Scotland Indyref 2

jambalaya - Member
@seaso my point is that the rUK can't negotiate a deal with Scotland you have to have the same deal as EU.

The arrogance in that statement is outstanding! 😆

@cranberry, agreed but don't tell anyone. Also since we'll be putting what was once an ancient Kingdom back together with that list of counties, do we let Wales in and respect the ancient language of the North? Old Welsh.

"Thm. If people are against a vote. They'll simply vote no."

Nope, I can think of at least two people who voted Brexit but felt it would have been better not to have the Referendum.

Plenty of people who don't want to be asked the question will reluctantly feel they morally have to vote to leave the union.

Got those detailed figures, to this detailed discussion you want to have?

they can and I am sure that given current trends they will have another opportunity at the correct time. The ones "touted" yesterday were absurd albeit politically astute

Lets see how material the changes are, and then have a rational debate about what's in Scotland's and rUK's best interests

[quote=epicyclo ]

Eh? They voted for Brexit!

Woo - can England have a referendum on whether to become independent from the UK which is leaving the EU as well, just in case they've had a change of heart?

[i]b r - the views on independence have been tested, and the views on having another vote now have been polled. Of course, these can both be ignored when the ends justify the dubious means. Who cares what the people want? The ends justify the means....[/I]

As pointed out, anyone who wants to stay can vote No - maybe the referendum (Scottish) shouldn't have been a simple yes/no question, hmm, where have we heard that before... 😉

[i]A big plus to Scotland becoming independent is that it would immediately remove the Tories from power (in Scotland) [/I]

Why, you'd still have a right-leaning party, look at the MSP's - almost 25% are conservative.

gordimhor

Eat the pudding as piemonster and others have said the key is it will be our decision.
There is an argument made briefly here that the deficit figures are not very accurate
Andrew Hughes Hallett
Also when I posted the link to the Nuffield Centre's updated report on the NHS I also posted a link which claimed the NHS in Scotland was functioning better than elsewhere. You haven't responded to that so far as I am aware.

The GERS figures are the Scottish Governments OWN FIGURES. If they were significantly wrong , Nic would surely have fixed them by now? If not why not?

Also, I accepted a long time ago based on the evidence you provided that the Scottish NHS is no worse (or better) that that in England, you must have missed that.
Did you see [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15150402.Watchdog_rebukes_SNP_Health_Secretary_over_comparisons_with_NHS_in_England/?ref=rss ]this[/url] ..Watchdog rebukes SNP Health Secretary over comparisons with NHS in England)

I changed my mind and owned up. But a side note you seemed to quietly stop defending the SNP record on education .. why was that 🙂

seosamh77

Eat the pudding. So what are you wanting there? As I've said before you need more detailed figures if you want to have a detailed discussion.

But you crack on. More vague points for you...

Nice to see barrosos pal comment on Scotlands EU membership. Must be fact that...

Jeebus, You ask for more detail? I pointed out that you claim 2Bn austerity was a social disaster for many people, but somehow 10Bn is affordable? I think you'll have to make that case yourself. Please use facts.

Vague? (Jeebus^2)
Please Point at any verifiable fact you have brought to the table about 10Bn in cuts being affordable, or that Scotlands defecit is not at Greek levels?

By all means accuse me of being vague (?) but please dispel my vagueness with facts and not flag waving nonsense.

On that note Re: Barosso
did you read [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-eu-independence-referendum-scotland-join-queue-membership-apply-a7627201.html ]this[/url] from the Independent? "EU says independent Scotland would not have automatic right to become new member".

Do you know what the word "fact" means?

teamhurtmore - Member
they can and I am sure that given current trends they will have another opportunity at the correct time. The ones "touted" yesterday were absurd albeit politically astute

Lets see how material the changes are, and then have a rational debate about what's in Scotland's and rUK's best interests

Tbh the main reason touted yesterday is not absurd at all. Consider that Scotland voted yes to the EU. If we have a choice before Brexit is completed, then it's absolutely right to for us to be given it.

