Forum menu
How about an actual example?
Sheffield Supertram, built in the mid-90s, cost roughly £240 million. Although much gnashing of teeth happened at the time, and quite rightly given the unfair way in which it was funded, it still ended up being a reasonable alternative to the bus service the Sheffield had. Total line length = 60km. Cost per km = £4 million/km
Edinburgh Tram project, an 18.5km tramline, is projected to cost £1.1 billion by the time it's finished. £54 million/km. That's from an original estimated cost of just shy of £500 million. Even if you remove all the dilly-dallying and general incompetence from the Council, it's projected costs still indicates a 100% rise in cost of public spending projects. Factor in the delays, overspend and interest payments, you've got a four-fold increase in the cost of a project that is 1/3 the size.
But you see, that's number fudging, a tactic used by both sides in the independence debate. Firstly, you need to take inflation into account between the years involved. Sheffield's Supertram was completed in 1995, at a cost of £240 million. Edinburgh's Tram Project had an estimated cost of £498 million in 2003. Between 1995 and 2003 we saw inflation of ~22%, so 1995's £240 million would be the equivalent of just under £300 million in 2003. So the budget for a smaller network was at least £200 million greater than inflation would suggest was required. Greater forces at work in the wide, wide world than inflation it seems, and serves as a real world example that certain things that Scotland will need to build/provide/develop are going to be very, very expensive.
But we already have all of the things we need, when we leave we will be taking the part we paid for with us. Do you English think of Scotland as a partner or as a colonial possession?
Interesting use of "English" there. This "Englishman" thinks of Scotland as home, thank you very much. Just an example, but how is Scotland proposing to deal with driver and vehicle licensing? Renting some office space in Swansea? How will Scotland take its "fair share" of the DVLA? And HMRC. One of the major incentives for independence is the freedom to set tax rates as and how Scotland sees fit. You think HMRC are going to just automagically be able to deal with two tax regimes? That ICAS report - misused by the "Better Together" campaign and flat-out ignored by the Indys - lays out how changes to New Zealand's tax system which are less involved than those that will be required for an independent Scotland, cost £750 million. How's that fit in with Dunleavey's £200 million?
The point is, things cost a lot of money. Those things cost less money 100 years, 50 years, 20 years ago, even taking inflation into account. To use the GDP-per-capita of small, dissimilar countries that have been around for years as an example of why Scotland, with all the necessary hoops it will have to jump through, is going to hit the ground running just doesn't make sense.
And just to clarify, I've never said Scotland couldn't be a successful independent country. I believe it could. I just think that it will be a torrid few years before that happens, especially if Salmond's ego has anything to do with it, and I'm just not willing to chance my family's future in Scotland (I love the place, and I'd be sad to move away) on the reality of independence being drastically different from the promises in the SNP's white paper.
Ahhhh back to "English"
We're all the same don't you know!!!
ninfan - Member
"An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London."
how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?
Why would we leave things as they are, and be reliant on an another country's services for any longer than necessary?
Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?
FWIW HMRC will have to be set up to deal with multiple tax rates regardless as those powers have been "promised" to Holyrood already. The cost of doing so is already well understood.
After a little peer review from colleagues at his own institution, Dunleavy raised the number. £200M was the start with the range he eventually quoted getting to the number the Treasury suggested and which Yes campaign ridiculed.How's that fit in with Dunleavey's £200 million?
FWIW HMRC will have to be set up to deal with multiple tax rates regardless as those powers have been "promised" to Holyrood already. The cost of doing so is already well understood.
Not quite true. One of the reasons Holyrood's tax varying powers have not been used is that the cost of altering systems to cope consumes most of the benefit.
Another is that the capacity to set different tax rates refers only to taxes already operated by UK. If iS really wants to be independent and make the social change being talked about then it needs to have the capacity to have not just different tax rates, but different tax structures and regimes. For that it needs its own systems.
Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today's world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.
I am with Flying Ox and have said so repeatedly. Scotland will have a small population and a low tax base so big projects are going to be very expensive on a per head basis. Add to this the fact that inevitably (IMO) Scotland will have to cut corporate taxes to encourage business to stay/attract new companies (ala Ireland) and from what we hear Scotland will be fairer (so that's lower taxes on low incomes and more public spending). This means the sums are going to be very stretched and over just 5m people. What you will see is a big uptick in the amount of state/government employees as Scotland replicates the various departments/organizations required to run a country. These will have to be paid for by private sector taxes and I suppose all those oil revenues assuming the oil price stays high.
