richmtb
The EU is setting the rules of the road, the speed limit, what side we drive on etc. But its the driver (the South East and London) that is deciding where the car goes.

An independent Scotland and fresh member would find the full EU rules more restrictive than at present, and perhaps Scotland would be happy with that. You’d have the euro too. As for the driver, we and you had a labour Government for 10 years with a Scot at it’s centre (and in particular running banking regulation). Perhaps London and the South East does exert a certain control but as per the statistics I posted earlier provides the biggest share of tax revenues in absolute terms and per head.

@bencooper, we are pissed off with AS as he’s constantly taking garbage and making negative references to how “we” are bulling “you” for example. This grates in particular because “we” in England pay more tax per head and give Scotland part of the benefit of that.

@tmh – BOS and RBS may be he’d in Scotland and I’d very gladly see them depart with Scotland but I don’t see how we could unwind the current mess, I don’t see Scotland has the resources to support them.

Fish stocks, well I’m pretty sure if Scotland is independent the trawlers can manage to motor a bit further South to land their catches in England if that proves more efficient.

We’ve covered the why won’t Cameron debate question before in another thread. BTW I suspect AS wouldn’t have asked Gordon Brown for a debate as SNP vs Scottish PM of a Labour lead government wouldn’t have allowed him to posture against the “English establishment” which is his main strategy.

This grates in particular because “we” in England pay more tax per head and give Scotland part of the benefit of that.

More tax per head – yes, I believe this is true. Give Scotland the benefit of it? Definitely not – in fact Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK.

Numerous people have posted on this thread about the legal advice on EU membership sought and publicised by the UK government, yet the simple fact remains that the UK government has not approached the appropriate body the European Commission .Since so many great experts, Mr Barosso for example tell the government what a strong case they have why not go ahead and ask the question? What are they afraid of?

More bullying.

This time from Jefferies investment bank and the president of the European Council.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10648683/Alex-Salmonds-debt-threat-would-cost-Scottish-households-5200-a-year.html

It also emerged on Wednesday that Mr Van Rompuy said he agreed with José Manuel Barroso, his peer in the European Commission, that it would be “difficult, if not impossible” for a separate Scotland to join the EU.

His intervention is a particular blow to the SNP as the Nationalists have argued that member states, not Mr Barroso or the Commission, decide which countries become EU members and on what terms.

said that Mr Salmond’s threat to default on Scotland’s share of UK public debt if they are denied the pound amounted to “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.

where as not sharing the pound and incurring costs associated with two currencies is both wise and prudent eh

The legal position on this [ its about the only issue] is very clear the debt belongs to the UK. They cannot default on it in any legal sense and everyone, including the bankers, know this.

I stopped reading there as I assumed it was just someone stating their opinion/polemic as if it is a fact.not that any of that happens on STW 😉

Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK

Proof?

Well they gave you a great tennis personality and a wimbledon win

What you want more?

gordimhor – Member

Numerous people have posted on this thread about the legal advice on EU membership sought and publicised by the UK government, yet the simple fact remains that the UK government has not approached the appropriate body the European Commission .Since so many great experts, Mr Barosso for example tell the government what a strong case they have why not go ahead and ask the question? What are they afraid of?

I think from reading THM’s link the UK government can’t ask until there has been a Yes vote, as otherwise they would not be representing the best interests of the union.
I’ve been asking the same question, but from the other side, why doesn’t the Scottish Parliament/Government ask Westminster, what are they afraid of?

Proof?

Scotland pays 9.6% of the tax and receives 9.3% of the spending. That’s not disputed by anyone sensible on either side.

If the inconvenience of increased transaction costs would pale in comparison to the financial danger of entering an unstable currency union, then yes it seems a wise and prudent thing to do. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/17/business-leaders-alex-salmond-currency-union

The legal position on this [ its about the only issue] is very clear the debt belongs to the UK. They cannot default on it in any legal sense and everyone, including the bankers, know this.
I stopped reading there as I assumed it was just someone stating their opinion/polemic as if it is a fact.not that any of that happens on STW

Interesting. So you’re dismissing the argument without actually having read it. I suppose that is the STW way. Presumably you know better than Jefferies Investment Bank what the markets will make of not taking on any of the UK’s debt which has benefited them?

Which is higher though in actual pound notes, 9.6% of 575 billion (tax receipts) or 9.3% of 720 billion (public spending)?

