[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Well I do think that a nuclear weapon free Scotland written into the constitution is very attractive. As is not wasting billions on Trident.

But firstly like THM I'm not convinced that this will automatically translate into a lower defence budget, specially as the Nats now want full NATO membership - an alliance which incidentally relies heavily on the nuclear "deterrent". It would be more convincing if an independent Scotland was non-aligned and neutral. Ireland for example has the lowest defence budget of any EU country.

And has the total Scottish contribution to Trident replacement actually been quantified ?

And finally, attractive as nuclear weapon free Scotland might be it doesn't imo outweigh the negative consequences of Scotland separating from the rest of the UK. For me working class unity is paramount, divisions into smaller entities with the same political and economic model does not represent a step forward imo.

Scottish independence is a distraction imo, instead of pursuing a meaningless emotional agenda it would be better to focus on building a more truly democratic society. And no, I don't mean abolishing the House of Lords, I'm talking about real stuff which affects real people.

Why do we need a televised debate about independence between two individuals?

Conventional defence spending per head of population will be about the same as now, if the SNP's policies are followed - but the money that's currently spent south of the border will be spent in Scotland*. But there won't be any nuclear spending - that's estimated at £100bn over 30 years.

*It's something like Scotland contributes 9% of the defence budget, but 7% of defence spending is in Scotland.

Do you know how much it is going to cost to run Scotland as an independent country?

The educated estimate is in the order of £200M start-up costs. Ongoing running costs? Why would they be higher? Most other countries of a comparable size don't have high running costs - in fact often lower because a smaller country is easier to manage, you don't need so many layers of bureaucracy.

Ben the current spending is 3 billion the projected spending will be 2. 5 billion so it will reduce by 1/2 billion - page 75- 78 of white paper.

A number of points

1. 3 billion is what scotland spends on defence currently within the UK
2. the white paper claims that the £2.5 billion is more than is currently spent in scotland so they can spend less and get more money internally - theoretically possible but i do not know if this is true or false.

I wont comment on the nuclear bit for fear of "trolling".

Thank you Ben, so net/net (and with NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence spend) we get to an actual flat position overall (give or take) but a different type of spend. So that is subtedly but importantly different from freeing up a shed load of money for alternative uses such as schools and hospitals (the usual cliche). Now even with the estimated slight saving (countered by cuts in corporate tax* etc) we have according to the IFS a worse fiscal position going forward than before. And yet, as if by [s]BS[/s] magic Alex is capable of all this extra spending. It's amazing......

* dear Gordie was using this as a reason for arguing yesterday against income inequality since IHO this policy is mainly putting money into the hands of corp including those nasty utliity companies (slightly twisted argument for effect).

NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence

Thank you Ben, so net/net (and with NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence spend) we get to an actual flat position overall (give or take) but a different type of spend. So that is subtedly but importantly different from freeing up a shed load of money for alternative uses such as schools and hospitals (the usual cliche).

No - because we won't be paying for Trident, it's not a flat position overall (and as Junkyard says I got the numbers wrong according to the white paper). It's saving us around £9bn over 30 years, our share of replacing Trident.

Then there's HS2 - not paying towards that saves us a few £bn more. Not contributing to Crossrail saves a few hundred million - probably enough to cover the start-up costs. Etc.

Thank you KB, I stand corrected. Another International org with fudged membership!!

Cheers Ben, the iFS must be smoking something then!! True it's not a flat position but I think you will find that defence spending will be largely a mirage. It's a reallocation more than a major reduction - not necessarily a bad thing. Still about 1.6-1.8% of GDP on defence, so no small amount. It will be interesting to see what you get for your money.

On a more general note, I think people would find the suggestion that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets a little insulting. Why should real people not care about such things as democratic representation, or living in a WMD-free country?

The whole history of the Labour Party, started in Scotland, is of ordinary working-class people having high ideals and thinking about more than money. Such people cared about bigger things than what would benefit them personally.

Although of course living in a more fair and democratic society benefits almost everyone.

Cheers Ben, the iFS must be smoking something then!! True it's not a flat position but I think you will find that defence spending will be lately a mirage. It's a reallocation more than a major reduction - not necessarily a bad thing.

You're still missing the difference between conventional and nuclear spending. Conventional military spending will stay the same or drop a bit (depends on the policies of the particular government at the time), but nuclear spending is outside that. The £100bn to be spent on Trident is on top of conventional military spending.

I should think it'd be obvious that not building a fleet of incredibly sophisticated submarines, missiles and nuclear warheads is cheaper than building them.

That's what the polls day thoug Ben isn't it. Bribed by a few extra £s in the pocket.