But it's a case of whether we have that choice. I think given the SNPs suggestion that we have a choice. The onus is on the SNP to prove there actually is a choice, ie if continued membership of the EU is possible(my assumption from yesterday) (And no, soundbites from barrosos pals are not valid, I want an honest legal answer to that, not point scoring).

As simple fact is, if that choice isn't available, then the reason for another Ref, in that time frame, is bunkum.

Over to the SNP on that one.

On that note Re: Barosso
did you read this from the Independent? "EU says independent Scotland would not have automatic right to become new member".

Which is absolutely says absolutely nothing about continued membership.

Gonny you claim down on the hysteria. If you did we might actually be able to have a discussion about it.

And yes we need more detail, if you are going to present (vague costs) you need to present revenue streams that an IS would have available to it.

You know, both sides of the balance sheet.

Eat the pudding, why do you think there will be 10Bn in cuts in an independent Scotland but not as part of the UK? Are you proposing that in independent Scotland won't/shouldn't run a deficit?

[quote=km79 ]If cuts are inevitable on independence then they will be also as part of the union. We are in deficit at the moment, we borrow to get around this, that option will also be available on independence.

You don't appear to understand the issue - at the moment you have money going North to cover the "Scottish deficit". And yes, as somebody living in England in favour of the union I'm happy about that, not only because I think we're stronger together, but in pure economic terms I expect it's worth it (in the same way it's worth paying into the EU). So no, the inevitability of cuts on independence doesn't mean they're inevitable without.

Of course the economic benefits of the union to the rUK which make it worth subsidising the Scottish deficit work both ways - a double whammy for Scotland.

If cuts are inevitable then it's best that we have full control over how we spend all of our money, not the 20%-30% of it at present.

Again you appear not to understand the scale of the issue - having full control over spending the money won't enable you to spend more on the areas you want to spend on - or even to maintain spending on them.

[quote=seosamh77 ]Eat the pudding. So what are you wanting there? As I've said before you need more detailed figures if you want to have a detailed discussion.

Detailed discussion not required - an ability to admit the economic reality rather than ignoring it with vague "we'll fix it somehow" comments would be good. Still lots of suggestions that you'll somehow be better off with full control over not enough money. If independence is something you want for more fundamental philosophical reasons and you're happy to put up with a difficult economy for a generation then that's fair enough, but at least admit it.

I've admited many times that the financial case isn't great at all. Hence if you look at this thread I've argument many times, I'd rather wait(but will take the chance regardless).

But youse crack on.

On that note Re: Barosso
did you read this from the Independent? "EU says independent Scotland would not have automatic right to become new member".

which is why sturgeon never promised that yesterday

Scotland would be looking at accelerated sign up or some sort of transition deal

If you want to be honest, you need to prsent the numbers for both costs and revenue. And projections for these going forward.

Not do what youse are doing, splashing a snapshot in time and saying, look bankrupt, bankrupt, bankrupt! 😕

As I say, roll back on the hysteria.

You don't appear to understand the issue - at the moment you have money going North to cover the "Scottish deficit".

No we don't, we have a portion of money the UK borrows. We are not being subsidised by those South of the border. They are in deficit also.

having full control over spending the money won't enable you to spend more on the areas you want to spend on - or even to maintain spending on them.

No it doesn't mean there will be more money to spend as a whole. Doesn't mean there will be less either. What it means is what I said, we will have control over all of our spend and where it gets spent on, not the 20-30% currently.

you appear not to understand

I could say the same of you.

Arrogance!?!

Imagine if a minority government claimed powers if did not have, to call for a vote people do not want at a time that is totally inappropriate merely to satisfy their narcissistic hunger....how arrogant would that be?

Might be arrogant if they didn't go through the correct processes, but well, they are.

[quote=seosamh77 ]But it's a case of whether we have that choice. I think given the SNPs suggestion that we have a choice. The onus is on the SNP to prove there actually is a choice, ie if continued membership of the EU is possible (And no, soundbites from barrosos pals are not valid, I want an honest legal answer to that, not point scoring).
As simple fact is, if that choice isn't available, then the reason for another Ref, in that time frame, is bunkum.
Over to the SNP on that one.