First, this is a bluff by Osborne. If Scotland wants to use the pound it can, it will just have zero control of the central bank. It’s not as if Scotland will be left currency-less, a misconception the Unionists would like you to think. Even then I’d still like to see Scotland in the Euro eventually, it would do wonders for its current account position, there are definite winners and losers in the Euro, Scotland could easily be a winner.

I hope it is a yes vote, I envisage Scotland as more socially democratic Ireland, with a more sustainable economic model and I reckon that’s a good state to live in.

More equal society, less debt burden (although the UK’s debt issues are mostly private, not state debts) and a more sustainable balance of payments position. What’s not to like?

Oh and there’s zero chance of that Boris the despotic jester ever being your prime minister.

Shame I can’t vote.

More tax per head – yes, I believe this is true. Give Scotland the benefit of it? Definitely not – in fact Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK.

@ben this depends totally on how you allocate taxes from North Sea Oil (see tables 1 and 2 in the hmrc data I posted earlier and again below). If you assume north sea oil belongs equally to everyone in the uk then Scotland contributes less than it receives. If you assume Scotland “owns” north sea oil then what you say is true. I suppose you won’t be surprised that I believe north sea oil is an asset belonging equally to all citizens of the uk.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-method.pdf

Don’t be silly irenlast – the difference between those figures is debt and clearly that is nothing to do with Scotland.

It actually appears to be a misconception by you – that and you seem to agree with Osborne. Nobody is claiming that Scotland can’t use the pound, simply that it won’t be part of a currency union. The Yes plan is to be part of a currency union which is what has been dismissed. Using the pound whilst having no control would be a plan B (or C or D), which Yes doesn’t appear to have – and which the advisers appear to be in disagreement over. I thought Osborne et al had been pretty clear on this, but no surprise that people are confused given AS’s pronouncements.

Don’t be silly irenlast – the difference between those figures is debt and clearly that is nothing to do with Scotland.

@aracer the debt has been built up in part paying for Scottish infrastructure (hospitals, roads etc) as well as paying Scottish pensions etc as we have a budget deficit in the uk. Scotland could certainly try and walk away from its share of the debt, HMT would stand behind the debt and ensure there wasn’t a default they’ve said so. But in that event the UK would ensure it had assets to compensate, the UK can’t take back roads and hospitals but it could retain North Sea Oil for example as a condition of Scottsh becoming independent and not taking its fair share of the national debt. One complexity of taking her fair share of debt is that the debt is denominated in Sterling and Scotland will either have a shadow currency or euros so there is potentially big fx risk for Scotland.

Using the pound in a currency union seems to have been comprehensively dismissed as far as I can see,

plan B (or C or D), which Yes doesn’t appear to have

Don’t be silly, Salmond has had a plan B all along

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I[/video]

@jambalaya

‘kin hell 33 pages or largely circular argument

Does anyone actually believe that an independent Scotland is not a viable state?

All this currency debate is either scaremongering or window dressing.
I honestly couldn’t give a fig if Scotland’s new currency was Irn-Bru bottles.

Does Scotland have the wherewithal to run its own affairs and be a functioning state?

Does anyone seriously believe the answer is no and if not why?

richmtb you are asking the wrong question. Many countries are ‘functioning states’ of different degrees.

The question here is surely; is Scotland better off independent than currently? The evidence of this thread suggests that not many of the eligible voters understand the issues well enough to make an informed decision. Especially if they couldn’t give a fig about the currency.

Sorry for being rude.

Richmtb – no one is denying Scotlands ability to go it alone, some of us South of the Border are simply concerned that any future Scottish State will be effectively bankrolled by the UK taxpayer in a Currency Union & want to make sure that doesn’t happen.
As for the rest i really don’t care what happens to Scotland, although i do hope she leaves the Union for the sake of future stability.

Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK

Oh dear god not this again. 🙄

Jambalaya minerals are normally considered to belong to the country within whose borders they are found and maritime borders are conventionally considered to follow a median line.
the grauniad

First, this is a bluff by Osborne. If Scotland wants to use the pound it can, it will just have zero control of the central bank

Odd then that of all the theoretical options open to Scotland, this is the one that the Fiscal Commission (AS’s advisors) dismiss without out any column inches. Not hard to understand why.

