[Closed] This Scottish Business

Dunno how this works but if Scotland are to retain the monarchy, does this mean that they will continue to contribute to the queen etc?
Will that make them part of the commonwealth?

teamhurtmore - Member

Sorry for the questions then NW - I thought admissions was part of your job.

I'm a recruiter rather than an admitter, I know our processes reasonably well and how that imoacts applicants but I couldn't comment with any fairness on other institutions- there's a surprising amount of variety. Not even just in places, or funding, but just what we think makes a good student.

Fair to say I find it more interesting than the rest of the thread does though 😳

I wish to contribute to this thread only for the purpose of commending Berm Bandit on his apology. This is not done often enough, and should be recognised.

[quote=wrecker ]Dunno how this works but if Scotland are to retain the monarchy, does this mean that they will continue to contribute to the queen etc?
Will that make them part of the commonwealth?
Yes. Yes.

wrecker - Member
Dunno how this works but if Scotland are to retain the monarchy, does this mean that they will continue to contribute to the queen etc?
Will that make them part of the commonwealth?

Yes. Yes.

[quote=webwonkmtber ]The economy of the People's Republic of Scotland is almost entirely driven by government money (i.e. public servants) directly or indirectly (i.e. companies and quangos fulfilling govt contracts). Someone will call me out on the precise figure, but it means about 65% of Scottish GDP is bankrolled from taxes as opposed to commerce. [b]I'm no economist,[/b]
You got that last bit right. Actually, the amount of GDP spent on public services in Scotland is little different from that in the UK.

the amount of GDP spent on public services

is not the same thing as

companies and quangos fulfilling govt contracts

MoD/BAE/Babcocks/Serco all are major employers in Scotland and do not provide "public services"

I give in - only page 150 I'm afraid - slow work as the "Our finances are great" opening takes some reconciling with what the likes of McCrone say, the monetary policy stuff (unsurprisingly) is glossed over at least the tricky stuff, and then you get to what should be interesting the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Ok, wee eck, how do you set this up while at the same time addressing the current deficit? [..........a pin drops..............]

Still the, "we will send a clear signal that Scotland is one of the most competitive and attractive economies in Europe with tax rates designed to boost economic activity and support the fast-growing industries that already have a comparative advantage here in Scotland.....this government plans to set out a timescale for reducing corporation tax by up to three percentage points below the prevailing UK tax rate." [p140]

Ok so now we have corporation tax as well as interest rates determined by Westminster. This "we want to have more control thing" is getting even murkier especially when three pages later we get, "the tax system should be built around Scottish circumstances..."

Still the idea of tax cuts and competing globally on low tax rates will go down well on here I am sure!!!

I wouldn't call Trident missiles, their delivery system and replacement a "public service" either, so there's a saving to iScotland right away.

Got any figures to back up your 65% assertion?

[quote=teamhurtmore ]the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Ok, wee eck, how do you set this up while at the same time addressing the current deficit? [p140]
Why not have a show of hands on here to ask who has both a mortgage and a savings account? If a Sovereign Wealth Fund is invested wisely it will generate a higher rate of interest than is being paid for in any debt servicing - and we don't merely have to imagine such a thing, we only have to look at how other countries are managing.

I wouldn't call Trident missiles, their delivery system and replacement a "public service" either, so there's a saving to iScotland right away.

There are plenty of MoD employees and contractors who really don't want to make that saving.

Scotroutes - a SWF is an excellent idea agreed and a shame that governments in the past did not follow Shetlands example!! A crime really.

But at least be "honest" (Sturgeon's words, not mine) about how you set it up and its impact on current levels of gov spending.

An independent view:

"If Scotland became independent and the oil revenues were immediately diverted to a special fund, the rest of the budget would be heavily in deficit. That would mean that there would have to be big tax increases or public exoenditure cuts on top of what the coalition has already imposed."

May be this is addressed beyond page 150 but I have had enough!!!

Scotroutes - STW's assigned cybernat?

Winston_dog - spot on.