I'm clearly even less of an expert than Barossa, but my reading of it is that continued EU membership isn't possible - apart from anything else, the timescale doesn't appear to allow it. Last time the plan was for independence to occur 18 months after the vote. If the plan is for a referendum in autumn 2018 then that only gives them 6 months before Scotland leaves the EU, it simply wouldn't be possible for Scotland to separate from rUK in that short a timescale. Whilst Scotland might be planning on becoming independent and could start negotiating new membership with the EU immediately following a Yes vote, continuing its membership whilst still part of the UK after the UK has left the EU seems to be an impossibility. There's going to be a 12 month gap there and I very much doubt the EU is so desperate for Scotland to be a member for them to put a special arrangement in place (which would be a completely unprecedented and rather peculiar arrangement).

[quote=seosamh77 ]I've admited many times that the financial case isn't great at all. Hence if you look at this thread I've argument many times, I'd rather wait(but will take the chance regardless).

Fair enough - I'm not arguing with you then. Plenty of others on the Yes side who are delusional about the economy though.

Arrogance!?!

Imagine if a minority government claimed powers if did not have, to call for a vote people do not want at a time that is totally inappropriate merely to satisfy their narcissistic hunger....how arrogant would that be?

A little harsh THM, the SNP are playing politics after May did her best to provoke them.

There was suggestion in the press and on here 2 weeks ago that her Glasgow speech was intended to force a referendum sooner than the SNP would like.

As I say, over to the SNP to clarify. They've left it open to interpretation.

Which for me would centre around the fact that scotland is forced into independence since rUK is leaving the EU and it has no other choice but to separate to maintain membership. It'd argue that it is rUK leaving, not scotland, hence scotland never left the EU.

But we'll see what their argument actually is. It's a fundamental point so you'd guess they'll need to clarify that pretty soon.

http://eveningharold.com/2017/03/13/brexiters-oppose-scots-having-a-vote-on-scottish-independence/

🙂

Even if EU knocks us back, I would still rather break away from a UK out of EU with the direction they are going. I though what Sturgeon said about choosing what type of country we want to be was important. Out of EU and part of UK is my least favourite option.

Would be nice if politicians actualy concentrated on running the country rather than constantly looking to progress personal agendas..

Thats not a dig soley at sturgeon, and im no longer completely anti independence, but she needs to be spending the next 2 years focusing on her day job rather than another referendum.

seosamh77
I agree that it's up to the SNP to prove it.
But the likelihood is that it's a non starter.

So no EU single market and no UK single market either.

Badum tish

[quote=km79 ]No we don't, we have a portion of money the UK borrows. We are not being subsidised by those South of the border. They are in deficit also.

We're doing semantics now? In % terms Scotland's deficit is far larger than rUK's. Therefore from the money being borrowed to cover the deficit a far larger share as a proportion of the population is going to Scotland. Scotland can afford to run such a deficit because it is part of the UK's deficit as a whole which isn't itself an unusually large % of GDP. Taken by itself Scotland's deficit [b]is[/b] an unusually large % of GDP. So you can quibble over the technicalities of how the Scottish deficit is covered, but effectively it is being subsidised from South of the border in a way which wouldn't happen post independence.

No it doesn't mean there will be more money to spend as a whole. Doesn't mean there will be less either

You're completely ignoring the GERS figures then?

I could say the same of you.

You could. You could also stick your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la".

eat_the_pudding - Member
seosamh77
I agree that it's up to the SNP to prove it.
But the likelihood is that it's a non starter.

So no EU single market and no UK single market either.

If they can't prove it their case for a ref falls flat on it's face. And sturgeon resigns. Pretty much that simple.

If they can prove it, and the UK denys a ref, then it'll strengthen support further down the line.

tbh, I can't make up my mind whether I think this is a genuine shout for a ref, or an attempt at a longer term politics.

If it's a genuine attempt at another ref, then it's a ballsy move, and a big big gamble.

aracer - that is a snapshor position now in unusual economic times - for most of the last 30 years money flows from Scotland to england and the Gers figures do not tell the whole story. Its simply not as difficult a financial position as you think although not great

[quote=seosamh77 ]As I say, over to the SNP to clarify. They've left it open to interpretation.

