They were just on Radio 4 with the SNP fell arguing each person [ migh thave been houshold] will be thousands better off wiht Danny boy arguing it will be billions worse off

As i said two lying bastards lying.

It probably is inevitable for iS but in that sense it is probably inevitable for rUK – however we are talking decades if not longer for this. It is not inevitable it will happen in 18 months time. It is probably inevitable they have to commit to it but do nothing more than that, Will be interesting to see if they would rather be in the Euro zone or alone though

Junkers is interesting as the parliament proposed him when they cannot do this , they are starting to assert power against the “kings” [ elected leaders of the member countries]
I know nothing if their views on that issue or any other tbh

@JY – I’ve long held the view that if you’re in the EU you have to join the euro/single currency eventually, that applies to the UK too although given our longstanding membership and strength/size we have been able to stay out for the time being. Problem is that the failings of the current currency setup have been laid bare and as it stands it would be madness to join now and it seems unlikely the necessary reforms will be implemented anytime soon. I think Scotland is going to be in a tricky place trying to join the EU and attempting to stay out of the euro.

Others have and the EU is expansionist in nature and this would be the first member they lose – all be it a strange manner.

i think there is more chance of them being refused entry than being forced to join the Euro [ though they will have to “commit”]
Like 99% of this tbh we do not know what will happen but i think they can avoid the Euro if they wish to

@ben – I read a couple of days ago the piece which suggested a max of £2.5 and a likely cost of £1.5 The reality is none of us really know, that in itself is an issue.

Thing is, it’s not just Yes and the SNP saying the Treasury’s figures are rubbish, it’s the very economist they based the figures on. Since the Scottish government already has departments for most things, we need four new ones – defence, foreign affairs, a reorganised HMRC, and a reorganised DWP.

the very economist they based the figures on

Ask an economist a question and get two answers ! Anyway certainly not the treasury/governments finest hour on this. Rather a political own goal to come up with an estimate which is so open to ridicule.

Financial Times comment on costs

And this is where the No movement have gone so wrong.

Rather than the usual subtle lies and misinformation they have jumped in using Baron Munchausen’s Manual of Bovine Excrement and relied on us being too stupid to see through this sort of thing.

Which may work if you have a total control over the media (as they appear to), but unfortunately for them we now have the internet, so the tactics that worked in previous referenda don’t work now.

So the Treasury gets caught red-handed lying about figures – what does the BBC do? Spin it as “contrasting claims”.

This is the same BBC who gave hourly coverage to the astroturfing Vote No Borders group, giving them more coverage in one day than they’ve given any pro-independence group ever.

I know I keep going on about the BBC, but they’re supposed to be held to a higher standard of impartiality.

Rather a political own goal to come up with an estimate which is so open to ridicule.

Aye just listened to Danny giving the speech and it was rather Orwellian about how all his figures were true and using standard Treasury models – The treasury is an instrument of government designed to support govt, it is NOT neutral.

they cut before the questions though so that would have been interesting

It is behind a firewall epicyclo precise please

@JY – if you Google the article title (“data on costs of Scottish government misleading”) and access it that way you can read it (after answering one or two marketing questions)

This tool is quite fun 8)

Let Me Google That for You

So it is my fault hegave the wrong link then 😉

I did that and did not even have to give any info- I have to confess not use your link just in case it was wrong 😛

Seriously though Thanks

But Prof Dunleavy points out three problems with the Treasury’s working. First, not all 180 bodies would be major departments; second several departments already exist in Scotland and would simply need to be enlarged; third, his estimate applied to the “chaotic” way in which the last Labour government established new departments, not to a planned, orderly transition. He estimated the set-up costs would be closer to £150m-£200m.

He told the FT that based on an advance briefing last week the Treasury’s release “is seriously misleading”.

Hmm, perhaps the SNP could release their own estimate of the costs?

Funny that they haven’t – in fact the press release that they’re castigating was actually entitled “Scottish government challenged to set out start costs for independence” and, for those who read it they would know that the release cautioned quite clearly that the figure given was a simple extrapolation of the Dunleavy figure, and not an examination of the actual costs involved, alongside this they also stated two other, lower estimates from different independent bodies, and stated quite clearly that none of these figures were an official UK governments estimate – however, the SNP’s version of the truth often seems to get its boots on and spread with what they ‘claim’ people have said rather than what they have actually said… rather interesting to see them jump on this with such Vigour rather than discussing what the Danish foreign minister said or on their faliure to increase their own vote share, or even UKIP winning a seat…

So, why haven’t they published their own estimate?
Or their own legal advice on EU membership?

Funny that, eh!

I suppose all our English resident STWers are looking forward to Scottish independence.