[quote=webwonkmtber ]Scotroutes - STW's assigned cybernat?
Sorry if my correcting and/or challenging your unsubstantiated comments is in some way getting up your nose. Feel free to provide evidence to firmly put me in my place.

Feel free to provide evidence to firmly put me in my place.

I thought it had been established that thee is no hard evidence either way to say an "iScotland" would be successful or not? Both political parties are playing games and basically the only info we have is subjective.

IMHO I don't think being a member of the UK has had an overall negative effect on Scotland or the UK. I think that the reality is that the countries are so strongly linked that the process of splitting them up will only weaken both, not to mention the expense and bureaucracy of doing so.

However, I do think you are entitled to your referendum but I hope that the SNP lose.

The SWF thing is a complete red herring, as Scotland like the rest of the UK already spends more than it earns. Worse revenue from the North Sea is getting tighter, as a lot of old fields are struggling to make it worth while still running.

A race to the bottom of corporation taxes is an interesting idea, used by a lot of old Empire colonies to keep themselves running. However, it runs contrary to the opinions the left leaning pro independence people lot.

Do we have any idea what rates Scotland could borrow money at?

winston_dog - Member
Feel free to provide evidence to firmly put me in my place.
I thought it had been established that thee is no hard evidence either way to say an "iScotland" would be successful or not?

However, I do think you are entitled to your referendum but I hope that the SNP lose.

The referendum is not an election.

That I know. But as the stand for an independent Scotland I think if that fails then it could be considered a loss for them.

An actual, informed debate is all well and good, but your average voter doesn't really give a stuff about the details - that's for politicians to sort out and/or get stuff up later.

The bottom line is that if England win the world cup next year (ha!) and/or Braveheart is on telly the night before the election, it will be an overwhelming yes vote.

dragon - Member
Do we have any idea what rates Scotland could borrow money at?

Another minor issue 😉 . So leaving aside the method by which the UK's debt is shared out (sounds better that way doesn't it) how will international investors react if they get to hold the Scottish bit? Yes that's ok, the risk associated with a smaller economy etc is fine....will they (wee) 'eck. They will demand higher rates.

Actually the corporate tax thing really starts to make by blood boil. What is one of the key lessons of the € experiment? You cannot isolate monetary and fiscal policy. Unless you live in Scotland apparently. So if you keep the £ and have a tied monetary policy with the rest of the UK you need to align budgets and tax rates. Corporation tax is probably the most obvious area of this.

But no, Scotland will have corporate tax rates 3 percentage points below the rest of the UK. We really are going to be running out of cake to eat at this rate.

So I get flamed on here for suggesting that key issues are not thought through. Ok, I accept I am wrong. They have been fully thought through. In which case, this is written by people who are either economically illiterate or dishonest. Looking at their educational backgrounds, perhaps you can only come to one conclusion after all.......

When wee eck is on Desert Island Disks perhaps the first choice will be Whitney's "Didn't we almost have it all."

What is one of the key lessons of the € experiment

Is it never trust an economist?

😀 spot on

[quote=teamhurtmore ]dragon - Member
Do we have any idea what rates Scotland could borrow money at?
Another minor issue . So leaving aside the method by which the UK's debt is shared out (sounds better that way doesn't it) how will international investors react if they get to hold the Scottish bit? Yes that's ok, the risk associated with a smaller economy etc is fine....will they (wee) 'eck. They will demand higher rates.
Remind us - what rating does a very small economy (let's say the Isle of Man) have vs a bigger economy - [i]sharing the same currency[/i] - like the UK?

What is one of the key lessons of the € experiment

that the politics of the Euro are more important that the economics ? True for both sides of the debate as it is for this one?
I dont think we can believe either side as its a heady mixture of politics,economic half truths and spin.
The debate wont be won on economics but on where the people see themselves [ or in EU the politicians]

😀

If it does go ahead, I think it will prove an interesting time in terms of economics in general; it is essentially the development of a new nation state albeit from a stable economic base and will be almost an experiment to be observed in real time.