Which is a sensible position to take. I wouldn't hold your breath though - I suspect it's an awkward issue for the SNP given the reality and one which they'll avoid, because most of the potential Yes voters won't care about that level of detail. Expect to see lots of vague reassurances and little in the way of detailed facts or legal judgements.

Which for me would centre around the fact that scotland is forced into independence since rUK is leaving the EU and it has no other choice but to separate to maintain membership. It'd argue that it is rUK leaving, not scotland, hence scotland never left the EU.

Except it's UK leaving, not the rUK - as I commented above, the timescale doesn't allow for anything else. I totally get the philosophical point, but the reality of the negotiations required won't allow it.

[quote=seosamh77 ]If they can't prove it their case for a ref falls flat on it's face. And sturgeon resigns. Pretty much that simple.

You really think so? I fully expect them to bluff it, and most of the electorate not to care. It's not like there's been an awful lot of honesty or detail on the practicalities of big constitutional issues coming from politicians of any flavour or on any side recently. In our post truth world such things no longer appear to matter, and it's certainly not how the Brexit vote was won.

teamhurtmore - Member

Arrogance!?!

Imagine if a minority government claimed powers if did not have, to call for a vote people do not want at a time that is totally inappropriate merely to satisfy their narcissistic hunger....how arrogant would that be?

Not any more arrogant for wanting to preserve the union because you have part of your pension in Scottish companies (Jam) or fancy retiring here.(you) Or talking about minority Governments and ignoring that a majority of the electorate voted for the SNP(you) and the majority of the MP's are in favour of kicking the union into touch.(you,again)

[i]If the plan is for a referendum in autumn 2018 then that only gives them 6 months before Scotland leaves the EU, it simply wouldn't be possible for Scotland to separate from rUK in that short a timescale.[/I]

Hmm, but since Scotland has pretty separate administration and legal system and wants to continue with it's EU links maybe 6 months is enough.

Especially since the UK believes it can negotiate leaving the EU over the next 18 months and then separate itself in 6 months too.

Both pretty demanding timescales (to put it mildly), IMO probably more of a problem for business and it's citizens than Govt.

I've been involved in many commercial acquisitions and normally try and advise to get a year to get off the systems/processes, but often get less time that that.

aracer - Member
I totally get the philosophical point, but the reality of the negotiations required won't allow it.

Maybe. maybe not. Nothing certain on that point at all. You'd imagine the SNP would see them selves as being a late entrant to the negotiations, arguing on their own behalf. (And given the position would be to remain, I'd think they'd have a lot of sympathetic allies on the EU side)

Which is a sensible position to take. I wouldn't hold your breath though - I suspect it's an awkward issue for the SNP given the reality and one which they'll avoid, because most of the potential Yes voters won't care about that level of detail. Expect to see lots of vague reassurances and little in the way of detailed facts or legal judgements.

I suspect this will be the case, it worked for Vote Leave after all

Another factor is that the Brexit vote has seen prices rise, but employment has stayed steady, theres been no recession yet
Scots may well think that this will be the same for them post indy

As the Brexit negotiations drag on for the next 10 years? (assuming we get an extension and 10 years is reasonable as all the various EU members will have differing priorities regarding our 'red lines')

All that time we'll remain in the EU and the economy will look good, the scots may well believe all will be fine indeed, even if that cliff is still coming up...

You really think so?

tbh What I seen yesterday was a message that scotland has a choice. If it doesn't have a choice, then that's pretty clear cut. would be difficult to hold a position after such a fundamental error. Not least the fact the media would utterly hound her out.

[quote=b r ]Hmm, but since Scotland has pretty separate administration and legal system and wants to continue with it's EU links maybe 6 months is enough.
Especially since the UK believes it can negotiate leaving the EU over the next 18 months and then separate itself in 6 months too.