Any wonder why, apart from in the false debate about sharing the pound, the yS is consistently stating that it would “share the debt”? Take away the flawed bargaining point and the idea of walking away is simply not a credible one. Hence, HMT conclusion to simply call AS’s bluff.

All this currency debate is either scaremongering or window dressing

If only that was vaguely true, thousands of trees would have been saved and all the recent pages of reports in both sides would have been unnecessary. Any wonder why, JM Keynes concluded that he who’s control the currency, controls the country? Bit more than window dressing.

– no one is denying Scotlands ability to go it alone

+1

I just really doubt there will be a currency union, there is little political support in rUK including the Welsh an NI devolved assemblies. AS is using the politics of division to campaign for a yes vote, this will hurt Scotland in the post Yes negotiations

Personally I hope for.a no vote by a big margin so the progression to devo max for all the nation’s (including the County Palatine 😉 ) of the UK can continue. The only people I hear saying devo max won’t happen for Scotland after a no vote are the YS camp

BnD, most of the Scots want devo max (flamed for saying this before, but yet again another poll today showing it) including Alex salmond hence the BoD and all it’s pages explaining why!

When the Fiscal Commission starts from,

Scotland and the UK have been part of a monetary union for over 300 years. This brings a degree of economic integration, trade and factor mobility that has yet to fully develop in the Euro Area.

page 186

You know they are going to struggle with the rest of the case……

Ok link didn’t work so here’s the guardian article.
The North Sea oil revenues will be one of the key points of negotiation between Scotland and Westminster should Scotland vote for independence. Readers have been debating how the proceeds would be divided on threads throughout the Reality check series on Scottish independence. Our community coordinators, who work below the line monitoring comments and selecting themes which our readers are interested in, have pulled together the following comments, which are typical.

@maisiedotts writes: 

It is Westminster who has consistently robbed Scotland of resources think oil fish etc all used as pawns in Westminster’s quest for power. We send only 59 MPs (of all shades and just 52 post 2013) south – think about it, how’s that going to influence Westminster policy out of 650?

@whatshappening writes:

This is the biggest UK political story in a generation.
By the way it could have been all settled by now if:
– The UK gov hadn’t covered up the true extent of North Sea oil in the 70s
– The UK gov hadn’t fixed the result of the 79 devolution referendum and then renegaded on a promise to provide more powers if there was a “No” vote, meaning there wasn’t another referendum on devolution until 1997
– The UK parties in Scotland hadn’t blocked the SNP’s bill to hold a referendum a couple of years ago while they were still a minority administration

Who would get the oil revenues if Scotland became independent?Analysis

North Sea oil is the jewel – or rather the thistle – in the crown of an independent Scotland. Countries with “black gold” can go it alone in a way others cannot. This explains the desperation of Greenland to drill in its Arctic waters. It knows a big discovery could provide a pathway to quick economic – and then political – independence from the colonial masters in Denmark. Hence Norway’s decision not to join the European Union.

Who gets the oil in the event of Scottish independence? It depends who you speak to and any division of the spoils will be hotly fought over by politicians in Edinburgh and London. If you draw a median line out across the North Sea from the border then 90% of the oil tax revenues will accrue to Scotland. If the calculation is done on the basis of population then that figure will be reduced to 9%, according to the (London-based) National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr).

Angus Armstrong, the author of that Niesr report to sum up their findings, said:

The Geneva agreement on natural resources under the sea dictates that they are divided by the median lines. Most people accept that the Geneva approach is the standard approach. Which gives Scotland 91% of revenues. But this thing, the income, is declining now. It’s also very volatile. If you look at budget deficits it makes a huge difference.

It is not hard to imagine how the Scottish National Party sees the divide but politicians there – led by former oil economist Alex Salmond – are acutely aware that oil and gas production are currently falling fast – 17% last year alone.

The tax revenues will be falling too but then oil prices have also been soaring to recent levels of $118 per barrel from less than $10 in 1998. The crude price is expected to grow further – some predict $200 – leaving plenty of opportunities for well targeted, higher taxes.

The SNP like to point to Norway as an economic model because that Scandinavian nation has a small population of 5m similar to Scotland and yet which is now sitting on a national pension fund worth over £300bn.

Britain meanwhile has spent its hydrocarbon inheritance as it was produced, something Salmond has promised he would no longer do. He likes to argue that an independent Scotland could raise £54bn from tax revenues in the next five years, underwriting the country’s ability to pay off debt and rebuild the local economy.