(Ps don't forget (sssshhhhh) don't ask, don't tell. Keep it quiet though, it's nice to pretend that there are not nukes)

That's what the polls day thoug Ben isn't it. Bribed by a few extra £s in the pocket.

For some people, yes. We'll see how many - and of course it's not true anyway, we don't know the cost of staying in the UK. Though we do know some things - the Barnett formula is likely to be scrapped, and there's a lot more austerity to come, so staying in the UK could well be very bad for the £'s in people's pockets.

(Ps don't forget (sssshhhhh) don't ask, don't tell. Keep it quiet though, it's nice to pretend that there are not nukes)

You can't hide the existence of the things, it's just not possible. Secret underground sub pens, like the Nazis built? Just can't be done.

Thank you Ben, so net/net (and with NATO membership requirement to maintain 2% GDP defence spend) we get to an actual flat position overall (give or take)

Meanwhile, in a bunker under Holyrood, a wind turbine driven Babbage Analytical Engine is churning oot BitPoonds.

You can make your own. Plans here:

[img] [/img]

(Just bringing this thread back to the currency question 🙂 )

Thank you KB, I stand corrected. Another International org with fudged membership!!

Oh, no, sorry, it's just going to be as samey as possible with a different brand and extra tartan.

Way ahead of you 😉

[url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4153/4949209583_fc8ac00f5a_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4153/4949209583_fc8ac00f5a_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/cycleologist/4949209583/ ]Curta Dismantled[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/cycleologist/ ]Ben Cooper[/url], on Flickr

KB - ooh, so cynical. Why do you think Scotland can't do better? The UK is one of the most unequal developed countries, can't we aspire to do something about that?

Having a government that's more representative and democratic has to help.

Why do you think Scotland can't do better?

Why do think Scotland can do better? After all Scots have been deeply involved in the UK politics for many years and they have not changed the UK to becoming a utopian paradise. Why will independence bring that? Is the thought that because Scots are in charge there will be a radical change in land ownership rules, minimum wage, enhanced benefits, etc. This may be wanted by [u]some[/u] of the Scottish population, but it is not going to happen. Independence will bring a country which will be more left wing than the UK, but only by a small bit.

A very " small bit" except for one bloke and his cronies who will have more power!!! The savings on trident can be spent on remedial economic and geopolitical revision classes. God knows, he needs them (unless he is being deliberately "economical" with the truth). My money is on the latter!

Have a good day. Mustn't get distracted today!!

(Ps KB serious thanks, the IFS claims that 2% was a requirement, so the extra perspective was useful)

Though we do know some things - the Barnett formula is likely to be scrapped, and there's a lot more austerity to come, so staying in the UK could well be very bad for the £'s in people's pockets

As you implied it is Barnett that allows Scotland to sustain its current levels of public spending. Following a 'No' this may be scrapped, it is likely that it will be revised but the the only thing that we do "know" is that a 'Yes' will mean no Barnett.

Given a Yes vote, assume that you put all of the HS2 and Trident money into a pot (lets be generous and estimate Trident @ £500m/yr and HS2 @ a one off cost of £5b), what else does Scotland need to put into that pot to get to the £12b/yr Barnett bonus?

Why do think Scotland can do better?

Nice way of avoiding the question.

After all Scots have been deeply involved in the UK politics for many years and they have not changed the UK to becoming a utopian paradise. Why will independence bring that? Is the thought that because Scots are in charge there will be a radical change in land ownership rules, minimum wage, enhanced benefits, etc.

How about the fact that not being governed from London, by a government who will take the effect on London of any new policies over and above anything else means that the policies coming out of iScotland might represent us a bit better?

what else does Scotland need to put into that pot to get to the £12b/yr Barnett bonus?

Where have you got 12bn from? I've seen 4 cast around a few times, but never 12. Even then, you need to compare income with a or scrapped Barnett with the income of iScotland, not the current Scotland.

Where have you got 12bn from?

GERS, £12b was the difference between what Scotland raised in tax last year and what it spent.

Even then, you need to compare income with a or scrapped Barnett with the income of iScotland, not the current Scotland

Agreed, so what proposals have the Yes campaign put forward which will increase the income of iScotland to compensate for the loss of Barnett? All I can see promised is lower tax rates and increased public spending.

bencooper - Member

I think people would find the suggestion that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets a little insulting. Why should real people not care about such things as democratic representation, or living in a WMD-free country?

The whole history of the Labour Party, started in Scotland, is of ordinary working-class people having high ideals and thinking about more than money. Such people cared about bigger things than what would benefit them personally.

Who has suggested that "that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets" ? I can't see where anyone has done that - can you link to the post ?