After all, think of the huge tax cuts you are going to get once you are no longer subsidising Scotland. 🙂

No, I think they’re going to keep the taxes the same – we need to act prudently and start saving up for when you come crawling back in a few years asking us to bail you out… again 😆

I am wondering what happens to my nationality what with being scottish but resident in England- I am lucky in that both sides think I am unlucky 😉

TBH i was rather hoping i can pay tax to iS so my kids get a free university education and i get health care when I get old

jambalaya – Member

Ask an economist a question and get two answers !

Not our resident economist…

TBH i was rather hoping i can pay tax to iS so my kids get a free university education and i get health care when I get old

under EU rules rUK citizens will get free Uni education in Scotland much the same as the Polish, Romanians, French, Greeks, children of Turk workers resident in Scotland etc do

There is no guarantee of continuing free education and health care under any government, any where in the world. A Yes vote isn’t a vote to elect the SNP, and even if it was, and even if they got it at any subsequent election, they might change their policies.

Given that ANY numpties voted UKIP in Scotland (although I quietly suspect they saw the word Independent and thought they were voting for that) I would be careful what you wish for.

Murrayfield is to be renamed BT Murrayfield. Now I know now it’s officially BT not British Telecom but it did make me chuckle.

BBC

Been in meetings all day so haven’t had time to digest what each side is saying but clearly ludicrous result. But starting with FT the following did make me smile

Mr Salmond said that despite the rival claims being hotly contested, “economics is central to the campaign, a key to winning the campaign”.

He needs a new economics dictionary then!

God, there looks like a lot to read but the Cable, Oakeshott, Cleggy affair seems more interesting to start with.

If, as the SNP claim, the pound is a shared asset, why is the oil not a shared asset?

Ironically I have no issue about the pound being a shared asset. Because of the difference in size, all the decisions about what is good for the pound will be taken for the benefit of the UK and not for Scotland. In order for a shared currency to work the Scots will have to agree to financial controls. In effect, no real difference than now.

In order for a shared currency to work the Scots will have to agree to financial controls. In effect, no real difference than now.

Sshhhh!

Actually it’s worse that that, since the situation in an iS will have no impact on the decision which will only be made with respect to conditions in rUK

If, as the SNP claim, the pound is a shared asset, why is the oil not a shared asset?

Because the UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea – UNCLOS III – which defines the size of Exclusive Economic Zones. Is the rUK planning to leave that treaty?

sadmadalan – Member
….Because of the difference in size, all the decisions about what is good for the pound will be taken for the benefit of the UK and not for Scotland…

Which is why many of us would be happy to walk away without responsibility for the Bank of England’s debts. You keep your pound.

And watch what that does to your future borrowing costs? Blind leading the blind!

the Cable, Oakeshott, Cleggy affair seems more interesting to start with.

That is interesting there for sure
As I said on another thread any serious leader candidate would be mad to take it now
Let them get shafted at the election take over and then rebuild

FWIW given today you have to at least aim some critique at the treasury figures. When your source says they are pish and you misused his stats it is indefensible. Even AS has not been that bad with his abuses.

teamhurtmore – Member
And watch what that does to your future borrowing costs? Blind leading the blind!

I’m traditional Scottish. I don’t borrow money. 🙂

Prof Dunleavy explained: “I’m afraid I don’t think they did [read the report]. Every time I go to the Treasury, the staff seem to be aged about 23 or 24 and to not to know a great deal about the issues they are handling.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27613876

😀

teamhurtmore – Member

And watch what that does to your future borrowing costs?

Would it increase them by more than £126 billion quid?

Scotland has to be granted independence. If Scotland tries to walk away from their share of the debt without some compensating item being left to the UK (eg all the Oil) then Scotland is not going to be permitted to become independent. The notion that Scotland would walk away from its share of the national debt without dire consequences is ridiculous. Aside from the UK what do you think the EU will make of that when considering Scotland’s application for membership.

The currency is not an asset that Scotland owns, to suggest otherwise is farcical.

Can I ask the Scots here where AS’s 0.3% annual increase in productivity year-in-year out is going to come from ? In the SNP’s financial projections he had all sorts of optimistic figures but this one jumped out. The SNP also believe the oil stocks to be worth 10 times what the Treasury says.

If Scotland tries to walk away from their share of the debt without some compensating item being left to the UK (eg all the Oil) then Scotland is not going to be permitted to become independent.

The debt isn’t ours, the Treasury said so. Nevertheless, we’re happy to help you pay your debt, in return for a fair distribution of everything else.

And the oil is ours, unless the rUK wants to tear up the UN Laws of the Sea.

Can I ask the Scots here where AS’s 0.3% annual increase in productivity year-in-year out is going to come from ?

Dunno, I’m not a SNP person, so I don’t have to justify his figures.

