Osbourne says no to currency union.

I might well be confused on this (as on most things). Wasn’t the argument about pensions that Scotland has a population that is aging more than the UK, so *because* they are paid by current taxes, currently Scotland gets quite a good deal, but independence would remove this, meaning pensions would have to be decreased, or contributions increased?

Yes we have an aging population. One of the arguments from Better Together is that due to this we need the support from rest of UK to keep pensions secure.

My argument would be that we need our own policy on immigration and stop sending away non-EU graduates after university so they can live and work here, pay taxes etc which would help.

We need to address the aging population, our young people are leaving to go down south in droves for work. Better Together have put out nothing to suggest a fix for this if we vote No, they seem to be happy with the current situation.

Yes campaign could be doing more to promote what they would be doing.

Of course the £ is weak, it a deliberate policy choice.

Anyone would think there was a pension pot to talk about. If only….

An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London.

how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?

do expand on this please.

@wanman – it’s been one of my points/themes throughout this thread. Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn’t have the scale required in today’s world. The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.

Plus we’d have the opportunity to explore the Atlantic coast for oil and gas….

❓ 28th licensing round this year had hundreds of Atlantic frontier blocks

http://www.bigissue.com/the-mix/news/4192/big-issue-vendors-polled-on-scottish-independence

I dont know quite what AS does to engender so much ill feeling tbh.

@Junkyard – are you serious, he’s the most objectionable SOB ? I do my up most to try and see beyond individuals in politics but he is right up there with GWB in my book. Perhaps you think he’s standing up for Scotland but to me he’s a massive PITA for no great benefit to anyone other than himself, a huge ego, obstinate and someone who cannot back up his grand proclamations with any substance.

The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.

This might very well be correct, but for me, it would be easier to be worried about this (if I even lived in Scotland) if there was any evidence for it.

It’s certainly true that Westminster has a quite staggering ability to lose money on vast IT projects. I’d like to think though that canny Scotspeople in this day and age of computerification could achieve something just as good without having to splurge hundreds of millions of pounds on Capita and Accenture.

I might offer my services actually.

EDIT: putting my cynic’s hat on though, AS might just pay vast amounts to those same consultants out of sheer laziness.

The Wee Blue Book

It’s an interesting read 😉

So is Tolkein’s “Silmarillion”. That has no basis in reality either.

Okay, which bits are incorrect? Please provide sources.

It’s an interesting read

I clicked on the link and my enthusiasm waned almost immediately, I don;t have the strength

Ben – the summary is 5 opinion pieces which have been done to death on here already. It is all supposition based on a favourable interpretation of data and the range of outcomes from it. No facts about how Scotland can be guaranteed to be as it all depends on negotiations. So, nothing new then.

If that’s the best iS has, credibility on the world stage does not beckon.

C’mon Ben. Find something sensible to read. If yS is based in this and the BoD then you really are doomed. The opening para in currencies is gobbledigook. Misrepresentation at best, and God knows what at worst.

Still as said before, brilliant to see who know loves the Adam Smith Insitute’s stuff!!!

its shit FACT

It is all supposition based on a favourable interpretation of data and the range of outcomes from it. No facts about how Scotland can be guaranteed to be as it all depends on negotiations. So, nothing new then.

If that’s the best iS has, credibility on the world stage does not beckon.

The debate would hardly be worth it if we all gave a galic shrug admitted we did not know and said it would all come out in the wash [ negotiations]

FWIW if they promised x, y amd z i get the feelign you would object somewhat to the fanciful flights of fancy

The opening para in currencies is gobbledigook

many of struggle with economics but it is science and therefore complicated 😉
FWIW i understood it we can use the pound whatever westminster says. that would be best described as use rather than keep though.
It is amusing to see the lengths folk will go to drag out tenuous quotes to support their positions and ignore everything that contradicts it

there is no balance to this debate at all.

It always makes me giggle to see Stu Campbell’s name outside of anything to do with Amiga Power.

it’s been one of my points/themes throughout this thread. Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn’t have the scale required in today’s world. The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.

And there are absolutely no countries in the world with a population of 5m or less which are successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.

Looks like a lot of small countries at the top of that list….

“Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn’t have the scale required in today’s world.”

I think you’ve got it completely backward, actually. Scale (esp for an EU country) has never been less important. it’s not the 19th century any more. think of the savings resulting from not engaging in grand neoimperial military adventures, for a start…

Just wondered why “the pound is weak” given its position at present, anybody?

