Osbourne says no to currency union.

The flying ox I dont think it would be so simple as dividing things on a geographic basis

I’ve only ever said the division of physical things, like buildings, would be on a geographical basis. If it can be relocated in any way, and in any sense of the word, then it’ll probably come down to a fair proportion.

What wanmankylung seems to be suggesting is a Scotland keeps 100% of everything within its border and then gets to cherry-pick from the rest of the UK, without thinking that if that’s how everything goes down then the UK might want to do some cherry-picking of its own.

There would be costs…

Of that there is no doubt! 😆

I have completely changed my mind about Scottish independence

Comparisons of GDP, GVA etc are difficult, as the value of the financial services industry is pretty significant (15% of Scotland’s GDP). Once the headquarters move, and inevitably oil and gas declines to the point of insignificance (albeit in 20-30 years), it looks to me as though there would be very little value creation in Scotland, unless new industries move in.

I’m genuinely keen to hear some Yes views on this though, as many I’ve read online or spoken to point straight to the strength of the financial services industry within Scotland, when conceding that oil is not here forever. They don’t then consider there may be a risk, much closer in proximity than the demise of oil, that could really hamper Scottish prosperity.

Well, unfortunately for the rUK, it’ll be happening…. So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.

Or, you know, just sit and wait for 19th September then carry on as normal 🙂

@wanman I have no doubt AS will try this on. He will get precisely nowhere with it. Just like the currency union nonsense. AS needs to focus his negotiating energy on the EU in the unlikely event he wins. It will be the renegotiation of the Scottish membership of the EU which will be the defining factor in the Scots future.

Why would it be trying it on? I find that stance offensive. We paid for our percentage share of it therefore that exact percentage share is ours. That bit is not open to negotiation.

You keep mentioning Alex Salmond – your repeated reference to him says to me that you don’t have a clue what the referendum is about. The question is this “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Where is Alex Salmond’s name in that question?

So the only way the rUK could avoid having a foreign country building its military ships is to tear up the signed contract for the second carrier. And the contract for the three new patrol vessels to be built on the Clyde.

I know the carriers have had new construction areas built to take the carriers, but who’s to say that BAE will build the other boats in Scotland? Contract would only need amending, rather than ripping up. There’s a shipyard with wounded pride and skilled staff on the south coast, gagging for work. If Scotland went independent and you were in British government, where would you push for the work to go?

That bit is not open to negotiation.

AS seems to say that a lot about stuff that blatantly is. 😉

If Scotland went independent and you were in British government, where would you push for the work to go?

Erm – let me see – the place where they cost less to build (including any penalties etc for changing the contract).

Where is Alex Salmond’s name in that question?

I think people keep mentioning Alex Salmond because unfortunately it’ll him and the SNP involved in every step of the negotiation process, pushing the SNP’s white paper down Westminster’s throat, and nothing in Alex Salmond’s past or present behaviour suggests that he’ll be anything other than an obnoxious flip-flopper who cries bully when he doesn’t get his own way.

However loud you shout that it isn’t about Alex Salmond, Alex Salmond’s ego shouts louder.

A brief interlude for a spot of light relief: http://eveningharold.com/2014/08/08/alex-salmond-insists-were-keeping-the-paul-mccartney/

We paid for our percentage share of it

In the same way that UK assets in Scotland have been paid for by the entire population of the UK and as such some of it will be clawed back by the UK.

In practical terms there will be some balancing done and agreements made to cover a ten year period after Independence to ensure that both governments function. But jobs in Scotland will be relocated in time to the UK. Some assets will “move” to Scotland and some to the UK.

However the UK government will be trying to get the best deal for the UK, in the same manner as the Scottish government trying to get the best deal. It is not going to happen in the 18 month time period outlined by the Yes camp.

I know the carriers have had new construction areas built to take the carriers, but who’s to say that BAE will build the other boats in Scotland?

The point is that, once the second carrier is built in an independent Scotland, then the precedent will be set. The excuse of “we don’t let foreigners build our warships” will no longer work.

In future, BAE will build ships wherever it’s most economic to do so.

In the same way that UK assets in Scotland have been paid for by the entire population of the UK and as such some of it will be clawed back by the UK.

And that is my exact point. The word that I keep hearing from the Yes side is “fair”, the word I keep hearing from the No side is “can’t”. Remember when you were a kid and someone said that you couldn’t do something…

Erm – let me see – the place where they cost less to build (including any penalties etc for changing the contract).

Not the voter-heavy south (only an hour from London – that’s significantly more than the population of Scotland right there), next to the base where most of the crew that pilot the ships will be posted at some point?

It will be about finances undoubtedly, but there is a lot more at stake.

Not the voter-heavy south (only an hour from London – that’s significantly more than the population of Scotland right there)

And that’s precisely why people in the Yes camp want an independent Scotland.

