will be another referendum re Devo Max, but they won't, because they don't really want to give Holyrood that level of power.

 

Add in that you will have a UK General Election close after the referendum so the allies in the No camp will already be electioneering for that, with the potential for splits.

 

It'll be close in 2014.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Boris

[Ulysses]

http://www.guardian....ame-independent

 

On the debt share apportionment, all I can say is that I assume there are precedents and I see they've been mentioned above. It could become an incredibly tricky issue; sure the UK Government could try to claim some sort of exit fee, but what about Scotland giving up her rights to UK territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands? Shouldn't we be compensated for giving up rights to them? IMO, this is one of the biggest reasons why the British Government will fight this by all means necessary; they fear Scottish independence because they believe it will emasculate their sense of geo-political importance.

 

I'm not naive or romantic when it comes to independence, it won't cure or change anything in itself. What it will do is give us the tools to make changes that will suit Scotland that simply don't exist whilst we're part of the UK. Take Ireland, for example, despite Ireland's financial problems, I don't see much of a clamour to rejoin the UK; why is that? They're often cited by Unionists as an example of independence going *hideously* wrong, yet I haven't met a single person from the Republic of Ireland to even suggest at rejoining the UK. Or any other country which is struggling at this moment in time. That's something worth considering.

 

What the above demonstrates is that these matters will have to be negotiated and therefore cannot be assumed. The stuff around Gibraltar and the Falklands is a red herring, because Scotland would be asking to leave. Asking to leave puts you in a very different negotiating position to asking to stay.

 

According to the "spun" version of the GERS, Scotland would run be running a budget deficit of 4.4% of GDP based on a 90% share of North Sea revenues - or about ?6.4 billion on a GDP of ?144.8 billion. However, the more accurate read of the GERS would seem to be the one that takes account of all the accounting adjustments (e.g. for debt management and defence currently serviced on a UK wide basis), This says that total Scottish government expenditure would be some ?63.8 billion, while total revenues - including that whopping and uncertain 90% from the North Sea - would be ?53.1 billion. So the gap between income and expenditure is ?10.7 billion, which is 7.4% of GDP.

 

First of all, the markets won't like that, so there's no way Scotland can maintain that percentage for very long, and the pressure would show very quickly in terms of interest rates on Scottish government bonds. In any case, every year you borrow ?10 billion is adding another ?400 million to the debt servicing bill. Secondly, what happens if the negotiated settlement - and it will be a negotiated settlement - on a share of the North Sea revenues produces a different result? Assume for a moment that the negotiated split is 50-50, which is a not at all unlikely scenario. That has two effects. Firstly, it reduces Scottish government income by about ?3.6 billion, so now the deficit becomes ?14.3 billion. But also, Scottish GDP would be lower - about ?11.5 billion lower at ?133.3 billion. This would mean that the deficit would be ?14.3 billion on GDP of ?133.3 billion - or a borrowing requirement of 10.7%. At that point the markets will definitely get spooked, and the only way to deal with that is for Scotland to embark on a pretty radical set of tax increases and expenditure cuts. They would be unavoidable - although they may not be all that different to what would happen under the UK setup anyway.

 

But I think the even bigger issue is that this debate is centred on economics - and it shouldn't be. You're quite right when you say that we wouldn't dream of turning back the clock. Why would we? We did the right thing, even if in recent years we didn't do it well. But it was ours to do and we would not have it any other way - something that goes a long way to explaining the level of fiscal and social discipline we've managed to somehow hold together since 2008.

 

But anything I've seen of the debate about Scottish independence is kind of saddening in a way. I don't have either a Scottish or a British identity, but I have enough gumption to know that both should be important things to the people who hold them. But if that is really the case, why is the debate so tacky and cheap? There's no other way to describe it. It has been noted more than once that if people would be ?500 a year better off under independence, then an independence vote would be carried by a significant margin. On the other hand, if people would be ?500 a year worse off it would be rejected by a big margin. I can't remember exactly, but I think the polls showed that something like 50% of the electorate would change their minds completely for that sum. As far as I'm concerned, that cheapens the debate. Can your Scottish - or your British - identity really be bought for the price of a couple of packets of fags and a fish supper a week?

 

Really? Honestly? Because if it can, you don't deserve either identity, and that's the uncomfortable truth.

[TheMaganator]

Does Scotland contribute more than she takes out of UK as we are told by the SNP (constantly)?...