Need to know as we are now writing our Freeeeeedoooom for Yorkshire wish list or white paper as I believe it’s called in some shires. Anyway if pounds weak it’ll be no good as currency in “gods country” (I quote Christian Prudhomme there), so have decided that Ben Shaws bottle tops would be currency of choice. If tha needs more money exchange your weak pounds for a Bottle of Ben Shaw dandelion and burdock, a bottle top comes free.

I notice the future president were commentating on cricket. Gone all that way to Lancashire just for radio 4. Now that’s a proper future leader, can be trusted to commentate without staying anything controversial.

You nut jobs in the YLA (Yorkshire Liberation Army) don’t need to worry about the strength of the pound.

Currency is irrelevant if you’re all to tight to spend any on owt.

And there are absolutely no countries in the world with a population of 5m or less which are successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.

Looks like a lot of small countries at the top of that list….
That is rather missing the point. None of those countries have gained their independence in today’s world. And none of the countries that have gained their independence in today’s world even make the top 50. The closest is Latvia, at #58. Massive GDP growth rate, you may argue, but that is a statistical quirk caused by the recovery of their consumption-led economy from a colossal GDP contraction in 2009, and the shoring up of their finances by a number of bailouts. Is this the company you want Scotland to keep and emulate?
The small countries at the top of the GDP list have been around for many years, and their state instruments either built with the riches of exploration (back when that was a lucrative undertaking), or provided in return for assistance in some war or other, or even by plain and simple slave labour. To compare their success in the GDP per capita stakes with the potential of Scotland’s is to ignore some very salient facts.

Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today’s world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.

Why in today’s world? I don’t understand – bureaucracies were pretty big 100 years ago too. Why is it so much more expensive to start up a new country now?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you struggling to see the difference between the cost of things in the past and the cost of things now?

For example, how much did a house cost 25 years ago. How much was that figure as a percentage of a person’s wages? How much does a house cost in today’s world? Do you think governments are somehow immune from the effects of inflation?

I’m not deliberately obtuse, it just comes naturally.

House prices as a factor of wages have gone up, yes. Home computer prices as a factor of wages have come down a lot. If you’re going to be more general, the cost of most things has come down quite a bit, but we buy more stuff.

What has this got to do with the startup costs of a new country? Is a new country going to be buying houses or new IT systems?

Yes, it cost only £2M to build the Houses of Parliament (3x over budget though) but back then £2M was a much larger amount of money. That’s how inflation works.

Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today’s world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.

But we already have all of the things we need, when we leave we will be taking the part we paid for with us. Do you English think of Scotland as a partner or as a colonial possession?

How about an actual example?

Sheffield Supertram, built in the mid-90s, cost roughly £240 million. Although much gnashing of teeth happened at the time, and quite rightly given the unfair way in which it was funded, it still ended up being a reasonable alternative to the bus service the Sheffield had. Total line length = 60km. Cost per km = £4 million/km

Edinburgh Tram project, an 18.5km tramline, is projected to cost £1.1 billion by the time it’s finished. £54 million/km. That’s from an original estimated cost of just shy of £500 million. Even if you remove all the dilly-dallying and general incompetence from the Council, it’s projected costs still indicates a 100% rise in cost of public spending projects. Factor in the delays, overspend and interest payments, you’ve got a four-fold increase in the cost of a project that is 1/3 the size.

But you see, that’s number fudging, a tactic used by both sides in the independence debate. Firstly, you need to take inflation into account between the years involved. Sheffield’s Supertram was completed in 1995, at a cost of £240 million. Edinburgh’s Tram Project had an estimated cost of £498 million in 2003. Between 1995 and 2003 we saw inflation of ~22%, so 1995’s £240 million would be the equivalent of just under £300 million in 2003. So the budget for a smaller network was at least £200 million greater than inflation would suggest was required. Greater forces at work in the wide, wide world than inflation it seems, and serves as a real world example that certain things that Scotland will need to build/provide/develop are going to be very, very expensive.

But we already have all of the things we need, when we leave we will be taking the part we paid for with us. Do you English think of Scotland as a partner or as a colonial possession?

Interesting use of “English” there. This “Englishman” thinks of Scotland as home, thank you very much. Just an example, but how is Scotland proposing to deal with driver and vehicle licensing? Renting some office space in Swansea? How will Scotland take its “fair share” of the DVLA? And HMRC. One of the major incentives for independence is the freedom to set tax rates as and how Scotland sees fit. You think HMRC are going to just automagically be able to deal with two tax regimes? That ICAS report – misused by the “Better Together” campaign and flat-out ignored by the Indys – lays out how changes to New Zealand’s tax system which are less involved than those that will be required for an independent Scotland, cost £750 million. How’s that fit in with Dunleavey’s £200 million?

