Maybe.

By bigger including fishing area.

By richer, working from GDP per capita.

@muddy – its all about the oil, if Scotland gets it all/most things look fairly rosey. If not they don’t. Trying to make a favourable comparison between Scotland and Germany is quite laughable, for a while Germany was the worlds number 1 exporter (china makes lots of cheap stuff, Germany lots of high value).

I thought the oil/gas was a done deal in the devolution agreement?

Oil 95% Scots/5% UK
Gas 95% UK/5% Scots

According to the beeb Scotland is the 3rd most productive region of the UK..

So who will be eligible for a Scottish passport?
Is it anyone on the council tax bill?
What about displaced Scots?
Can we expect an influx of Fijians and Samoans who are a bit better at rugby than the locals?

That would include Otley’s vets team then!

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-will-be-eligible-scottish-citizenship-independence-and-future

Rene59, that is clear and simple to understand.
If only all the questions were answered that well.

its all about the oil, if Scotland gets it all/most things look fairly rosey.

Hmm, I think fairly rosy is a bit of an exaggeration, it would have been true in the 1980’s but more recently, even with a geographic share of Oil revenues, the sums come out much more marginal

The IFS did a fairly extensive report

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn135.pdf

Rene59, that is clear and simple to understand.

A couple of those things are bad ideas and go significantly beyond existing UK law, and I don’t think they are good ideas. For example:

“For example, citizenship by descent will be available to those who have a parent or grandparent who qualifies for Scottish citizenship” – that goes one generation beyond existing UK law and doesn’t seem to require either the parent or the grandparent to have held UK citizenship or have had any significant connection with the UK or Scotland. (Obviously they could not have had Scottish citizenship as it doesn’t exist). You could have vast numbers of Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Saffas etc showing up and asserting a claim to Scottish citizenship purely to get access to the UK and/or EU

– “Those who have a demonstrable connection to Scotland and have spent at least ten years living here at some stage, whether as a child or an adult, will also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship.” This is also a terrible idea. Why should someone doesn’t necessarily have an ongoing connection to the UK or Scotland AND wouldn’t be eligible for citizenship by descent be offered Scottish citizenship?

Of course, just because those things are now Scottish government proposals for post-independence law doesn’t mean they will happen.

I also anticipate a bit of anxiety when people realise that one of the costs of statehood is dealing with refugees, asylum seekers and unlawful immigrants – Scotland will be in a position where most of those people arrive via the unprotected land border from the UK.

I personally think a something like a Crown Dependance would be in the best interests of all. Scotland separates from Westminster but still has its ties/current trade links to the UK.

I don’t think Crown Dependencies have any special trade status with the UK. I thought all trade things were multilateral now i.e. you deal with the whole EU and you can’t get a back door through an old colonial master. But I could be totally wrong as usual.

Besides, no trade access to the EU would make iScotland unviable and if iScotland had trade access to the EU it would have trade access to the UK as part of the EU anyway.

Survation talk about their latest poll.

http://survation.com/2014/02/a-note-on-methodology-for-our-recent-scottish-poll/

Crown dependency status is quite complex

the Channel islands are not part of the UK or EC customs area for most goods so VAT rules apply to import and export, however the IOM is inside the UK VAT area so they don’t, at the same time EU freedom of movement rules don’t apply to all CI residents, but those with familial links to the UK get full travel rights (however no passport needed for UK travel due to being within the common travel area)

In addition, the crown dependencies are bound by some EU rules, and not by others, and on other international treaties they are bound by their links with the UK on some, and not others.

proper legal and regulatory minefield – for example, the IOM had laws on radio piracy enforced on them by UK government in the sixties, so its a little bit ‘when is independence not real independence?’

Konnabunny the quote states that these other people will be able to apply for citizenship, it doesn’t say anywhere that they will be guaranteed. I am sure there will be other additional qualification criteria.

Not really. It’s based on the idea that smaller groups are generally better than large groups.

That’s why I put in my caveat at the end. Small countries are generally simpler in terms of bureaucracy, there are fewer layers of government needed. That, I think, is a good thing.

while i generally sympathise with your position, the scottish and welsh assemblies, and their implied english assembly ( which we don’t have ) adds a layer of politician that is simply unrequired by the UK, as i put forward about 8 pages ago.
😉

Hence we get rid of the top layer by becoming independent 😉

Oh, and the first link that popped up re. Scotland putting more into the union than we get back:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/

Other sources of the same data are available.

except, as ultimately it will all be about the money, you’ll either be in thrall to the EU, or the remainder of the UK, without any significant voice whichever way it goes. Good luck!