What's the plan if the referendum doesn't get a yes majority (sorry if this has been covered earlier?)

What's the citizenship criteria? From a non-eu citizens perspective. 🙂

[quote=vinnyeh ]What's the plan if the referendum doesn't get a yes majority (sorry if this has been covered earlier?) That'll be it off the cards for a while. Impossible to predict for how long though. I don't think Alex Salmond would ever lead the call again but any party presenting a referendum as part of their Scottish Election manifesto should/would expect a re-run. TBH, I'm not convinced that it'll happen in 2014. However, I [i]am[/i] convinced it will happen at some time in the future. I'd expect another 20 or so years before another - and successful - attempt.

What's the citizenship criteria? From a non-eu citizens perspective.

Good question Scotroutes to which I am sure you know the answer!!! 😉 Which one shall we ask S&P or Moody's since we will get a different answer 😉 Have Moody's acted on their downgrade of IoM yet? The second reason for placing IoM on review is interesting in the context of this thread, don't you think?

Here you go - http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/rating

Lots of small economies doing OK on the ratings front there. I've not heard the "[i]Scotland won't have AAA rating[/i]" scare since, oh, I guess not since the UK lost it 😆

A non-EU citizen residing in Scotland?

Yes. If there's eligibility to vote on the issue, then wouldn't there be an expectation of citizenship after secession?

Legal migrants can apply for naturalisation (subject to normal checks etc)

A citizen of [i]any[/i] country who has been resident for 10 years and has an ongoing connection with Scotland may also apply for naturalisation.

I think this is pretty much standard stuff?

Well we shall see Scotroutes (or hopefully not!) But it is an intersting point and I accept it might not be as clear cut as I may have suggested 😉 Nevertheless I know where I would place my bets as a bond holder!

Perhaps RBS capital markets will be able to place and price Scotland's new debt inside the rest of the UK. Hmmm, It would be intersting to be in the underwriting discussions for sure!

Scotroutes - there is a difference between the credit profile of the IoM and that of Scotland. I'm not sure the IoM has a very large public sector funding requirement, and the small population is largely wealthy due to the fact it is an attractive tax haven. Not really comparable. Also is the IoM even a sovereign state, or does it actually benefit from an implicit or explicit guarantee from the UK?

Fundamentally a credit risk rating is not determined based on the size of the country, large or small you can have a crap one. Scotland would be unlikely to have a better one than at present due to the increase in concentration risk and reliance on oil, and the profile of the economy. Someone earlier asserted that Scotland wasn't reliant on the public sector because it had lots of BAE/Babcock jobs. I hate to break the news but BAE is basically a government entity, and as we've seen with the recent carrier contract it is unlikely that expenditure would continue post independence.

For Scotland, they cannot benefit from currency union with the rest of the UK without giving up their economic independence. If they took the Euro they would be subject to the same disaster afflicting most European countries who aren't Germany. An independent currency would be expensive and interesting.

People's Republic of Scotland: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4217793/Scotlands-dependence-on-state-increasing.html

Scots economy hampered by public sector reliance: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8763562/IPPR-Bloated-Scottish-public-sector-will-hamper-recovery.html

EY Item Club with very unhappy reading: http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Issues/Business-environment/Financial-markets-and-economy/ITEM-Club-Scotland

Of course those in favour of Eck's fairytale will rubbish those accounts. Fair enough.

I just doubt very much that Scotland has the enterprise or the open-ness to enterprise to compete globally. Scotland is an undifferentiated proposition in a competitive global market, with few reasons to commend it more highly than any other wannabe country. Remember, the population of Scotland is less than the accepted rounding error on the population of Beijing. And yet we demand attention just because we are Scottish and we did stuff years ago and we're not English - I'm sorry, but that is not enough to build a nation upon IMHO.

webwonkmtber - Member

People's Republic of Scotland: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4217793/Scotlands-dependence-on-state-increasing.html

Er, did you read it?

"Including a geographical share of the North Sea, official Scottish government figures in 2008 show that the ratio of public-sector expenditure to GDP is 41.3 per cent of Scottish GDP compared to 41.5 per cent for the UK as a whole."