The point is, things cost a lot of money. Those things cost less money 100 years, 50 years, 20 years ago, even taking inflation into account. To use the GDP-per-capita of small, dissimilar countries that have been around for years as an example of why Scotland, with all the necessary hoops it will have to jump through, is going to hit the ground running just doesn’t make sense.

And just to clarify, I’ve never said Scotland couldn’t be a successful independent country. I believe it could. I just think that it will be a torrid few years before that happens, especially if Salmond’s ego has anything to do with it, and I’m just not willing to chance my family’s future in Scotland (I love the place, and I’d be sad to move away) on the reality of independence being drastically different from the promises in the SNP’s white paper.

Ahhhh back to “English”

We’re all the same don’t you know!!!

ninfan – Member
“An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London.”
how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?

Why would we leave things as they are, and be reliant on an another country’s services for any longer than necessary?

Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?

FWIW HMRC will have to be set up to deal with multiple tax rates regardless as those powers have been “promised” to Holyrood already. The cost of doing so is already well understood.

How’s that fit in with Dunleavey’s £200 million?

After a little peer review from colleagues at his own institution, Dunleavy raised the number. £200M was the start with the range he eventually quoted getting to the number the Treasury suggested and which Yes campaign ridiculed.

FWIW HMRC will have to be set up to deal with multiple tax rates regardless as those powers have been “promised” to Holyrood already. The cost of doing so is already well understood.

Not quite true. One of the reasons Holyrood’s tax varying powers have not been used is that the cost of altering systems to cope consumes most of the benefit.

Another is that the capacity to set different tax rates refers only to taxes already operated by UK. If iS really wants to be independent and make the social change being talked about then it needs to have the capacity to have not just different tax rates, but different tax structures and regimes. For that it needs its own systems.

Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today’s world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.

I am with Flying Ox and have said so repeatedly. Scotland will have a small population and a low tax base so big projects are going to be very expensive on a per head basis. Add to this the fact that inevitably (IMO) Scotland will have to cut corporate taxes to encourage business to stay/attract new companies (ala Ireland) and from what we hear Scotland will be fairer (so that’s lower taxes on low incomes and more public spending). This means the sums are going to be very stretched and over just 5m people. What you will see is a big uptick in the amount of state/government employees as Scotland replicates the various departments/organizations required to run a country. These will have to be paid for by private sector taxes and I suppose all those oil revenues assuming the oil price stays high.

Scotland is going to be more Greece than Norway.

Scotland’s fare share of assets. I don’t see Scotland as owning a share of HMRC, DVLA, the military etc. What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes. As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.

As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only

I’m very strongly in the No camp, but I don’t think you can say that. All these services have a mix of assets which exist and operating costs to continue them. Your point is valid for the latter but not for the former.

jambalaya – do you not think your view comes close to viewing Scotland as a colony rather than a partner in a union?

scotroutes – Member
jambalaya – do you not think your view comes close to viewing Scotland as a colony rather than a partner in a union?

Hold on, they never conquered us, it was our king who took over their throne, so maybe England is the colony.

Do you think we should let them keep the pound? 🙂

Yeah, it was a Scot who founded the Bank of England too 😉

As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.

How do you propose this would work for all the infrastructure that’s located in Scotland? Will the rUK come up (i.e. invade) and remove everything owned by the UK government piece by piece?

We paid for a share of them, a share of them is ours.

If only we could have a sensible fact and evidence driven debate instead of the absolute guff that has taken over.

Is really at the heart of the matter, but slightly misses the point. Being “your own boss” isn’t just about the facts and figures, and in many ways its the least important part of the whole debate. It should be about the emotive, this whole argument pretty much solely comes down to ” do we want to be our own country” and the answer is pretty straightforward for most folk, and doesn’t need a great deal of time or thought, its pretty instinctive.

If the majority say “yeah **** it lets give it a go” then all of this guff ( and its mostly guff) WILL get worked out, might be a compromise might be a little gained here and a little lost here, but it will be managed.

The majority of scots seem to think “no” at the minute, I can’t see it radically changing. It’s pretty much been decided already

“Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?”

that’s a terrible idea. Europe is filled with potential hubs away from places you actually want to fly to. why spew away millions more quid to compete with them in some sort of vanity project?