Also relevant to the banking conversation:
The Bank of England has revealed details of the emergency plan it would have put in place had Scotland voted 'Yes' for independence in last month's referendum.
The Bank was ready to pump millions of pounds into the financial system to ensure liquidity and had issued extra notes to cope with additional demand from Scottish deposit holders.
It was also prepared to stand by notes issued by Scottish banks in an attempt to reassure the public there would no immediate changes in an effort to prevent a potential deposit flight.
Unlike England and Wales, where all bank notes are issued by Threadneedle Street, Scotland has different types of bank notes issued by Scottish banks. These are guaranteed by deposits at the Bank of England.
"Under current arrangements, Scottish banknotes are backed fully by their issuers’ holdings of Bank of England notes, UK coin and deposits at the Bank of England. This would have been a key public message in the event of a Yes vote," the BoE said.
Had Scotland voted in favour of independence, the Bank said it would have issued a statement "reaffirming its responsibilities for financial stability, prudential regulation, banknotes and monetary policy in the entire United Kingdom, including Scotland" until independence came into force.
I'd have a guess that this is the case becasue the BoE knows would would have to back the Scottish Pound or it would need to buy Scotland out of the BoE.
The bank of England is the UK's bank, not Englands.
So initially, we could use the pound, the bank of England would continue backing it. But the longer term goal would be to get bought out and set up a central bank of scotland.
Going to take a wee break from this thread for a while. I just got offered a job on a secret semi-sub that is going to be drilling on Loch Lomond.
Edit: I may have said too much.
😆
tpbiker
Member
So do you agree it would make sense to establish whether we can or can’t do that before bashing ahead with a vote?
Absolutely- but tbh the absence of any evidence presented, and the fact that it didn't come up at all in 2014, is pretty indicative. Considering all the imaginary arguments about EU membership it'd be bizarre for the No campaign to not use a factual one.
Onus is on the person making the claims of course but that's a bit of a lawyer's response so I've had a decent look and like I say, every time it comes up the only supporting facts are "nobody does it at the moment". So I went to the source and I can't find a single word about central banks other than the ECB in TEU or in Article 49. The economic requirement is essentially that you must be a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with the pressures and demands of being part of the EU economy, and this would be no barrier to any of that. I'm not going to claim to be an authority, of course, but if this rule does exist it's well hidden- and why would it be?
It definitely would be an issue for euro convergence, but then that's why there's a convergence process and why it's separate from accession.
Is it not possible to come up with some sort of staged independence plan? Starting up the institutions bit by bit?
molgrips
Subscriber
Is it not possible to come up with some sort of staged independence plan? Starting up the institutions bit by bit?
Completely sensible, and would have the majority support in Scotland. And it would probably happen that way post an indy yes vote. Problem is until after the yes vote the No argument is nup, we're no playing, it's oor baw.
I'd also suggest that independence doesn't and won't mean isolation, so it would be perfectly feasible to have cross border initiatives if to the benefit of all.
Thanks northwind. If it's possible then great, let's get that confirmed and the SNP can then stick it in the manifesto saying it's been confirmed and tick that one off the list. If they want me to vote for independence then the emphasis is well and truly on them to evidence these kind of things ..not on the person asking the question to prove otherwise
Tj- I'm not saying scotland couldn't be successful. It could well be, it could also be a total disaster. At the moment I've not been given enough detail and evidence to sway me from the status quo. All im hearing is things are bad at the moment but they'll be better if we were independent.. more money for benefits, social reform, better health care etc etc
This seems to fly in face of what all the impartial economic experts told us in 2014. Im not expecting you or anyone else on here to provide evidence or justify it btw. What I want to see is the SNP document their economic argument, tell us how it'll work, and exactly how we'll be so much better off independent. And then I want the impartial experts to confirm it's logical, not pie in sky thinking, the numbers add up, and that scotland could be more prosperous under their proposals.
I don't think that's all that much to ask. If they can do that I'd vote for independence. If not I won't.
Anyone else think that maybe it'd be a good idea to have a quick, simple, non-binding inyrefref?
"Should there be a second Scottish Independence Referendum in the next westminster parliamentary term"
No need for months of debates or campaigning and the ensuing division and fatigue, no risk of it becoming a proxy for a real ref due to the difference in intent- because there's plenty of people that don't believe in independence but do believe it's a democratic right to ask the question... Not to mention No campaigners and voters who have confidence in winning and would like to properly settle the question just as with brexit. And of course there's Yes voters who don't agree with an accelerated re-ref, or who're afraid it'll fail if it's this soon... SNP voters who don't want a referendum, tactical voters for other parties.