Oh, and the first link that popped up re. Scotland putting more into the union than we get back:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/

Other sources of the same data are available.

That website you like to keep citing is ludicrously one-sided.

misleading and disingenuous selectivity of facts and figures

Hmmmm….

Try this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

The only sensible answer is ‘it depends how you look at it’.

Either way the amount of ‘subsidy’ either way is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things so it’s a bit pathetic for either side to keep banging on about it.

I agree – however it’s a common assertion that the UK (often specifically England) subsidises Scotland – the Barnett formula and the higher public spending in Scotland is given as evidence that Scotland is subsidised.

The raw data, if you don’t like that article: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/03/9525

Still trying to tell us its a bad idea. You could be forgiven for thinking there might be some worth in Scotland after all. I thinks some of you protest too much! 😆

It’s getting interesting – the PCS union is reported to be backing independence according to the Herald, and the STUC seems to be leaning that way too according to the Scotsman. I wonder how much longer Scottish Labour will stay on the No side.

@ben an independent Scotland hurts UK labour so Scottish labour has to stay “no” publically. Not surprising the unions are in favour on the basis they believe an independent Scotland will be run by a left wing government.

rene59 – Member
Konnabunny the quote states that these other people will be able to apply for citizenship, it doesn’t say anywhere that they will be guaranteed. I am sure there will be other additional qualification criteria.
POSTED 2 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

It would be absurd to say “these types of people could apply for citizenship” if the characteristics identified weren’t going to be the criteria by which citizenship was awarded. They might as well have said “people who own Siamese cats could apply for citizenship”.

I think this is a case where we just have to assume they mean what they say.

Talk about how much scotland puts in/comparisons with Germany etc are a moot point anyway. The oil is going to run out and then we will have to rely on the rest of Europe buying our golfs,Audi’s and BMW’s…aw scheect!

Otley vets? That was a low blow dwarf,it really was.

It’s getting interesting – the PCS union is reported to be backing independence according to the Herald, and the STUC seems to be leaning that way too according to the Scotsman.

Yep, I saw this and thought “good”

Gotta ask yourself, who has your best interest closest. Trade Unions, or Tescos.

Ummmmm…….

Can anyone explain why Scotland cannot create her own central bank & therefore not need currency union?

Can anyone explain why Scotland cannot create her own central bank & therefore not need currency union?

No particular reason, it’s just with the huge level of cross-border trade sharing a currency makes sense. That’s why other currency unions exist, usually.

comparisons with Germany etc are a moot point anyway. The oil is going to run out and then we will have to rely on the rest of Europe buying our golfs,Audi’s and BMW’s…aw scheect!

Yeah, I think it was East Germany they were thinking of 😀

Not surprising the unions are in favour on the basis they believe an independent Scotland will be run by a left wing government.

If that’s the case they should be careful what the wish for, most of the evidence so far with both Trump and Grangemouth points to the exact opposite, the Scottish government favours big business. There are also rumours going around that the Oil company execs are already looking forward to an iScotland so they can turn the screw for less tax and more profits. I’d expect that other big Scottish industry companies like Diageo are looking to do the same.

muddydwarf – Member
Can anyone explain why Scotland cannot create her own central bank & therefore not need currency union?

If Armenia and the Comoros can then so can Scotland. But it’s a crap idea.

No reason at all muddy. It’s one of the options available and has been analysed by the Fiscal Committe and others at length. For some reason (!!) they conclude that the independece that this would give Scoltand is less beneficial than the interdepence required by a currency union – shock horror, yS advisers give full case to vote NO.

But it’s a crap idea.

We were talking over the options at Christmas and my brother-in-law thought it was the best idea on the table. His job does involve currency speculation and he fancies a beach house in Miami though!

In another massive blow for the Yes campaign, according to the Scottish Daily Express, our queen could look like this:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/460698/House-of-Stuart-s-Duchess-of-Alba-could-be-next-Queen-of-Scotland-after-independence-vote

Lots more gems from Project Fear here:

Reasons to be fearful

In simple terms then, why is a Scots currency & central bank a bad idea for Scotland?