It's a classic economic scare story, they filled the top end of the article with comparisons with Cuba and Iraq and hid the comparison with the UK down at the bottom in the hope we wouldn't notice. Oh and a bit of Barnett misinformation while we're at it.

I am glad the 'divorce' will as easily dealt with as it is here. Sounds quite straight forward.
From a social connection point of view, after being told recently by a Scottish taxi driver to eff off back to England, George Galloway asked if he did not feel socially closer to a taxi driver in say Doncaster than someone like the Duke of Buccleuch? Apparently not.

As a counter point could we have a referendum in England to see if we could give Scotland back to the Scottish?

Isn't the arrogance amazing from the SNP. Nato yes but nuclear weapons no which goes against the fundamental defence cornerstone of a nuclear deterrent of "preserving peace and preventing war". A bit like their perspective on Sterling. They seem to think these are one sided conversations rather than considering the other side might not see the point.

What will happen with Scotlands share of the UK trillions national debt?

I cant See England keeping their share.

Salmon wants independence based on upbeat soundbites. 'We'll make us more prosperous'.

Why cant you do that now?

Someone earlier asserted that Scotland wasn't reliant on the public sector because it had lots of BAE/Babcock jobs.

I think you misread my post. BAE/Babcock/Serco all basically the same pigs feeding out of the UK MoD trough. When these high value jobs go the effect will be significant.

slowmart - Member

Isn't the arrogance amazing from the SNP. Nato yes but nuclear weapons no which goes against the fundamental defence cornerstone of a nuclear deterrent of "preserving peace and preventing war".

Have we not covered this earlier in the thread? May have been one of the others, this subject is the whack-a-mole of No campaign scare fantasies.

There's no requirement for a NATO nation to be nuclear. Germany are actively disarming and will be fully disarmed by 2015, Greece fully disarmed in 2001, other members have refused nuclear involvement. Spain. No new NATO member has become a nuclear host since the 60s- there are only 8 nuclear hosts left in NATO from the original 10, out of 28 members, soon to be 7.

In fact, since 1996 NATO specifically [i]bans [/i]new, non-nuclear members from hosting other members' nuclear weapons due to its nonproliferation commitment. (and also bans all NATO powers from stationing nuclear weapons in Scotland, whether or not we join)

So not only does NATO not require us to host nuclear weapons- they wouldn't let us even if we wanted to.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/14/nato-blow-snp-nuclear-strategy

I haven't got an argument with the points raised but Scotland already hosts nuclear weapons and the distinction is stark and prevailing given the NATO reasoning.

There's 2 different messages mixed into one there. Yes, new NATO members can't have unresolved territorial disputes with other members. That's just not a problem, there's no territorial dispute relating to independence, it's a mutually accepted process.

The requirement mentioned that states must have a stable defence history- actually not in article 10 as suggested, incidentally- is a trickier one. Without actual detail, who knows, it's all very nudge nudge wink wink.

It makes sense to look at precedent here though. Croatia began the process to join NATO just 5 years after ending a civil war, and most of the recent intake went directly from the Warsaw Pact to NATO, so apparently you don't need to be all [i]that[/i] stable. Certainly Scotland's defence objectives aren't going to be dramatically different from the UK's, aside from the commitment to nuclear nonproliferation which is aligned with NATO's commitment.

The article then moves on to No campaign mouthpiece, Lord Robertson. Now I was a fan of Lord Robertson, he achieved great things and proved to be a genuine statesman. But more recently he's claimed that by closing Faslane Scotland would forcibly disarm the UK, ffs, so you can decide how much credibility his comments have now- no matter how many times you remind people that you were secretary general, pish is pish. It's a shame. I wonder if he believes any of it.

In the final analysis, you can ask yourself whether a non-nuclear Scotland is of more use to NATO in than out, and whether we're more or less desirable than Albania.

I think you would get an interesting response if you tried to sell that idea to the youth of Spain, Italy, Portugal etc...