When people say "this is/isn't the will of the people", well that's not something we have to guess, so why guess?
tpbiker
Member
Thanks northwind. If it’s possible then great, let’s get that confirmed and the SNP can then stick it in the manifesto saying it’s been confirmed and tick that one off the list. If they want me to vote for independence then the emphasis is well and truly on them to evidence these kind of things ..not on the person asking the question to prove otherwise
That's just unrealistic. With real, known challenges and concerns, sure, it's sensible to cover those and basically overcome objections before they arise, and as you say it'll help win them support. And in fact, they do that already. It's like costing your own manifesto.
But you can't do that for every possible challenge, least of all completely unevidenced ones like this. You can't even predict them all, let alone refute them all, and if you try, you'll end up with a million page manifesto and when someone comes up with one daft question that you didn't see coming the response will be "why didn't you answer THAT one in your manifesto with its supposedly exhaustive list of questions and answers eh? Hiding something?"
And would anyone accept it if they did? "well of course you'd say that"
So yes, the responsibility for substantiating a claim falls on the person making it. That's just the only way it works. And it does work- it helps stop spurious claims and makes people take responsibility for false and vexatious ones, and it means that the legwork gets done by someone who has a vested interest in proving the point rather than an interest in not.
In this case, if this claim has any substance then it would be straightforward to show it. It's not just that there's no evidence, it's also that any evidence would be easy to find- if it's an EU rule, they are all enshrined in treaty and in policy. I've looked in the places it should be and it's not there. You can do the same. But would you accept that answer? Like, if the Scottish Government case for independence says
Q) Would Scotland be able to join the EU without its own central bank
A) Yes- the requirements for a new member state to join the EU are set out in the Treaty On European Union 2012. There is no requirement or expectation that any new member should have its own central bank.
How would you respond?
Tpbiker - remember with economics its voodoo by and large. Ask half a dozen economists the same question you will not get two answers the same. Impartial economists actually were split but those whose conclusions favoured the yes side were sidelined
What I have done is looked at all the data for Scotland, the UK and comparable countries and come to a judgement., My judgement is that an independent Scotland would be a better place to live than a Scotland remaining in the UK. Yes taxes would be higher. But to me that is a price worth paying for a country that looks after the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable
there can be no certainty
Also remember an independent scotland would not be necessarily have an SNP government - indeed in the time post independence I would expect a realignment of scottish politics with the SNP splitting as it is a broader church than most parties and the glue holding it together would be gone
so not wanting to vote for independence because you do not like the snp is like not buying a house because you do not like the curtains
Northwind
Subscriber
Anyone else think that maybe it’d be a good idea to have a quick, simple, non-binding inyrefref?
Would probly be a very low turnout and most likely skewed to one side or the other I'd think, and it'd likel have zero effect of the uk govs stance..
tjagain
But to me that is a price worth paying for a country that looks after the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable
You should chill out on the bleeding heart propaganda. 😆 It's irritating, and an IS isn't going to be a welfare state nirvana.
Thats my view. I look to countries like Holland and sweden and see no reason why we cannot emulate them. I mean FFS holland is a swamp in the mouth of two huge rivers - It doesn't even have any rocks to play with let along oil!
Yet somehow ( higher taxation) it manages to have a decent welfare system. People do not have to resort to foodbanks, the old the sick and the vulnerable are well looked after. The government does not let tens of thousands die preventable deaths from austerity
seosamh77
Subscriber
Would probly be a very low turnout and most likely skewed to one side or the other I’d think,
Why would that be?
Northwind
Subscriber
seosamh77Why would that be?
If you are advertising it as non-binding. Likely to only be the indy side that particularly care about it. The no side will be safe in the knowledge that boris will just dingy it.
Best letting the scottish elections mount pressure for it.
I mean FFS holland is a swamp in the mouth of two huge rivers – It doesn’t even have any rocks to play with let along oil!
It does have a lot of gas though. Not to mention renewables.
Somehow they can maximize their natural resources, but we're too wee, too poor and too stupid to do the same according to many
The one good thing you can say about the Empire's anti-independentistas is they are great recyclers, yet they get it wrong - every time.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/4475/24187092258_ab576846ae_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/4475/24187092258_ab576846ae_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
How would you respond?
I'd ask what the EU thinks about that for a starter. I don't see why you need to have entered negotiations to get answers to fairly fundamental questions..
So if they followed up '
'There is no requirement or expectation that any new member should have its own central bank, with..