They needed 18 months last time. Separation of the UK from the EU is a fundamentally different process - effectively we could do it in a couple of months if we wanted to as there is no economic or political union - we already have all our own fully independent central bank and currency amongst other things 😉

Separation of the UK from the EU is a fundamentally different process - effectively we could do it in a couple of months if we wanted to as there is no economic or political union

I disagree, sorting out 40 years of shared legislation will take a very long time

dont get me wrong Scotland would have a huge task ahead of it, but trivialising the uk/eu separation is a mistake

"As the Brexit negotiations drag on for the next 10 years? (assuming we get an extension and 10 years is reasonable as all the various EU members will have differing priorities regarding our 'red lines')"

Hadn't thought of that. We could see Scotland leaving the UK and the EU, whilst the UK remains in the EU for decades of open ended negotiations.

eat_the_pudding - Member
seosamh77
I agree that it's up to the SNP to prove it.
But the likelihood is that it's a non starter.

So no EU single market and no UK single market either.

Badum tish

You seem pretty certain rUK would be hell bent on handicapping trade to one of it's largest export markets.

Given noises about trade from the brexiteers, I suspect the reality would be vastly different.

[img] [/img]

Scottish deficit generally higher than UK's as % of GDP over the medium term, only time it was significantly less was duringthe financial crisis

[quote=tjagain ]aracer - that is a snapshor position now in unusual economic times - for most of the last 30 years money flows from Scotland to england and the Gers figures do not tell the whole story. Its simply not as difficult a financial position as you think although not great

Or maybe the last 30 years were unusual economic times? There certainly appears no indication that oil revenues are likely to return to what they were and the sensible commentators are suggesting that they shouldn't be relied upon to support the economic case (I thought you'd agreed with that?) Because oil revenues are the main reason why the last 30 years were different - and whilst I have a lot of sympathy for the complaint that it was Scotland's money, it's gone and makes no difference to future projections.

Do they get population or geographical share of North sea oil post indy?

makes a biiig difference!

When people speak of "Scotland's defecit" - is that the money Westminster has borrowed on our behalf to be spent on projects in areas outwith Scotland like the latest megacity-1 vanity project or suchlike, or, is it money that Scotland's independent treasury has borrowed of its own volition & pissed up the wall on frivolities like social care & education?

The point is Aracer this is a particularly unusual time economically - and you really don't think oil willgo back up in price?

But yes - the oil is only a bonus - just a snapshot in time is not enough economi9cally and anyway if Scotland is doing so badly under the union surely its better off out of it?

Remember the figures you are being fed are not the whole story

[quote=kimbers ]I disagree, sorting out 40 years of shared legislation will take a very long time

Not at all - this is one of the few areas where they have a plan and it's a good one. The great repeal bill simply incorporates all EU legislation into UK law (where required - my understanding is that mostly it already is part of UK law, as the EU simply issues a directive for countries to make laws). There's very little sorting out of legislation required in order to leave.

[quote=kimbers ]Do they get population or geographical share of North sea oil post indy?
makes a biiig difference!

Geographical, but 75% of nothing isn't hugely different to 10% of nothing!

[quote=tjagain ]you really don't think oil willgo back up in price?

Let me put it like this, I'm not investing my money in oil futures. Maybe if you're so sure about it you should...

if Scotland is doing so badly under the union surely its better off out of it?

Sounds like more wishful thinking - you need to explain why it would be better off out, rather than just making unsupported assertions like that.

kimbers - Member
Do they get population or geographical share of North sea oil post indy?

makes a biiig difference!

Yep, whichever it is though - it'll be 100% of that figure & not the current value.

seosamh77 - Member

Which says absolutely nothing about continued membership.

Still flogging that horse?
Scotland cannot continue a membership that it does not have.
[url= https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries_en ]List of member states.[/url]
Note the absence of Scotland.
There is provision in the treaties for exactly the circumstance of a member state dividing; I've linked to it before.
IndyScotland=new country=apply for membership like any other non-EU country.

A big plus to Scotland becoming independent is that it would immediately remove the Tories from power (in Scotland)

Why, you'd still have a right-leaning party, look at the MSP's - almost 25% are conservative.

Note the 'from power' bit. Currently the UK government has the Tory party in charge/power. iScotland would be separate from the UK and hence the Tories would not be in power. I'm not advocating removing the party completely from existence in Scotland.