@ben – the Treasury said it will stand behind all the UK’s debt, this is an obvious thing to do for a responsible Government. A portion of the UK’s debt (lets assume the 9.5%-ish figure) has been incurred in paying for infrastructure etc in Scotland. It has been incurred for the benefit of Scotland.

You ignored my point that unless Scotland behaves reasonably in this regard it won’t be permitted independence. The SNP has already acknowledged that it will take it’s share of the debt.

I didn’t ignore your point – I’ve said before that the problem with the Edinburgh Agreement is that it says both sides will act in good faith.

Which is never a brilliant idea when you’re talking about the Tories 😉

I’d dispute that 9.5% of the debt was spent on infrastructure in Scotland, but whatever – I’ve got no problem with Scotland paying a reasonable contribution towards the debt, as long as we get a similar share of the assets.

The notion that Scotland would walk away from its share of the national debt without dire consequences is ridiculous.

Possibly but legal – I am less convinced as having no debt is better than having loads IMHO

Aside from the UK what do you think the EU will make of that when considering Scotland’s application for membership.

Ignore why what do you think? They have done something perfectly legal how would you expect them to judge it?

It is irrelevant no one thinks they will walk away anyway so there is no point discussing ti.

Can I ask the Scots here where AS’s 0.3% annual increase in productivity year-in-year out is going to come from ?

I would assume it is a widely inaccurate figure plucked out the air just like the treasury figures as no one knows. Anyone want to trust either the prediction of an economist or a politician? Really anyone?

the Treasury said it will stand behind all the UK’s debt, this is an obvious thing to do for a responsible Government.

They had to do it legally as the debt is the Uk’s

A portion of the UK’s debt (lets assume the 9.5%-ish figure) has been incurred in paying for infrastructure etc in Scotland. It has been incurred for the benefit of Scotland.

Has it can you prove that ? was it spent equitably ?

again it is irrelevant as they wont walk away

they will take their share of the debt they will take their share of assets

there will be much gnashing of teeth in deciding the exact percentages

We are discussing a hypothetical that just wont happen.
Most of what we discuss here is speculation but can we draw the line at speculating about a scenario no one thinks will happen please?

Just make sure you get the definitions right then….

The UK gov re-enforced the position re debt exactly because yS starting making stupid comments and t he markets became a little jittery. One party acted responsibly and immediately and the issue calmed quickly. Lessons learned.

Two rather sad documents yesterday – both frankly absurd in message, one a rushed spoiler with obvious contradictions and a other with some bizarre claims.

FT editorial sums it up pretty well

The snag, however, is that these figures (Salmond and Alexander) are rubbish. Mr Salmond’s arithmetic is perhaps the more egregious. His £1,000 bonus derives from three tax-raising benefits he claims flow from the freedom to set policy independently: higher productivity, lower unemployment and a rising population. To offer this as some sort of automatic payout is an insult to the intelligence of the land of Adam Smith and David Hume.

Still he has history there……

As do you and we could write your interpretation of any event ourselves
Whatever happens AS is a big fat liar
In summary no one trust either sides figures and I doubt anyone trusts your interpretation of this
Seriously THM imagine what you would do had AS used figures that the source accuses the Treasury of manipulating by a factor of 10 . It would get more than a small comment in brackets a day later – have some balance fella
As i said i would trust neither figures and perhaps even you will accept that the veneer of neutrality re Treasury figures has slipped now and can no longer be claimed

As i said i would trust neither figures and perhaps even you will accept that the veneer of neutrality re Treasury figures has slipped now and can no longer be claimed

I’ve already pointed out that these were not treasury figures – they published a range of figures from different sources, and challenged the Scottish government to give a figure based upon what they had previously said about having to create 180 new government bodies

The press release specifically stated that the UK government had not published its own estimate.

@JY, of course you can show that Scotland has benefitted from spending consistent with the UK public debt. It’s just so obvious that it would bore everyone and is a pointless waste of time to provide links.

@ben, the currency isn’t as asset so it doesn’t come into the conversation. Sooner or later Scotland will be using the euro.

I think it’s time for me to skip out of this thread.

Yes it will be broadly level but I bet there is a disproportionate south weighting but yes it is not worth debating

So soon we will be at 200 + by the vote day till we get massive flouncing/ massive gloating

So soon we will be at 200 + by the vote day till we get massive flouncing/ massive gloating

I’ve already got my special flouncing kilt ready, just in case…

Jambalaya – following on and returning to David Hume, he noted that one diminishes oneself when “in debating about nonsense (very apt here), one comes to believe it.”

The assets mis-definition and walking away from debt are two obvious examples. As are most of the points in the BoD.

As both an empiricist and a sceptic Hume must be turning in his grave and the minority of his countrymen!