'The eu have confirmed this to us'
Then I'd be happy.
The brexiteers got ripped apart on here for their unicorns. I'm not sure why the snp's claims, when unsubstantiated, should be treated any differently.
tpbiker
Member
I’d ask what the EU thinks about that for a starter. I don’t see why you need to have entered negotiations to get answers to fairly fundamental questions..
Seriously? We know what the EU thinks about that, they wrote a treaty about it. That's kind of what treaties do.
Besides, now we have the scottish government second guessing every possible question and answering them all. But you don't trust their answers, so what's the point? And you don't accept EU treaties as sufficient evidence of what the EU treaties say, how far should that go? Council? President? When do you stop saying "No, not good enough, I want it from someone else" despite saying "Yes I will consider this an important enough question to consume government and EU time, despite nobody attempting to support it with evidence"
The EU is legally prohibited from any discussions on a formal basis with the scottish government. during the referendum campaign Westminster refused to ask the questions of the EU that the Scottish government wanted answers to and the Scottish government could not ask these questions directly
just in here again ..
I see the unicorns are breeding :O)
WRT the economic position, GERS (I know that phrase makes some of you start venting out your ears) is the best we have and is COMPILED AND BACKED BY THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (i.e. nicola herself).
The reason it makes (some of) you vent is because of all the balls that has been spouted about it in an attempt to discredit it, some of which is sticking but none of which is statistically valid (or it would be in the figures).
Day 1 of independence = 14Bn/yr in cuts (as opposed to "murderous austerity" which was 2Bn/yr (top of my head .. can't be arsed googling).
"No trident" saves us 0.6Bn/yr and NO-ONE here or in the SNP has ever said what else they would cut.
Thats why the economics didn't and doesn't add up.
An independent scotland may be something you want (for a variety of righteous or unrighteous reasons) and the level of economic damage (or societal damage) you are prepared to sustain in the process may be huge, but mine isn't. So don't blow smoke up our arses telling us it will make us rich or even keep us at the same level.
On day 1, it won't, and the "25 years to qualify for the EU economically" figure came from the SGs own report that I referenced earlier, and was based on what were widely seen as unreasonable levels of growth.
TL;DR
Facts exist, not all predictions are based on the zodiac and people who claim "you can't know anything for sure" probably don't have either facts or competent predictions on their side.
You have had explained to you numerous times the issues with Gers and why it does not show what you think it does and also that the reaction to deficit to a sovereign nation does not mean immediate cuts of the size of the deficit. You can reduce a deficit by cuts ( which as we know from tory austerity does not work as it reduces economic activity) you can borrow or you can increase taxes.
Anyway even if what yo say is true then its hardly a glowing endorsement of the economic policies of the UK is it?
Fair dos, I do agree that gers is an issue. I've been saying for long enough I don't think the middle ground tips till those look better. It seems to me on the face of simplistic. But still they exist and I don't argue their veracity. The gap is and has been reducing though. It mostly why I'd been suggest 2030.
I am still reading though the SGC report you mention. Will take me a while to get through the 300/400 pages.
It seems fairly scathing of the current UK position so far mind.
But I can't particularly argue over that report yet. But I will at some point. 😉
I am actually looking to gear myself up with a lot more info this time. I think that's a challenge the no side will face more and more this time. Last time there was a lack, I do agree.
The other thing with GERS is the deficit under those numbers per head of population in Scotland is less than the loses per head to the UK from brexit so far! Just to put it in perspective
Unless I got my numbers badly wrong but I think it works out around £2500 per person whereas brexit is over £3000 per person in the last year alone
Scotland would go into independence with a deficit yes. a large deficit. However it would have the economic tools to deal with it. the deficit as a % of GDP would be similar to that the UK has had many times. Ie around 8%
Here's one view...
But the fact is no one can accurately predict what will happen after independence.
All we can do is guess.
We know the British State has a history of lying to us and uses deceit to prevent independence, eg Mc Crone Report.
So why should we believe they are telling the truth now?
But what I'd like to know from the prognosticators of doom is:
Why is Scotland unique amongst all the countries that have sought independence?
Why is it alone destined to fail despite having more resources than most of them and despite having a highly educated population?
Is this the exceptionalism of which some speak?
tj and seosamh,
I know gers is not perfect, but its the best indicator we have (and when it looked good because of oil prices at the time of "the book of dreams" approaching 2014 every major indy-peddlar was on the record using it as a "gold plated" example of the future scotland could afford.
I also know that for many people the economics of indy is just a side issue. Which is fair enough (but also disallows claims to care about the poor and disadvantaged in society).