I’m genuinely keen to hear some Yes views on this though, as many I’ve read online or spoken to point straight to the strength of the financial services industry within Scotland, when conceding that oil is not here forever. They don’t then consider there may be a risk, much closer in proximity than the demise of oil, that could really hamper Scottish prosperity.

I’ve been trying to find a good graphic which shows it, can’t find the one I was thinking of so here’s another one:

Basically, the oil is a nice bonus to have, it doesn’t underpin the whole economy. Neither does financial services. We have a pretty decent mix of industries.

In future, BAE will build ships wherever it’s most economic to do so.

They’ll be built where ever politics decide. Short to mid term practicalities means that BAE will probably continue for a while to build in Scotland.

Long term, an expensive decision will be made by an unpopular government trying to win some votes.

Don’t mistake BAE for a non political entity, and don’t mistake Westminster as something that only pursues the most cost effective policies.

BAE will build ships wherever it’s most economic to do so.

Or wherever the customer wants it to be built. If it was the most economic we would not be building them in Scotland. The contract from the Government is with BAE, it is not with Scotland. BAE has said that they will be built on the Clyde, but like all contracts I suspect that there are enough get out clauses to allow BAE to move the work.

What I suspect BAE want in the case of Independence is for the UK Government to commission them to re-establish the dockyards on the South Coast. Given that there would be no Scottish MPs, the UK Parliament may see this as a good long term move.

I think that this is one of the points that yS needs to understand. Trying to tell the UK what would be good for the UK in the event of Independence will be ignored. An iScotland would not have a voice (after the Independence discussions had been completed). The UK would do what they want and if that affects Scotland – well tough. (See also interest rates if Scotland shares the Pound)

The point is that, once the second carrier is built in an independent Scotland, then the precedent will be set. The excuse of “we don’t let foreigners build our warships” will no longer work.

In future, BAE will build ships wherever it’s most economic to do so.

I don’t buy that.

The second carrier is being used for spares for a start.

BAE is a European company, but – as said above – unless the shipyards can get constant trade it’s unlikely to be commercially viable in a country of 5 million, unless it’s significantly cheaper to do so (hard to comment on that as the currency of an iS is still very open to discussion).

That and the PR coup of ‘returning work’ to the UK and ‘British ships being made in Britain’ will be very tempting for whoever is in government.

Edit: Seems my point is made far more eloquently above.

Slightly misleading, seeing as all the figures quoted are per year, except the oil. That’s a total estimated value of all the oil down there, assuming it could all be extracted, and that 100% of the wholesale proceeds go to the government.

Apart from that trivial error, it’s a fair representation of Scotland’s yearly economic output.

Don’t mistake BAE for a non political entity, and don’t mistake Westminster as something that only pursues the most cost effective policies.

BAE is political in that it bribes and influences governments. But it’s apolitical when it comes to making money – it already employs more people outside of the UK than in.

In sure if a future contract for warships specified that they had to be built at Devonport, then BAE would happily add the costs onto the bill, and the MoD would happily pay it – the MoD have a record of spending astronomical sums on stupid ideas for political reasons.

But that would be the rUK government deciding it, not BAE – BAE are only out to make money.

Not that it really matters – an independent Scotland will have a requirement for 20-25 patrol vessels and a £2.5bn defense budget, enough to keep the Clyde yards busy for years. Then there’s the possibilities of commercial shipbuilding – Norway, a country of similar size, has over 50 shipyards.

And that’s precisely why people in the Yes camp want an independent Scotland.

I understand and am not arguing with that, just as I’m not arguing against a referendum. Scotland should be free to do as it pleases, as a country.

My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond’s use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it’s even had a chance to prove what it can do. Nationalistic speeches and talk of ‘sovereign rights’ (which surely is an oxymoron?) will only get you so far.

Got it in one, Pimpmaster. That’s my exact feeling.

My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond’s use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it’s even had a chance to prove what it can do. Nationalistic speeches and talk of ‘sovereign rights’ (which surely is an oxymoron?) will only get you so far.

Based on what?

My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond’s use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction.

There are flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric on both sides. The trick is to look beyond the personalities, beyond one narrative, to try to find out the basic facts for yourself.

BAE is political in that it bribes and influences governments.

@ben such is the nature of military contracts. In fact all large contracts under state control, I’ve heard some disturbing stories about how mobile telephone licences in Asia are awarded.

Then there’s the possibilities of commercial shipbuilding – Norway, a country of similar size, has over 50 shipyards.

So what is stopping the creation of shipyards now? After all it would be almost certain to gain UK (and possibly EU) money to set up and run. Interest rates are at an historic low, the world is slowly coming out of recession. So why wait to see if Independence is gained before starting the creation of new shipyards.

I have seen this ‘fact’ and others – improved productivity, new jobs – but for some reason it is implied that it cannot happen until after a vote – WHY?

Is it because to make the figures stack up, in reducing tax rates, dropping retirement ages, greater spending on social policies add so much cost that we need to find someways of offsetting this. So let’s add some shipyards, add some new jobs and improve productivity to show how it can all be paid for.