 

Read this and make your own mind up:

 

http://scottishpol.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/deficit-reduction_16.html

[Gizmo]

But anything I've seen of the debate about Scottish independence is kind of saddening in a way. I don't have either a Scottish or a British identity, but I have enough gumption to know that both should be important things to the people who hold them. But if that is really the case, why is the debate so tacky and cheap? There's no other way to describe it. It has been noted more than once that if people would be ?500 a year better off under independence, then an independence vote would be carried by a significant margin. On the other hand, if people would be ?500 a year worse off it would be rejected by a big margin. I can't remember exactly, but I think the polls showed that something like 50% of the electorate would change their minds completely for that sum. As far as I'm concerned, that cheapens the debate. Can your Scottish - or your British - identity really be bought for the price of a couple of packets of fags and a fish supper a week?

 

Really? Honestly? Because if it can, you don't deserve either identity, and that's the uncomfortable truth.

 

Of course it cannot. What size sample was this poll - and where was it held? It's nothing more than politicking. The amount also is irrelevant, a lot of people who are stretched every week putting food on the table and are not politically savvy may well quite readily say "yes" to a pollster at the sound of "better off under independence".

 

You do know that a lot of people vote in general elections on the same basis - whether they will, personally, be better off. Not everyone sees the wider picture or votes for the greater good.

 

Honestly, you come across as if Irish independence was won without a shred of anti-British sentiment or without spilling one drop of blood, and was the purest ideological victory, whereas us scrounging, idiotic Scots are just sitting at the Border jeering the English and waiting for our chance to take home our share of oil profits.

 

Identity, incidentally, is not something that is earned or deserved, it is a birth-right. And, for me, the decision to give away my British identity is not one I will take lightly, should I choose to.

[Ulysses]

Does Scotland contribute more than she takes out of UK as we are told by the SNP (constantly)?...

 

Read this and make your own mind up:

 

http://scottishpol.b...duction_16.html

 

BION, the numbers more or less add up. Salmond is spinning, but what he's effectively saying is that as a part of the UK, Scotland is carrying a share of a 9.2% of GDP deficit. But by itself - and making the most optimistic assumptions about North Sea revenues - Scotland would have a deficit of 7.4% of GDP. So the difference is 1.8% of GDP. Scottish GDP is estimated at ?144.8 billion, and 1.8% of that is between ?2.6 and ?2.7 billion.

 

All this really means is that if Scotland were independent and had all the oil revenues, the cuts wouldn't be quite as deep as they would be if Scotland remained in the UK. But they'd still be deep, and in any case I think my figures above (10.7% deficit) are a more accurate reflection of what would probably happen - in the statistically unlikely event that Scotland votes to secede from the UK.

[Coco]

BION, the numbers more or less add up. Salmond is spinning, but what he's effectively saying is that as a part of the UK, Scotland is carrying a share of a 9.2% of GDP deficit. But by itself - and making the most optimistic assumptions about North Sea revenues - Scotland would have a deficit of 7.4% of GDP. So the difference is 1.8% of GDP. Scottish GDP is estimated at ?144.8 billion, and 1.8% of that is between ?2.6 and ?2.7 billion.

 

All this really means is that if Scotland were independent and had all the oil revenues, the cuts wouldn't be quite as deep as they would be if Scotland remained in the UK. But they'd still be deep, and in any case I think my figures above (10.7% deficit) are a more accurate reflection of what would probably happen - in the statistically unlikely event that Scotland votes to secede from the UK.

 

And as I have posted above, it would be rather difficult for a completely new untried Treasury to try to borrow such enormous sums.

 

Free mince isn't cheap.

[Ulysses]

Of course it cannot. What size sample was this poll - and where was it held? It's nothing more than politicking. The amount also is irrelevant, a lot of people who are stretched every week putting food on the table and are not politically savvy may well quite readily say "yes" to a pollster at the sound of "better off under independence".

 

It was carried out by ScotCen in 2011, as part of the continuing SSAS series, and involved the sampling of about 1,200 people in Scotland - with, one would imagine, the normal error margins associated with samples of that size (which are quite small).

 

At the time, the data showed that about 46% would vote for independence, 32% against and 22% undecided if independence didn't make a financial difference (I believe the opinion polls are showing lower figures in favour of independence now).

 

If people would be ?500 a year better off as a result of independence, the vote would run 65% for, 25% against and 10% undecided.

 

If people would be ?500 a year worse off as a result of independence, the vote would run 21% for, 66% against and 13% undecided.

 

Here are a couple of links - to a BBC story about the results, the outline of the SSAS itself, and the particulars of the survey.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-16024399

 

http://www.scotcen.o...ttitudes-2011#2

 

http://www.scotcen.o...hel-ormston.pps (Powerpoint)

 

 

You do know that a lot of people vote in general elections on the same basis - whether they will, personally, be better off. Not everyone sees the wider picture or votes for the greater good.