But if you can't win the vote without lying and obfuscating about economic realty, then your on a fast train to brexitnomics.
Can you honestly say that you would want to win a close indy vote by proglumating lies (which would later became obvious)?
edit: P.S. if different policies would produce different results to a sufficient extent, why not tell us what the policies might be, and then war game them with some economists and see what pops out? Less talk about needing "levers", and more about what you'd actually do with them.
Why is Scotland unique amongst all the countries that have sought independence?
The all important question that the yoons can't answer.
but its the best indicator we have
Of the status quo. It indicates nothing more than that
The one good thing you can say about the Empire’s anti-independentistas is they are great recyclers, yet they get it wrong – every time.
Hah. Not only is that cartoon historically and economically illiterate, it's inaccurate and embarrassingly one-eyed and emotive. A pretty breathtaking sweep of shitness and yet it's the one you posted epicyclo!
No-one with a brain thinks you're too poor, too small or too stupid. The main issue is that you're not currently set up to be independent in the modern world and that's going to be a huge problem for you for a long time.
eat_the_pudding
Member
tj and seosamh,
I know gers is not perfect, but its the best indicator we have (and when it looked good because of oil prices at the time of “the book of dreams” approaching 2014 every major indy-peddlar was on the record using it as a “gold plated” example of the future scotland could afford.I also know that for many people the economics of indy is just a side issue. Which is fair enough (but also disallows claims to care about the poor and disadvantaged in society).
But if you can’t win the vote without lying and obfuscating about economic realty, then your on a fast train to brexitnomics.
Can you honestly say that you would want to win a close indy vote by proglumating lies (which would later became obvious)?
edit: P.S. if different policies would produce different results to a sufficient extent, why not tell us what the policies might be, and then war game them with some economists and see what pops out? Less talk about needing “levers”, and more about what you’d actually do with them.
Fair do's like I say, I'm re-assessing the numbers.
You seem a little skewed yourself tbh, you completely dismiss any criticism the Scottish government has on uk prospects or on their opinion on Scotlands ability to grow, while at the same time, relying on GERS the ultimate standard. If the figures provided by the Scottish gov, GERS, are the gold standard, why do you dismiss what they say on other things?
So a bit of give needed on your side too. Seems a bit disingenuous to me...
epicyclo
Why is nicola conspiring to hide scotlands true wealth.
Makes you think eh?
How deep does this rabbithole go!
Why is Scotland unique amongst all the countries that have sought independence?
Why is it alone destined to fail despite having more resources than most of them and despite having a highly educated population?
NOONE is saying that, except you. The only people (non ironically) say scotland is "too wee too poor and too stupid" are independence supporters.
But saying that an indy scotland would have a massive deficit and a need for massive austerity (and thus a lower ability to look after the health and welfare of its citizens than now), isn't really a political statement.
It's the best economic statement of where we'd be right now with only our own taxes to pay for our own stuff (without the benefit of pooling and sharing across the UK).
Incidentally, ALL areas of the UK benefit positively from that to a greater or lesser extent except SE england.
Try your "economics" on NI for example. the equivalent of GERS figures says that the deficit in NI is as follows
Does that mean that a newly independent NI would (lets say tomorrow) be able to sustain current levels of spending on health and social services?
If not, then what would make NI unique among all other nations!?
Would people claiming that NI would suffer economic damage without pooling and sharing be called "prognosticators of doom?"
Do you see the flaw in your argument yet?
Do you see how having less money to spend on stuff you value is a real thing with real effects and not just a political opinion?
PS for seosamh, GERS is a (statistical) measurement. Predictions of growth are more difficult, but can be seen in the context of other countries trying to do the same thing. The SG predictions of growth are a very ambitious in that context.
But saying that an indy scotland would have a massive deficit and a need for massive austerity (and thus a lower ability to look after the health and welfare of its citizens than now), isn’t really a political statement.
Yes it is as there are other ways to deal with deficit than cuts
The only people (non ironically) say scotland is “too wee too poor and too stupid” are independence supporters.
Wrong - its exactly what most of the unionists say and what you are saying here
Now why can scotland not be a prosperous independent country like Holland, Sweden, Finland etc.
PS for seosamh, GERS is a (statistical) measurement. Predictions of growth are more difficult, but can be seen in the context of other countries trying to do the same thing. The SG predictions of growth are a very ambitious in that context.
Agreed predictions are more diffucult, but the context isn't really like for like, comparing to other countries, given Scotlands limited control and potential for more control.