MD, all currency options are essentially measured against four criteria

1. Transactions costs
2. Monetary policy
3. Fiscal policy
4. Financial stability

No option gives you ticks across all four by definition and design. There will always be some compromise between the objectives.

A Scottish pound could be a fixed, semi-fixed or floating exchange rate. The main benefit comes in terms of the highest degree of freedom in terms of monetary and fiscal policy (the points stressed in the BoD wish list). The main downside comes in higher transaction costs and the least assistance in terms of financial stability. An additional benefit would be a S£ would make later adoption of the € easier.

In contrast a currency union gives you lower transaction (and arguably transition costs) and the greatest level of financial stability offset by the lack of flexibility in terms of monetary and fiscal policy.

Hence, when backed against the wall, wee eck tries to pretend that transactions costs are a tax (George Tax) which is complete and obvious BS. He is correct thought, that they are a downside. But that is always true when trading with countries with different FX rates.

In the opinion of the Fiscal Commision, the best interests of Scotland are served by a CU ie give up independence of monetary and fiscal policy in return for lower transaction costs and greater financial stability.

So far so good. But the HM Treasury raise two issues:

1: Scotland’s perspective: an independent state would find it more difficult to adjust to macro shocks (and they argue that Scotland is more exposed) if part of a CU
2: rUK perspective: rUK would be more and unilaterally exposed to much higher levels of fiscal and financial risk from and independent Scotland. The assymetry in this position makes the idea a non-starter in their opinion. Hence they would not recommend support for a CU.

Cue plan a (€), plan b (£) …plan C (tbc)

The central bank issue is actually quite a bit more complicated. IMO, the best and simplest analysis is found on pp6-9 in the NIESR report below

http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dp415.pdf

The business case (CBI and IoD) is to recognise both the challenges outlined by HMT for rUK and the downside of higher transactions costs outlined (albeit incorrectly labelled) by wee eck but to conclude

The leaders of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors both warned that a currency union would be “unstable”……In a direct challenge to the Scottish first minister, Salmond was told that his warnings of increased transaction charges for businesses on both sides of the border were outweighed by the disadvantages of creating a currency union outside a full political union.

Well done THM

Amid a lot of unsubstantiated crap on this thread, along with the usual trolling, that post is both clear and largely unbiased

Thanks for that THM. Someone mentioned currency speculation, would a Scots currency be at particular risk from such?

On balance yes, but not straightforward. The reason why a CU makes sense at all is that Scotland and the rUK share similarities in terms of level of economic intergration, the convergence of business cycles and productivity levels and the high degree of labour mobility. For these reasons one would expect the two currencies to follow similar trends. However, there are a number of reasons why the S£ is likely to be more volatile including most clearly

It’s a new currency
Need time to demonstrated monetary and fiscal competency
More exposed to rel volatile energy and finance sectors
Lose backing of being part of bigger risk pool (UK)

Thanks again THM – i admit to being completely thick where monetary policy stuff is concerned.

On balance then,i really cant see why Mr Salmond & Co haven’t stated they will set up a Scottish Central bank using the new Scottish pound, its not as if they don’t have the facilities to print them now is it?

Politically, it does seem as though the SNP have been blindsided by the whole CU affair & that doesn’t tally with the popular conception that he is the most able political operator in the UK at the moment, something doesn’t fit for me. Surely he would have been (politically) better off saying that Scotland would take her share of the BoE assets & would set up a new Scottish currency & bank – or am i missing something obvious here?

It’s getting interesting – the PCS union is reported to be backing independence according to the Herald, and the STUC seems to be leaning that way too according to the Scotsman.

If you read the article .. ‘some’ bits of the PCS union have voted to support the Yes campaign (but then some have probably voted to support No and some have definitely voted to support PCS Neutrality), but the main vote by delegates representing their local areas has not been taken.

As such the herald report is just speculation, but I’m not surprised to see that some people on STW have decided that that means its a fact.

Gotta ask yourself, who has your best interest closest. Trade Unions, or Tescos.

Personally as a member I’ll be leaving if they decide to campaign for either Yes or No.

However, whatever the decision it will not be based on special knowledge about how independence will affect members, but just on the views of the members themselves (who know exactly as much as anyone else about the true costs and risks of independence.)