[quote=mcj78 ]When people speak of "Scotland's defecit" - is that the money Westminster has borrowed on our behalf to be spent on projects in areas outwith Scotland like the latest megacity-1 vanity project or suchlike, or, is it money that Scotland's independent treasury has borrowed of its own volition & pissed up the wall on frivolities like social care & education?

You can play semantics if you like, but quite simply it's the difference between what Scotland spends on stuff and what it gets as income. Figures which the Scottish government has produced (ie not biased Westminster figures) - I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find those figures somewhere on this thread 😉

p.s. the vast majority of infrastructure projects outside Scotland result in payments to Scotland under the Barnett formula, so they're certainly not part of it. HS2 and Crossrail certainly did, Scotland isn't paying for those. The only obvious exception is the Olympics which for some reason didn't result in a Barnett payment, so Scotland did pay for that, but in real terms that was actually quite a small amount of money (I know we've discussed this before TJ - did we finish up with anything other than the Olympics?)

sbob
Still flogging that horse?
Scotland cannot continue a membership that it does not have.
List of member states.
Note the absence of Scotland.
There is provision in the treaties for exactly the circumstance of a member state dividing; I've linked to it before.
IndyScotland=new country=apply for membership like any other non-EU country.

You are José Manuel Barroso & I hereby claim my 5 Euro.

sbob - Member
There is provision in the treaties for exactly the circumstance of a member state dividing; I've linked to it before.

The link again would be handy?

IndyScotland=new country=apply for membership like any other non-EU country.

kimbers - Member

Scotland would be looking at accelerated sign up or some sort of transition deal

You're aware this would necessitate a change in EU law?
You know what that means, don't you?

@TJ I posted one view which justifies a long term oil price around these levels. Like anything in economics / trying to predict the future there is a degree of speculation / guestimation but its a complelling argument. The more oil gies up in price the more supply there is. Shale / fracking has changed the game

As for removing the Tories from power well Scotland had a Labour Government at Westminster for 13 years plus a Scottish PM and the Scottish STWers have been virrulent in their critism of that administration. An independent Scotland would need an order of magnitude more "austerity" than you are currently experiemcing.

Aracer -- we can't invest in alternative energy under he union which is a huge opportunity for Scotland. We pay huge unfair access charges to put our surplus energy into the national grid. This is the sort of thing that an independent scotland would be able to do better and would soon have benefits

Alternative Energy is an expense, you can call it an investment all day long but it doesn't work without a subsidy

seosamh77 - Member

The link again would be handy?

Why? You've been ignoring it for years, I doubt you'll change now.
😆
I posted it under this username if you'd like to search.

Also of course acarer - that the rUKs position economically is disastrous in leaving the EU so does scotland go down with the ship or try to keep its head above water? Staying with the rest of the UK outside of the EU would be worse than independence inside the EU.

[i]Not at all - this is one of the few areas where they have a plan and it's a good one. The great repeal bill simply incorporates all EU legislation into UK law (where required - my understanding is that mostly it already is part of UK law, as the EU simply issues a directive for countries to make laws). There's very little sorting out of legislation required in order to leave.[/I]

Sure, and no doubt you'll set up all the required institutions in a weekend...

Here's an easy one, recruit a few folk and find a building - easypeezy

http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/document_listing/document_listing_000426.jsp&mid=

sbob - Member
Why? You've been ignoring it for years, I doubt you'll change now.

I posted it under this username if you'd like to search.

Genuinely interested in reading what it says in the treaties? post it up.

that's if you've any interest beyond point scoring.

Funny that Jamba - we are making plenty of chap electricity from alternatives. We can ell you some when you get brownouts from not investing in generation. We have a surplus and soon it will be significant

[quote=sbob ]Scotland cannot continue a membership that it does not have.
List of member states.
Note the absence of Scotland.
There is provision in the treaties for exactly the circumstance of a member state dividing; I've linked to it before.
IndyScotland=new country=apply for membership like any other non-EU country.