One example, like an IS's ability to increase immigration and the population size, given it's stunted population growth(which isn't changing under the uk), say that Scotland has the potential to grow differently from other nations who've had that control all along. There's one stat, in the SGC, that says if scotlands population had grown at the same rate as the uk it would be sitting at 6.1million just now. An extra 600 thousand people is quite a boost to the economic potential of a country.
You say, tell us what you'll do with the extra power, then you just dismiss their conclusions and projection out of hand.
How can you argue against that?
PS with reference to my previous statements on NI's economy.
I fully accept that the secret oilfields (codename Rathlin) might change things dramatically.
You should also be aware that the value of sheep, igneous rock formations and titanic museums can go up as well as down.
If someday, like no other nation on earth, NI decided to charge taxes or "duty" on exports (like indy supporters think happens to whisky) than that could change things as well.
I'm not saying that scotland can't be a country.
I'm not saying that scotland can't be a prosperous country (at some point in the future).
I'm just saying that tomorrow, independent, we couldn't afford to spend as much money on the things we claim to value (NHS, social services etc.).
And getting back to where we are now spending wise would not be easy and not be a good time for the poor and disadvantaged.
If you find that controversial, then how do you feel about what I said about NI above?
Also, our economy would disallow us from joining the EU until things change dramatically (and nicola is on the record saying that scotland could deal with the deficit "in the same way that other countries deal with it" i.e. austerity).
All of this is true based on NOW, I'm not saying that things can't or won't change, but you'll have to start by accepting that facts exist. And sometimes predictions are just wrong
I'm old enough to remember when we could have been the new celtic tiger, and part of the "arc of prosperity" (heady times!).
Irelands GDPPC currently drawfs the uks.
seosamh,
Counting the money I got paid and the money I spent over the last year .. not hard.
Predicting the value of sterling a year from now, the value of services and goods sold over the next year, the productivity and output of the average scottish worker, and how all of that might be affected by global trends and the global economy .. hard.
Also I was talking about northern ireland, because it has a deficit within the UK as scotland does, just a less controversial and politically charged one, for now.
What would I do as TJ king of independent Scotland to deal with the poorly performing economy and the deficit?
1) Invest in infrastructure especially renewables and renewable tech - keeps money in the country and provides export opportunities
2) scrap the military ( bar perhaps a small standing army and some gunboats and a few hekilopters.)
3) legalise cannabis Nice new tax revenue stream plus all those cannabis tourists from down south
4) redistibutive income tax and a huge clampdown on tax avoidence. make starbucks / amazon pay their share
4) bring natural monoplies like rail and electricity back into state control. Let the state have the profits
So there we have a growing economy with increased tax receipts, decreased costs and bingo - loadsamoney!
“in the same way that other countries deal with it” i.e. austerity).
Ermmm - apart from the unfortunate fact that most other countries did not implement austerity in the way the tories did because they know it does no good
eat_the_pudding
Member
seosamh,
Counting the money I got paid and the money I spent over the last year .. not hard.Predicting the value of sterling a year from now, the value of services and goods sold over the next year, the productivity and output of the average scottish worker, and how all of that might be affected by global trends and the global economy .. hard.
Also I was talking about northern ireland, because it has a deficit within the UK as scotland does, just a less controversial and politically charged one, for now.
So basically you are saying you can never be convinced? It's too difficult?
BTW, everywhere with in the uk has a deficit outside of london and the SE.
Over investment in London and the SE is a large part of that problem.
tj,
Now thats a manifesto i can get behind 🙂
My point is that honesty is better than lies. Some things are facts, some things are opinions and some things are imagination.
The lesson of 2014 was that lies can almost win referendums. (and how may people even today still argue that "scotland supports the economy of the rest of the UK", and that "the [non existent] whisky export duty is stolen down south")
The lesson of 2016 was that they can.
Is that what you want?
eat_the_pudding
NOONE is saying that, except you.
No, you are. Stop gaslighting.
You are the one making predictions of economic doom.
I want to know the answer to two very simple questions.
Why is Scotland going to fail? You claim to know what will happen in advance based on the current set of figures.
What factor amongst those will make Scotland fail as an independent nation?
Perhaps you could give examples of other similar nations in similar circumstances that have failed after independence to help us avoid our awful fate.
I'm still trying to work out what uniqueness you see in Scotland that will make us failures.
Actually the lesson of 2014 is that lies do win referendums - they side with the biggest lies won!
Better together my arse
6) Lease Faslane to rUK for £5bn a year.
On nuclear I have principles but they aren't worth billions