Scotland is going to be more Greece than Norway.
Scotland's fare share of assets. I don't see Scotland as owning a share of HMRC, DVLA, the military etc. What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes. As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.
I'm very strongly in the No camp, but I don't think you can say that. All these services have a mix of assets which exist and operating costs to continue them. Your point is valid for the latter but not for the former.As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only
jambalaya - do you not think your view comes close to viewing Scotland as a colony rather than a partner in a union?
scotroutes - Member
jambalaya - do you not think your view comes close to viewing Scotland as a colony rather than a partner in a union?
Hold on, they never conquered us, it was our king who took over their throne, so maybe England is the colony.
Do you think we should let them keep the pound? 🙂
Yeah, it was a Scot who founded the Bank of England too 😉
As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.
How do you propose this would work for all the infrastructure that's located in Scotland? Will the rUK come up (i.e. invade) and remove everything owned by the UK government piece by piece?
We paid for a share of them, a share of them is ours.
[i]If only we could have a sensible fact and evidence driven debate instead of the absolute guff that has taken over.[/i]
Is really at the heart of the matter, but slightly misses the point. Being "your own boss" isn't just about the facts and figures, and in many ways its the least important part of the whole debate. It should be about the emotive, this whole argument pretty much solely comes down to " do we want to be our own country" and the answer is pretty straightforward for most folk, and doesn't need a great deal of time or thought, its pretty instinctive.
If the majority say "yeah **** it lets give it a go" then all of this guff ( and its mostly guff) WILL get worked out, might be a compromise might be a little gained here and a little lost here, but it will be managed.
The majority of scots seem to think "no" at the minute, I can't see it radically changing. It's pretty much been decided already
"Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?"
that's a terrible idea. Europe is filled with potential hubs away from places you actually want to fly to. why spew away millions more quid to compete with them in some sort of vanity project?
Yeah, it was a Scot who founded the Bank of England too
The same bloke who convinced the Scottish government to embark on the Darien scheme, which almost bankrupted the entire country, and resulted in him becoming a MAJOR supporter of the Act of Union as tying Scotland to England would help sort out the finances of the country he ruined?
That one? Yeah, I'd be proud to count him as a paragon of Scottish excellence too.
That one? Yeah, I'd be proud to count him as a paragon of Scottish excellence too.
The Darién scheme was idealistic and foolish, but Paterson lost his wife and child in that pestilential swamp - it's a sad story all round.
However, I wasn't making a serious point about him.
If the majority say "yeah **** it lets give it a go" then all of this guff ( and its mostly guff) WILL get worked out, might be a compromise might be a little gained here and a little lost here, but it will be managed.
One of the more sensible posts I've seen for a while.
So it seems according to Jambalaya one set of UK taxpayers own the institutions funded through their taxes while another set of UK taxpayers lease the same institutions played for through their taxes....
hey piemonster careful with those insults. Us Yorkshires are not nutters and not English. Thanks for the "to tight to spend out" compliment. We see ourselves as not to different the Scottish on the tightness scale, mind we don't have the sense of humour given the evidence on this thread.
Flying ox You might equally ask how rUK intends to take its fair share of such institutions and I suggest that the sensible answer is by reasonable negotiation after a Yes vote if there is one.
What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes.
That's an innovative position.
Is England also just renting/leasing them from the UK now?
And none of the countries that have gained their independence in today's world even make the top 50. The closest is Latvia, at #58
Reading it you missed out slovenia and the czech republic at 35 and 37 and 41 [slovakia],45 [estonia] and 47 [Poland] and Latvia was number 53 not 58 😯 . The fail is strong in that post.
No prosperous western european democracy has been independent so it is not surprising to see that eastern europe is still poorer than western europe. I am not sure what you want that fact to prove tbh.
Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today's world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.
I think everyone knows it will cost some money but it is not unaffordable nor will it fail due to "start up" costs.
Scotland's fare[sic] share of assets. I don't see Scotland as owning a share of HMRC, DVLA, the military etc. What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes. As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.