Why don't people care about "living in a WMD-free country" you ask. I don't know, they obviously should. The evidence however suggests the opposite, ie, they like living in a nuclear armed country.

The single biggest reason for the formation of the SDP in 1981 was the Labour Party's election manifesto commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, this resulted in a crushing defeat for Labour in the 1983 general election.

There is no evidence that things have changed and that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a vote winner today - CND's protests and marches are far and few between these days.

Nor am I aware that the House of Lords is one of the major causes of dissatisfaction among people, ranking along side public transport, the EU, house prices, etc.

In the circles which you frequent Ben people might well complain bitterly about the House of Lords but most people don't, because they are fully aware that if the House of Lords was abolished next week it would not cause their lives to change by one iota.

Being in touch with reality isn't "a little insulting" as you claim. I too am an idealist, but I do nevertheless recognise the distinction between my ideals and actual reality. It's clear from this thread that you don't.

Although to be fair that can be said about nats generally. As I have repeatedly said the nationalist 'argument' is based largely on faith, hope, and wishful thinking.

GERS, £12b was the difference between what Scotland raised in tax last year and what it spent.

Ah, yes, last year, looking back at the 4 before that though and Scotland raised more than it spent. The GERS figures are often critised by both sides as not being very reliable due to the fact that a lot of figures can't really be calculated properly and there's no agreed set of accounting principles. I take all the GERS figures with a pinch of salt.

Ah, yes, last year, looking back at the 4 before that though and Scotland raised more than it spent

Really?

Table E.4: Net Fiscal Balance: Scotland 2008-09 to 2012-13 (£ million) - Including North Sea revenue (geographical share)

2008-09 -4,091
2009-10 -14,354
2010-11 -12,322
2011-12 -8,554
2012-13 -12,058

KB - ooh, so cynical. Why do you think Scotland can't do better?

Really?

Sorry, I meant when compared with the UK as a whole, rather than outright. Not enough coffee this morning.

Why will independence bring that? Is the thought that because Scots are in charge there will be a radical change in land ownership rules, minimum wage, enhanced benefits, etc. This may be wanted by some of the Scottish population, but it is not going to happen. Independence will bring a country which will be more left wing than the UK, but only by a small bit.

FWIW i do think it is a bit of fudge wanting to keep the queen and various other unionist paraphernalia but most folk are conservative[ non political sense] in nature and resist/dislike radical change. I am sure over time this will fade.

£12b was the difference between what Scotland raised in tax last year and what it spent.

I do nevertheless recognise the distinction between my ideals and actual reality. It's clear from this thread that you don't.

Although to be fair that can be said about nats generally.

They're proposing as much continuity as possible with the present situation under independence.

Is that personal? Would it only be personal if I said it or if I objected to it/said it was insulting?

I've lost count of the number of times I've been called irrational, dreaming, stupid, insane or delusional 😀

I find it encouraging - it means people prefer to insult me than answer the arguments.

If I thought that voting Yes would improve the lives of the people of Scotland it would be an easy decision. But the Yes campaign sound more and more like used-car salesmen, or those guys who try to get you to change electricity supplier, citing a serious of predictions and suppositions couched as facts. Some are rational and sensible, some are barking mad. None have swayed me.

30 year anniversary of the French secret service agents bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour next year, yet another reminder of how helpless a small country can be. NZ had to apologise to the French for damaging their nice shiny bomb with those Greenpeace activists.

bencooper - Member

I've lost count of the number of times I've been called...

Don't forget mental. 🙂

I find it encouraging - it means people prefer to insult me than answer the arguments.

Or it could mean that you are mental. 🙂
There are no arguments from the yes camp, just faith and emotion (or the Denis Norden defence). You can't argue against that, but then there is no need, because it's so obviously silly a position to hold.

bencooper - Member

I've lost count of the number of times I've been called irrational, dreaming, stupid, insane or delusional

That's very interesting but it doesn't answer my question, which was :

[i]Who has suggested that "that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets" ? I can't see where anyone has done that - can you link to the post ?[/i]

If you are going to accuse people of being "a little insulting" as you did here with : [i]I think people would find the suggestion that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets a little insulting,[/i] then you really ought to back it up with some evidence, no ?

So why are you ignoring it, was it something you just made up ? There's nothing wrong with making stuff up of course but it doesn't lay the basis for a worthwhile and constructive debate. So it's really a bit of a waste of time.......just like the nats 'argument' for independence I guess 🙂

I don't think anyone here has said that - but there is a lot of discussion on here and wider around money. The big arguments, especially from the No side, have been around currency, pensions, etc.