 

But this isn't a general election; it's a referendum on the future constitutional status of the place where they live.

 

 

Honestly, you come across as if Irish independence was won without a shred of anti-British sentiment or without spilling one drop of blood, and was the purest ideological victory, whereas us scrounging, idiotic Scots are just sitting at the Border jeering the English and waiting for our chance to take home our share of oil profits.

 

I do? How? I don't think the Irish could ever have gained our independence without a considerable degree of anti-British sentiment. Nor do I regard it as any form of pure ideological victory; no student of what happened in Ireland between 1912 and 1932 could think that. You see, all we have to read of the views and opinions of that time are the things written by the leaders, movers and shakers, and not the things written or said by the ordinary people of the day. Perhaps in that regard the Internet would make a huge difference. Maybe in years to come when researchers are analysing the political history of this time in Britain they will be able to take a closer look at the opinions of ordinary people - and maybe it will assist them in doing that if they pay close attention to sources like message board debates on the subject.

 

 

Identity, incidentally, is not something that is earned or deserved, it is a birth-right. And, for me, the decision to give away my British identity is not one I will take lightly, should I choose to.

 

Yes, but your birthright entitles you to pick and choose across and between two national identities - and as a foreigner, I am intrigued by the basis on which your society will make that choice. Your leaders - on both sides of the debate - are dragging the debate down to the lowest common denominator. I'm rather hoping the people won't follow them where they want to go, but I somehow suspect you won't be able to avoid that.

 

I'm sure you're aware of the political slogan "It's the economy, stupid."

 

Well this time it isn't.

[Coco]

 

I do? How? I don't think the Irish could ever have gained our independence without a considerable degree of anti-British sentiment. Nor do I regard it as any form of pure ideological victory; no student of what happened in Ireland between 1912 and 1932 could think that. You see, all we have to read of the views and opinions of that time are the things written by the leaders, movers and shakers, and not the things written or said by the ordinary people of the day. Perhaps in that regard the Internet would make a huge difference. Maybe in years to come when researchers are analysing the political history of this time in Britain they will be able to take a closer look at the opinions of ordinary people - and maybe it will assist them in doing that if they pay close attention to sources like message board debates on the subject.

 

I'm intrigued by this issue. Quite like reading some of the social history of the past - books like David Kynaston's series on British social history. He delves into diaries and the like to find out what the ordinary people were thinking and noting down.

 

But diaries provide a solid record of that social history. Very different from something stored on websites.

 

For example - who is keeping the record of the Hearts social history as posted on KB? We can't even find the Irvine Jambo thread ...

Edited October 16, 2012 by Coco

[Boof]

Scotland's oil? Better broker a decent deal with an independent Shetland first. :'>

[davemclaren]

Scotland's oil? Better broker a decent deal with an independent Shetland first. :'>

 

[scott herbertson]

What the above demonstrates is that these matters will have to be negotiated and therefore cannot be assumed. The stuff around Gibraltar and the Falklands is a red herring, because Scotland would be asking to leave. Asking to leave puts you in a very different negotiating position to asking to stay.

 

According to the "spun" version of the GERS, Scotland would run be running a budget deficit of 4.4% of GDP based on a 90% share of North Sea revenues - or about ?6.4 billion on a GDP of ?144.8 billion. However, the more accurate read of the GERS would seem to be the one that takes account of all the accounting adjustments (e.g. for debt management and defence currently serviced on a UK wide basis), This says that total Scottish government expenditure would be some ?63.8 billion, while total revenues - including that whopping and uncertain 90% from the North Sea - would be ?53.1 billion. So the gap between income and expenditure is ?10.7 billion, which is 7.4% of GDP.

 

First of all, the markets won't like that, so there's no way Scotland can maintain that percentage for very long, and the pressure would show very quickly in terms of interest rates on Scottish government bonds. In any case, every year you borrow ?10 billion is adding another ?400 million to the debt servicing bill. Secondly, what happens if the negotiated settlement - and it will be a negotiated settlement - on a share of the North Sea revenues produces a different result? Assume for a moment that the negotiated split is 50-50, which is a not at all unlikely scenario. That has two effects. Firstly, it reduces Scottish government income by about ?3.6 billion, so now the deficit becomes ?14.3 billion. But also, Scottish GDP would be lower - about ?11.5 billion lower at ?133.3 billion. This would mean that the deficit would be ?14.3 billion on GDP of ?133.3 billion - or a borrowing requirement of 10.7%. At that point the markets will definitely get spooked, and the only way to deal with that is for Scotland to embark on a pretty radical set of tax increases and expenditure cuts. They would be unavoidable - although they may not be all that different to what would happen under the UK setup anyway.