To be fair, if the timescales allowed it then I suspect that despite the absence of any existing process that the EU would find a way for Scotland to continue with membership when the UK leaves. It tends to be pragmatic like that and find a way around the rules when needed - though that would only apply in the case of Scotland leaving the UK concurrently with UK leaving the EU.

In reality, as I wrote before, the timescales don't allow it - given the suggested referendum date (and any earlier isn't realistic) there will be a gap between UK leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK of up to a year (or maybe even more) and such a transition would be stretching way beyond what's possible. What needs pointing out here is that whilst the EU is interested in having Scotland as a member, it's not really any more interested than in any of the other touted new members - Scotland doesn't bring a large budget contribution or significant trade in the way the UK does. So whilst they'll put some effort in to keeping Scotland as a member they won't go hugely out of their way.

seosamh77
You (I think) accuse me of offering a "snapshot", but the graph I showed was
scotlands public spending 1998 to 2016?

I have literally no idea why you think more detailed figures will make cutting 10Bn from a budget of 60+ will be easy or painless?

km79

Eat the pudding, why do you think there will be 10Bn in cuts in an independent Scotland but not as part of the UK? Are you proposing that in independent Scotland won't/shouldn't run a deficit?

Scotland could certainly run a deficit, but without
a) massive cuts to public spending or
b) massive tax rises

the deficit would be at a level that would disallow joining the EU for a start and possibly make borrowing extremely difficult (see Greece)

To make again a point you dismissed previously, the current deficit is not "real" as a result of being in the UK.

Here:
[img] [/img]

is a picture from Chokkablog that shows by his calculation that oil money flowing from Scotland to the to the UK (black line above red line) has to a significant extent come back to Scotland (red line above black line).

He calculates that by the time another £10k per person in scotland comes back north (via Barnett, probably in about 6 years) it'll break about even.

And after that the UK will still be funding our deficit IF we're still part of the UK "single market" where we pool and share resources (to Scotlands benefit).

Or we could walk away, make the deficit real and make Edinburgh the Athens of the North 🙂

Once again, I'm not saying we [i]couldn't[/i]. I'm saying we [i]shouldn't[/i] if we want to preserve public spending on welfare, NHS, pensions etc etc. All of whic would be at extreme risk in an independent Scotland (not by "choice" but by necessity).

eat_the_pudding - Member
I have literally no idea why you think more detailed figures will make cutting 10Bn from a budget of 60+ will be easy or painless?

Your continual question is "what would you cut". You can't answer that question from a graph that shows you spending in blocks.

plus I already gave you as vague an answer as I could a few pages back.

Aracer - a number of reasons why the EU would want Scotland - fishing, oil, the two main ones.

Not at all - this is one of the few areas where they have a plan and it's a good one. The great repeal bill simply incorporates all EU legislation into UK law (where required - my understanding is that mostly it already is part of UK law, as the EU simply issues a directive for countries to make laws). There's very little sorting out of legislation required in order to leave.

but theres great chunks of it that are to be removed, Liam Fox has stated quite clearly that it must be easier to hire and fire people and that workplace legislation needs to be reformed.

Laws also evlove constantly, will we be shadowing the EU amendments or will we be going our own way?
Having spoken to a lawyer that specialises in writing bioscience legal work at the EU (something the UK is/was the biggest driver of) there is going to be decades of legal wrangling, further complicated as we leave the European medicines agency,the new EU patent court we were setting up, Euratom and all the myriad other EU bodies we are leaving

seosamh77 - Member

Genuinely interested in reading what it says in the treaties

I applaud your new found interest.
They're all online; fill your boots.

You are letting the side down by examining the main arguments from both sides Aracer, rather than just telling us how things are going to be. Is this the lovebombing we heard so much about?

Good article on Scotland's deficit. Just under 15 billion. UK deficit as a whole is around 75 billion, but as a percentage of the population Scotland's deficit is far, far higher.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37167975 ]Deficit[/url]

If it takes 10 years for the dUK to effectively exit the EU

then shirley Scotland could easily become a member in that time

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15020616.Senior_MEP_says_an_independent_Scotland_could_take_the_UK_s_place_in_the_EU___and_Nicola_Sturgeon_could_be_given_extra_time_to_set_up_a_new_country/

If that coudl happen then wooing car manufactureres like nissan and finance companies from the city could help to offset their deficit

In the same way that the vote to leave the EU had no valid fiscal foundation and was simply a gut reaction then similarly the vote on Scottish independence need be on nothing more irrespective of the pseudo economics being floated about.