Most of the big oil fields lie offshore north of a Berwick-on-Tweed border while an enormous new area of hydrocarbon production is being developed west of the Shetland Islands. The southern North Sea – off East Anglia – is still a significant area for gas production but nothing like what lies north of there.

London holds political control of the tax levels currently but the civil servants that work on North Sea regulatory affairs are based in Aberdeen. An independent Scotland therefore would have most of the brain power in place while all the big oil companies use Aberdeen as an industrial centre for their offshore operations too.

Uncertainty over the political future of Scotland will not help investment levels in the North Sea but there seems to be no widespread corporate concern that a self-standing Edinburgh parliament would milk the oil and gas sector dry. As one oil executive told the Guardian privately: “an independent Scotland would have an even bigger vested interest in not killing the golden goose.”

And the oil industry believes it has plenty to moan about when it comes to London. George Osborne has been the latest in a long line of chancellors who have slapped windfall taxes on the North Sea and endangered investment there. One key industry lender – Lloyd’s Banking Group – said Britain held more of a political risk than countries such as Egypt because of endless tinkering by UK ministers with the fiscal regime.

But the UK does have plenty of international political clout at a time when Brussels has indicated a willingness to try to seize control of the health and safety regime offshore. An independent Scotland might find it harder to resist the European Commission and yet Salmond has already shown a commitment to building up renewable wind energy also. Edinburgh is open to blue-sky thinking as well as black gold.

Verdict

It is hard to argue against oil revenues following the physical locations of the fields. That is the way international agreements have generally been made – for instance the recent treaty between Norway and Russia covering the Barents Sea. But some account must surely be made of the historical contributions of London-based groups such as BP for their role in extracting the oil at huge initial expense. Clearly it is fair also to argue that Scotland has benefited from higher levels of public spending from Whitehall plus the financial bail out of Royal Bank of Scotland. The oil question will need to be thrown into a wider mix around issues such as defence. There will be a war of words over the North Sea but presumably not a clash of weapons as was seen over oil in the north and south of Sudan.

Ok link didn’t work so here’s the guardian article.

New joke for the early evening crew in this thread:

Have we done pensions yet?

No, neither has Alex Salmond…

IGMC, have a good evening!

If the inconvenience of increased transaction costs would pale in comparison to the financial danger of entering an unstable currency union, then yes it seems a wise and prudent thing to do

True but i assume most will accept the Pound will stay and the debate is whether it is a formal [ unlikely*] loose and informal [ likely*] or just them using it [ possible*]
* IMHO/Guess

Interesting. So you’re dismissing the argument without actually having read it. I suppose that is the STW way.

I think that reply is far more the STW way than my response tbh 😉

I read some so I went over and above the usual STW requirement and stopped when it was saying things that were factually incorrect as i decided it was unlikely to be a good source of information. You can decide whether this was wise or unwise but i think I can guess. Do you wish or argue everyone in Scotland will have to pay £5 k extra on mortgages or would you accept that is a little OTT and scaremongering?

Presumably you know better than Jefferies Investment Bank what the markets will make of not taking on any of the UK’s debt which has benefited them?

Well I did predict a bust as that is what capitalism does boom and bust 😉
Of course i dont know as much as they do but they are guessing just as much as I am. My hunch is that some nefarious person/business/bank in the industry will see the chance to make money by lending to a new country with zero debts at decent rates. Perhaps the Euro bank will do it just to annoy rUK ?

the UK can’t take back roads and hospitals but it could retain North Sea Oil

It cannot retain what is not its – are you really suggesting they will steal Scottish natural resources as part of the settlement? Will Scotland gets some of rUK’s?

International law is pretty clear on whose the oil is just like it is clear on whose the debts is.

tbh , like the euro, very few are going to vote on economic matters [ thm could justly argue it is because we dont understand them] so its largely irrelevant pre vote and very important if it is a yes vote

That’s what I thought – before the experts weighed in on the issue and it became clear that plan A isn’t going to happen and keeping the pound without a currency union isn’t necessarily plan B. Lot’s of bluffing going on, but I don’t think the rUK position of no currency union is one. It is also quite a fundamental issue in the way an independent Scotland would work, and the lack of a plan B isn’t something AS can blame on the no camp refusing to provide information.