Not sure if that is serious tbh but it is an idiotic point.
Everything is ours, we are keeping it , now take your share of the debt will you in return for **** all. Ps thanks for the oil revenue.
Its a somewhat strange attitude and few will agree with this strong a stance.
Is England also just renting/leasing them from the UK now?
It would be more accurate to say we're (all) still repaying the loans taken out to buy them, hence a 1.3 trillion national debt.
Alex's impression seems to be that if you decide to walk away and stop making repayments you still get to keep the keys...
Not quite ninfan more like if we keep on making our share of the payments we get a fair share of the goods
now take your share of the debt will you in return for * all
Hmm, I don't think anyone i suggesting Scotland would get * all, nobody has suggested for one second that we go in and repossess the hospitals, schools, forests, trams etc - they get to keep whats located in Scotland, we get to keep what isn't.
Not quite ninfan more like if we keep on making our share of the payments we get a fair share of the goods
Same as above - everyone envisages that you get to keep your fair share - thing is that you seem to think that means 'we keep everything in Scotland 100% PLUS a proportion of assets in rUK' - well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)
Yes, that's going to take a bit of unpicking. Physical buildings etc get divided up on a geographic basis of course. Other assets get divided up somehow - by value? Obviously some things won't work that way - we don't want an aircraft carrier, for example, let alone two. Things like embassies? Perhaps some payment in lieu of sharing or something.
Reading it you missed out slovenia and the czech republic at 35 and 37 and 41 [slovakia],45 [estonia] and 47 [Poland] and Latvia was number 53 not 58 . The fail is strong in that post.
My bad, I failed to fully read the webpage I was looking at for new countries since 1990, and instead just looked at states born from the break up of the USSR. I shall consider myself publicly shamed, and try to be a bit more diligent in the future.
The point remains the same though. Comparisons are made between small countries with high GDP per capita and Scotland. Those countries are long, long established, and differ from Scotland vastly in their economic makeup and social rights structure. It's a comparison of apples and oranges. There is little chance of finding an exact parallel of Scotland's bid for independence to use as an example, or I'm pretty sure we'd have heard of it by now, so the closest we can do is look at countries of a similar size that have become independent in "today's world". I arbitrarily decided that 1990 was the beginning of "today's world" (as # of declarations of independence since 1990 is was what came up when I Googled), and if you look at those countries none seem to be faring anywhere near as well as the ones at the top of the list. This is the point jambalaya was making and the one I'm trying to add weight to.
they get to keep whats located in Scotland, we get to keep what isn't.
So that's the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.
The position is this: We get to keep everything Scottish that is in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland get to keep everything English, Welsh and Northern Irish. We also get our population share of everything that is neither Scottish, Welsh, English, or Northern Irish, but is defined as British that is in the United Kingdom. That is the fair way and logical way to work it out.
The oil is Scottish, the naval base on the Clyde is British. Houses of Parliament are also British, as in the Bank of England - you get the picture?
konabunny - Member
"Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?"
that's a terrible idea. Europe is filled with potential hubs away from places you actually want to fly to. why spew away millions more quid to compete with them in some sort of vanity project?
I said to "meet our needs". That's all we need, and it was in response to
ninfan - Member
..how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?
ie, if the access from other hubs is inadequate or deliberately restricted by ninfanites, then there is no longer any restraint on an independent Scotland providing our own hub to meet our own needs.
Flying ox You might equally ask how rUK intends to take its fair share of such institutions and I suggest that the sensible answer is by reasonable negotiation after a Yes vote if there is one.
But that's not the point being discussed. It's the cost involved, not who gets what. I'd imagine that UK will keep all the actual, physical bits located in the UK, and Scotland will keep all the actual, physical bits located in Scotland. Except the nukes, obviously 🙄
The difference is that everything is already set up to be used by the UK. Other than the removal of Scottish info, nothing will change from the way the UK public services operate. Scotland will have the infrastructure for some of what it needs, but the systems required to operate that infrastructure (i.e. a new tax regime) will have to be developed from scratch. Even a modification from UK systems to suit Scottish needs will be costly, as highlighted by the ICAS report on NZ tax structure.
Please God, no. If the capability of HMR&C Cumbernauld is to be the basis of an iS tax regime, the country is fubarred.So that's the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.