There are no arguments from the yes camp, just faith and emotion (or the Denis Norden defence). You can't argue against that, but then there is no need, because it's so obviously silly a position to hold.

Ha, and you're doing it again, calling something "obviously silly" without actually discussing it.

So tell me, what's obviously silly about wanting to replace a broken political system? Or do you think the Westminster system is fine?

You say faith and emotion like those are bad things - I think it's great that people are getting passionate about politics again, instead of passively thinking that things are bad and there's nothing they can do about it. I think it's wonderful to see village halls filling up with people wanting to discuss how to make the country better.

The No side like to portray themselves as the sensible, grown-up voice of reason. Problem is that argument only works if people think you're sensible and trustworthy. Pronouncements about how bad it could get under independence just aren't being believed, even by No supporters.

But there is no substance to any of it.

Vote for me!
I'll lower taxes!
I'll raise public spending!
All will be well!

Just don't ask me how that's actually going to happen because I haven't got a ****ing clue!

It's stuff like this Ben:

The educated estimate is in the order of £200M start-up costs.

You say it's educated because you agree with it, but that estimate comes from a YES supporter, who hasn't included figures like the billion pounds it would cost to pay for the IT systems to look after taxation and welfare because he sees it as "an investment".

£200 million to set up Scotland as an independent country?
It's cost you close to a billion to build a small stretch of tramway FFS.

Vote Yes, by all means Ben, but pull your head out of the sand first.

😆 @sbob skilfully played there for the humour

There are no arguments from the yes camp, just faith and emotion

You say it's educated because you agree with it, but that estimate comes from a YES supporter

It comes from Professor Patrick Dunleavy at the London School of Economics, he's not a Yes supporter in the slightest.

In fact it's the same Prof Dunleavy who's figures the government completely misunderstood and inflated by 12 times to get their discredited estimate.

I don't think anyone here has said that - but there is a lot of discussion on here and wider around money. The big arguments, especially from the No side, have been around currency, pensions, etc.

Fair enough. Obviously how much money they have in their pocket is important to people, and why wouldn't it be ?

The economic arguments are hugely important as they effect the lives of ordinary people, and for that reason should be fairly central to the debate on Scottish independence. It would quite unacceptable to avoid them imo.

But that really is not the same as saying "that all that matters to "real people" is money in their pockets".

Many countries have become independent from UK rule over the last 200 years or so.

Perhaps those folk who are so vigorously telling us why Scotland could/should not be independent could point out one that is desperate to get back under the yoke?

The Dunleavy '200 million' report is here

Sbob is bang on with his comment about not including things that are inconvenient - for example the '200 million' is under the assumption that iS will be allowed to continue using rUK's HMRC, DWP and DVLA facilities for another five years

He goes on to suggest that [i]"Initially many Scottish embassies might sit in UK or other EU countries’ embassies." [/i] - therefore doesn't include them in the setup costs 🙄

And yes, the billion plus quid on new computers and software is listed as a 'long term investment' rather than a 'set up' cost, brilliant!

Now, you can make up your own mind as to Dunleavys political allegiance, but I'd be keen to point you to comments like:

[i]"London ministers could take a hard line that apparently cares little or nothing for the future welfare of Scottish citizens (as perhaps with their declared stance on monetary union).[/i]

😆

You cannot do much in government for £200m, never spend a pound when two will do.

epicyclo - Member

Many countries have become independent from UK rule over the last 200 years or so.

Perhaps those folk who are so vigorously telling us why Scotland could/should not be independent could point out one that is desperate to get back under the yoke?

It must be over 150 pages ago the last time someone suggested that Scotland is the last remaining colony of the British Empire, so well done for bringing up again.

It particularly amuses me as Scots, proportionate to the population of Great Britain, contributed more to the creation of the British Empire, in terms of providing soldiers, politicians/statesmen, industrialists, etc, and therefore also the repressive nature of the British Empire, than the English.

BTW you get extra points for use the term "under the yoke", it really conjures up an image of living under tyrannical English rule.

"In a leaked Scottish cabinet memo, the finance secretary, John Swinney, estimated the costs of a new Scottish tax authority alone at £650m. The Institute of Chartered Accounts Scotland had put those costs at £750m, while other experts suggested a new welfare system would cost £560m"[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million ]Link[/url]

£200 million is not what he said, in fact he said "The initial startup costs of Scottish independence could be as little as £200m but the final tally would be decided in a "poker game" of post-referendum negotiations". So it could end up being considerably more.

It particularly amuses me as Scots, proportionate to the population of Great Britain, contributed more to the creation of the British Empire, in terms of providing soldiers, politicians/statesmen, industrialists, etc, and therefore also the repressive nature of the British Empire, than the English.

.