(Must stop doing this and do some real work!!)

to try to find out the basic facts for yourself.

In which case, avoid the wee blue book and the BOD. Both represent a major step backwards on the path to finding out the basic facts.

I’m not sure how much “blame” you can really lay at the feet of Salmond.

There has been (in my circles at least) an increase in emotions on the referendum recently. Most notably from No voters who assume I’m voting the same. I guess the guard gets let down, Salmond certainly does irritate, but would anybody else in his place be any less irritating? The main gripe is a movement attempting to lead Scotland in a direction that many are against, and increasingly passionately against.

Incidentally I have encountered more, barely hidden near hostility from Yes voters. I’d guess after making assumptions about my voting intention.

Both account for a small minority, but it is certainly something that has increased.

A Scotland united by a vision of it’s future it is not.

I’ve heard some disturbing stories about how mobile telephone licences in Asia are awarded.

What is it that you find disturbing jambalaya? Are some licences purchased, while others paying the same fee are only leasing the licence?

As piemonster hits on the real cost of the referendum. I avoid the subject with some friends, as I would quite like to stay friends.

athgray – Member
…Between building ships for our own needs, and only providing enough renewable energy for our own needs, perhaps you are an isolationist epicyclo.

I see nothing wrong in a country being self-sufficient as far as is possible.

In which case, avoid the wee blue book and the BOD. Both represent a major step backwards on the path to finding out the basic facts.

What are better sources to look at?

What are better sources to look at?

The news? Or is that too English-centric? 😉

That pretty much sums up my thoughts too.

Have you got the source for the graphic above? I’d seen in a Yes leaflet a few weeks ago, and thought it was optimistic, but can’t find the leaflet now. By optimistic, I mean that after you remove oil/gas, financial services and chunks of others that are spin offs of oil/gas (chemical), there is quite a drop in GDP.

Pretty much anything….

Actually it is interesting (genuinely) to take the formal documentation from both sides and to read the main text (not the selective summaries) and compare and contrast.

Joking (and knocking AS) apart it is very interesting how, in the case of currency options, both sides base their analysis on the concept of an optimum currency area first and then the well-documented pros and cons of each option (nb you have to read beyond the exec summary to get this). It’s a bit dry (the theory) and largely well documented up until the point of the summaries (again).

You can make your own judgment on how they get to the conclusion and on what basis (ie no one goes for AS latest punt, yes no one) but you should also think why do both sides start with OCA theory? Simple because the UK fits and guess where that leads to – union not independence. Hence AS finds it so hard to squirm around this simple fact. The central economic argument (not nec the pol one) is staggeringly clear which is why BT stick to it and why AS is floundering.

Based on what?

Google “Alex Salmond half truths”.

My top hit: http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/444095/Comment-Facts-expose-the-financial-fantasies-of-Alex-Salmond

Admittedly I don’t like the Express as I’m a closet leftie, but the same facts have been peddled out by most nationals, albeit surrounded by different opinion.

A bit further down: http://www.cityam.com/article/1392616119/salmond-keeps-contradicting-himself-scottish-independence

London-centric, but same story.

So let’s go to Scotland: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-fm-stands-firm-on-currency-1-3504622

Don’t know about you, but a decision on what money you’re going to spend seems pretty important to me.

As for nationalistic posturing: “In an open letter published yesterday, Salmond said he would not consider a Plan B because he would not settle for second best for Scotland.”

Personally I’d be gunning for the euro, but I’m not Salmond.

Like I said: My feeling is that the referendum is flawed by several things, primarily Alex Salmond’s use of flawed half-truths and emotional rhetoric to gain traction. My worry is that he is screwing an iScotland before it’s even had a chance to prove what it can do.

If he had concrete arguments and plans that seemed feasible I would personally take him more seriously. But to me, working in marketing, all it looks like is he’s trying to stir up emotion, putting heart before head, and getting the blood rich with nationalistic fervour by those not smart enough to look beyond the Saltire and tory MPs in ‘the south’.

Compare GDP with GNI to take into account how much output (GDP) comes from foreign based countries who repatriate part of the profits (in GNI) and the story doesn’t look as rosy. Oddly, some yS folk seem irrationally against foreign ownership so not sure how they square that circle.

piemonster – Member
I’m not sure how much “blame” you can really lay at the feet of Salmond.

A lot. He is the face of the independence campaign and has taken deceit and lies to an unparalleled height. His retreat this week into it’s our currency and we will walk away from the debt makes the extent of his deceit 100% clear. He is a political bully who flip flops with the wind – a chancer and an opportunist is how he was described in one paper this week. He has had a political lifetime to prepare for 18/9 but instead of doing this properly he has blagged it. Simple, basic questions left unanswered. For that he shouldn’t be forgiven by either side.

The whole thing has turned out to be an expensive vanity project. The UK deserves so much better.

Foreign based “countries” THM?