Same as above - everyone envisages that you get to keep your fair share - thing is that you seem to think that means 'we keep everything in Scotland 100% PLUS a proportion of assets in rUK' - well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)
And several RAF bases. And the contract for two aircraft carriers (I believe it's been said that the UK won't have a foreign county building its military ships).
You can have RBS back though. 😉
So that's the DVLA, HMRC, Immigration all sorted then.
I'm pretty sure the Scottish DVLA offices have all been closed down. However, I would instantly change to a "Yes" vote if independence would guarantee never having to deal with the DVLA again.
well thats just crazy really, because on that basis rUK would have to be entitled to continued majority ownership of Scottish assets (like, for example, a rather large Naval base on the west Coast)
No lets do it your way and the UK nuclear subs looks spectacularly weak but I am sure iS will get a few quid for them on EBAY.
I think everyone can see it will have to involve a bit of both.
My bad
I had to google to check all of them were independent to be fair 😳
I'm pretty sure the Scottish DVLA offices have all been closed down.
Turns out that you are correct, which means that we will take a financial share of the DVLA and develop our own system. Welcome to the Yes camp.
The position is this: We get to keep everything Scottish that is in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland get to keep everything English, Welsh and Northern Irish. We also get our population share of everything that is neither Scottish, Welsh, English, or Northern Irish, but is defined as British that is in the United Kingdom.
Exactly. Except you fail to realise that as part of the Union, nothing is English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish. It's all British.
Pimpmaster Jazz - Member
...I believe it's been said that the UK won't have a foreign county building its military ships.
Can the UK afford to build any more military ships?
If they can't afford planes for the carriers, it doesn't sound likely. Fur coat and no knickers, etc...
Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.
You can have RBS back though
I've got a question about that one though, as part of the Yes argument appears to be that Scotland has a profitable Financial Services industry, in addition to an oil & gas industry.
In the case of independence, won't the banks have to relocate their headquarters in London, as Scotland would be a foreign country and the bulk of RBS and other Scottish financial companies business is done in London? I've seen this mentioned in a few articles, so wondered if anyone leaning towards Yes had a view.
Exactly. Except you fail to realise that as part of the Union, nothing is English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish. It's all British.
Well that's no strictly true now is it...
Is the Lake District British or English? Are the Scottish Highlands British or the clue is in the name Scottish. Are the Scottish Territorial Waters British?
Is the Scottish Government British?
Most banks and other related industries (e.g. insurance companies) who are 'based' in Scotland, have said that they are making provisions to relocate to the UK in the case of a Yes vote. Whether they do so is another point entirely. But there is a possibility where they could all move.
Well that's no strictly true now is it...Is the Lake District British or English? Are the Scottish Highlands British or the clue is in the name Scottish. Are the Scottish Territorial Waters British?
I don't recall an argument about why Scotland should get to keep its fair share of Stonehenge, nor Westminster trying to prize off its fair share of the Old Man of Hoy. Stop being silly.
Is the Scottish Government British?
I dunno. You mentioned Scotland's fair share of the Bank of England and the Houses of Parliament. You tell me.
Meanwhile Scotland will be building more appropriate ships for our needs.
Can an iScotland afford to build ships? After all if we reach the conclusion that the UK can builds it's Navel warships in Scotland (as per the briefing for the yS campaign - why should Scotland build it's ships there? Remember that shipbuilding in the UK has virtually died out, because it is cheaper to build them overseas.
If Scotland does vote Yes then why should the UK build it's navel vessels in Scotland? After it would be a foreign country and it could choose another foreign country to do the work. At the moment the UK has committed to building the remaining carrier (Prince of Wales) and it is supposed to announce today the building of three other navel ships to be built on the Clyde. But that is all.
Yup, I think I've read that somewhere too, but I also read something that mentioned that they may not have a choice in the matter, due to a law around having to be headquartered in the country where the majority of your business takes place. That works now, with headquarters in Edinburgh, and the bulk of business taking place in London, but would have to change post-independence surely?
Well the Bank of England is clearly a British institution as are the Houses of Parliament, so we'll be having a bit of those thank you.
As for RBS, they have more employees in London than they do in Scotland, so maybe it's best if they move their HQ south.