…though of course

tbh , like the euro, very few are going to vote on economic matters [ thm could justly argue it is because we dont understand them] so its largely irrelevant pre vote and very important if it is a yes vote

is one of the main reasons this thread has made it to 33 pages and counting. Despite all the claims otherwise this vote will be mainly emotional, and you have to hope that they have more of a clue afterwards than they appear to now if you vote Yes. I think a lot of us aren’t very confident about that – and I doubt there are many who don’t want Scotland to do the best possible job if they do go it alone.

@gordihmor – thanks for the post of article. No doubt Oil is a big issue, possibly the biggest. Currently its absolutely clear to me that Oil belongs equally to everyone in the UK. Its is absolutely not clear go me that an independent Scotland would take the oil on a geographic basis (and the article shows that population weighted is a real option). If Scotland exits the UK it is not automatic it would assume mineral rights as would have applied if it had been an independent state all along. I only made the point of the UK retaining the oil if Scotland attempted to exit without assuming a fair portion of the UK’s debt.

For the record I have no doubt Scotland could manage her own affairs as an independent nation, I think she’d be materially worse off. I also think the UK would be worse off but more marginally.

. aracer – Member
Don’t be silly irenlast – the difference between those figures is debt and clearly that is nothing to do with Scotland.

that depends on how much you lot want to spit the dummy if there’s a yes vote.

before the experts weighed in

Only the civil service one has made me think – experts still have opinions and probably best i dont say what i think of an economics experts beyond oxymoron.

I don’t think the rUK position of no currency union is one.

I think it is starting point for haggling tbh.

It is also quite a fundamental issue in the way an independent Scotland would work, and the lack of a plan B isn’t something AS can blame on the no camp refusing to provide information.

Indeed but part of the refusal to negotiate means he will stick to his guns as well and portray westminster as mean bullies

Currently its absolutely clear to me that Oil belongs equally to everyone in the UK.

I am sure Scotland looks fwd to getting three stones [ perhaps its four] from Stonehenge as it is absolutely clear to me that it belongs equally to everyone in the UK.

Proverbs 23 v 9

Presumably you know better than Jefferies Investment Bank what the markets will make of not taking on any of the UK’s debt which has benefited them?

I thought one if your big arguments was “Scotland would never be able to bail out the financial sector when it fails” but now you’re using the Delphic pronouncement of an investment bank to support your position. Do you see the contradiction in that?

Fed up of this, Let them get on with it.
Simple thing is to create there own currency, with the correct value
and if the currency dives, just do what the Germans and French did with the Euro
just jack up its worth.

Not me. Good point about predictions of markets, but this is a prediction of what the reaction of the banks would be, which I think the banks probably can provide a reasonably educated guess about.

…which seems a good point to comment on:

does working as an economist for a bank make one an expert? 😉

We send only 59 MPs (of all shades and just 52 post 2013) south – think about it, how’s that going to influence Westminster policy out of 650?

Hmm, I guess that means Scotland only has somewhere around the 9% influence mark at Westminster.

Probably a coincidence.

The guardian comments hit the spot today

This is said almost as much in sorrow as in anger, because Salmond has been a formidable figure in modern Scotland and the arguments he has played such a part in unleashing over the years are unquestionably powerful ones. But in each of the three cases – George Osborne’s ruling out of a currency union, José Manuel Barroso’s warnings that Scotland’s place in the EU is not automatic and, most recently, Gordon Brown’s return to the fray to caution about the future of Scottish pensions – the SNP response has been the same. First, the problem raised by the critic is airily dismissed and denied; second, an untested solution is confidently asserted; finally, the nationalist attack machine clatters the man not the ball. Doubtless it will be the same when Alistair Darling speaks about UK social solidarity in a speech on Thursday.

Wonder what forum he reads!!!

But a rather more persuasive explanation for the inadequacy of the SNP’s engagement with serious issues this week is that it may suspect the game is up. The party has read the steadiness in the polls and realised it is not going to win a referendum that Salmond neither wanted nor expected until his shock landslide in 2011 forced him to hold it. In that case, the long game may simply be an SNP core vote strategy, designed not to persuade but to maximise the anti-English, anti-British, anti-Tory, anti-neoliberal vote that the nationalists have successfully corralled in the past – and await another day.