I don't have a vote but thought that if I had last time I would have voted no but now would vote for independence. Some unions are intrinsically worth preserving and others not.

[quote=tjagain ]Aracer -- we can't invest in alternative energy under he union which is a huge opportunity for Scotland. We pay huge unfair access charges to put our surplus energy into the national grid. This is the sort of thing that an independent scotland would be able to do better and would soon have benefits

Can you not? I suspect we might have discussed this offline, but can't remember. I certainly agree that renewable energy is a big opportunity for Scotland, though as jamba kind of points out, if it's a huge economic opportunity (rather than a cost), then basic capitalist economics would suggest it should happen whether or not Scotland is independent. If it's not a big enough economic thing for capitalism to make it happen anyway then it's certainly not going to plug the hole in the finances (I've no idea of the potential scale, but would be surprised if it more than scratches the surface).

[quote=tjagain ]Staying with the rest of the UK outside of the EU would be worse than independence inside the EU.

As much discussed, that's kind of wishful thinking given that Scotland does far more trade with rUK than the EU. Apart from being unrealistic for reasons also discussed - unfortunately you're getting dragged out with UK whether you like it or not, there is no realistic chance of Scotland continuing membership of the EU it would have to rejoin.

Though it does occur to me that losing the current UK position within the EU wouldn't be such a big deal as sometimes made out - the rebate wouldn't make much difference given Scotland isn't likely to be a huge net contributor and Scotland keeping UK's veto would seem a bit of an anomaly. Are there any other significant benefits we currently have that a new member wouldn't (let's not do EZ membership - the standard answer to that is Sweden which is required to join but never will)?

Are there any other significant benefits we currently have that a new member wouldn't (let's not do EZ membership - the standard answer to that is Sweden which is required to join but never will)?

Sweden has had years of arguing over scientific funding and collaboration and was booted out of ERASMUS for its stance on immigration and FOM

[quote=tjagain ]Aracer - a number of reasons why the EU would want Scotland - fishing, oil, the two main ones.

Plenty of reasons why the EU wants various other countries to join. I'm not sure they're quite as big reasons as you think (exactly what interests the EU about the oil?) Not big enough for the EU to go to such extreme lengths as keeping the membership on hold for 12 months which would require all sorts of legal wrangling and probably agreement from all 27.

"Sweden which is required to join but never will)?"

Can someone flesh this out with some detail?

Why is Sweden required to join the EZ?

Forget it, I googled.

[quote=duckman ]You are letting the side down by examining the main arguments from both sides Aracer, rather than just telling us how things are going to be. Is this the lovebombing we heard so much about?

😆 - my apologies - I'd forgotten you're required to be totally biased on this thread! I should think my bias such as it is is quite apparent, but I don't feel the need to be a dick about it.

seosamh77 - Member

stop being a dick and post the link.

Chill Winston, who pissed in your porridge? 😮

Oh yes, it was the xenophobic minority of the United Kingdom. 😆

If you think I have (as I imagine many a poster here does) a cache of links poised from several years ago purely for the purposes of arguing on the internet in the future, you are sorely mistaken.
I'll have a search (as could you if you really wanted to take the blinkers off), be patient.
🙂

We pay huge unfair access charges to put our surplus energy into the national grid

It isn't unfair to charge for generating electricity in regions where it is not in demand (i.e. Scotland). National distribution is a pain in the backside and the grid is heavily loaded. If generation in Scotland increases, massive investment in the grid is required.

Under the current arrangements, charges are levied to encourage investment in generation nearer demand centres. I expect that will change over time once green energy comes to the fore properly. Personally, I favour micro-generation but that isn't popular because the capacity is expensive.

Scotland is also doing pretty badly for base load, which is mostly what is under threat at the moment. Variable energy sources are an even bigger pain - the grid has to cope with peaks and not averages.