 

But I think the even bigger issue is that this debate is centred on economics - and it shouldn't be. You're quite right when you say that we wouldn't dream of turning back the clock. Why would we? We did the right thing, even if in recent years we didn't do it well. But it was ours to do and we would not have it any other way - something that goes a long way to explaining the level of fiscal and social discipline we've managed to somehow hold together since 2008.

 

But anything I've seen of the debate about Scottish independence is kind of saddening in a way. I don't have either a Scottish or a British identity, but I have enough gumption to know that both should be important things to the people who hold them. But if that is really the case, why is the debate so tacky and cheap? There's no other way to describe it. It has been noted more than once that if people would be ?500 a year better off under independence, then an independence vote would be carried by a significant margin. On the other hand, if people would be ?500 a year worse off it would be rejected by a big margin. I can't remember exactly, but I think the polls showed that something like 50% of the electorate would change their minds completely for that sum. As far as I'm concerned, that cheapens the debate. Can your Scottish - or your British - identity really be bought for the price of a couple of packets of fags and a fish supper a week?

 

Really? Honestly? Because if it can, you don't deserve either identity, and that's the uncomfortable truth.

 

 

It's the economy, stupid

 

 

 

 

Seriously though, when newpapers level of football analysis is worse than my 10 year old's school essays why would you expect a more rational debate.

 

The best we can hope for is that the facts will sound more convincing than the hyperbole

[Ulysses]

I'm intrigued by this issue. Quite like reading some of the social history of the past - books like David Kynaston's series on British social history. He delves into diaries and the like to find out what the ordinary people were thinking and noting down.

 

But diaries provide a solid record of that social history. Very different from something stored on websites.

 

For example - who is keeping the record of the Hearts social history as posted on KB? We can't even find the Irvine Jambo thread ...

 

 

I know, it's kinda mad in a way. All we do is provide a message board service, and it's up to others to think about posterity. But the ramblings of people on forums like this do actually provide some insight into what people are saying and thinking on "the issues of the day". So it does represent a significant archive loss if this stuff gets lost - which it almost did last week.

 

On the main issue, the Scottish people I know who have opinions on this - whether for or against independence - are NOT for the most part making their decisions on the basis of their wallets. But if you are to believe the research quoted above this is a dominant factor for a very big percentage of voters. Not only that, but in my opinion the people who express strong views for or against independence on JKB are not really influenced by the financial factors, even if they use these as arguments in the debate. I could be wrong, but I think it is about what Lionel Logue said above. I think most people on JKB will not concede their sense of identity (whatever it is) for a few pounds a week. But it looks like someone out there will. That's all I'm saying.

[Ulysses]

It's the economy, stupid

 

Beat you to that one a couple of posts ago, dude.

 

 

:'>

[3fingersreid]

Scotland's oil? Better broker a decent deal with an independent Shetland first. :'>

Good shout lol , anyway can someone tell me just how far from shore can a country claim to be " owners of the sea " around their coast ie territorial waters and how does this equate to the distance of the current oil fields from land

[davemclaren]

Good shout lol , anyway can someone tell me just how far from shore can a country claim to be " owners of the sea " around their coast ie territorial waters and how does this equate to the distance of the current oil fields from land

 

12 miles territorial waters then 200 miles exclusive economic zone I believe.

[3fingersreid]

12 miles territorial waters then 200 miles exclusive economic zone I believe.

And how far are the oil fields from shore ? I take it they're all within that

[davemclaren]

And how far are the oil fields from shore ? I take it they're all within that

 

All the British ones are.

[Bonnie Prince Charlie]

 

please explain.

[3fingersreid]

All the British ones are.

I like the fact you called them British............ best get the tin hat oot ha ha

[davemclaren]

I like the fact you called them British............ best get the tin hat oot ha ha

 

I called them British because they are currently in British waters.

[davemclaren]

Interesting BBC article on defence options for an independent Scotland. Obviously, what forces there would be would depend on what priority any government put on having them. However, it's hard to disagree that they would be regional focused.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19955309

[davemclaren]

please explain.

 

 

Nothing much to explain bar it's a smilie. However, it's hard to see shetland going its own way.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

Scotland's oil? Better broker a decent deal with an independent Shetland first. :'>

 

 

Then an independant Lerwick, followed by an independent King Harald Street, St. Olaf Street and so on. (Google Maps )

When I was much younger, I figured, by the age I am now, we'd all be members of a 2 or 3 corporation planet. What Happened?

Edited October 16, 2012 by J.T.F.Robertson