Presumably if Scotland becomes independent and joins the EU then students from the rest of the UK will all be eligible for free places, as EU students are currently? Would almost certainly lead to a huge rush for university places in Scotland, and as there is apparently no legal method to discriminate by country within the EU, then Scottish universities would be even more full than usual of English students.

There was some discussion of an independent Scotland trying to use a loop hole which allows for special circumstances to continue to charge rUK students. This though would be unlikely to succeed I suspect, but you never know.

The other two other options as far as I can see; the ancient universities which currently have a high proportion of rUK students could either become private institutions, or place a cap on the number of places to rUK and EU students, though this would still lead to a funding shortfall. The other option would be to charge all students and introduce a comprehensive bursary system for those resident in Scotland, which I think wouldn’t fall foul of any EU rules, but I may be wrong.

you want the rest of the UK to subsidise the white elephant windfarms so Scotland can then supply it’s surplus energy back to the UK at higher cost than the UK can get it from France or Holland 

No but currently uk policy bases the cost of connection to the grid on how close an electricity supplier is to london.

Northwind – Member

Shackleton – Member

as I’ve already pointed out, Scotland’s University sector will be thoroughly torpedoed by independence, there won’t be any university places worth having (free or otherwise), so it is a bit of a moot point.

Er… Trying to think of a better way to put this than “cobblers” but really, nobody believes this is the case except possibly you, and even then I’m not sure. (for the record, you haven’t “pointed it out” or tried to explain your argument at all- maybe it’s easier to just pretend you have, than it is to attempt the impossible?)Have you met many scientists Northwind? It’s a long way from cobblers, pretty much on the money in my experience as a Scottish academic. There would be an immediate brain drain the day independence was announced – scientists and medics would be fighting to get across the border.
To understand why this is you need to have encountered a scientist’s attitude to funding (usually valued somewhere between their own life and that of their first born). The uncertainty surrounding EU membership alone would be debilitating, as the top Scottish research groups work at too high a level to accept any sort of hiatus in their output.

No, it doesn’t. Scotland could use the pound, the euro, the dollar or the Won for that matter

This is true, but my understanding is that the SNP would prefer not to do this because of the negative impact it would have on Scotland’s financial services industry ( which, before we get too smug about RBS, is apparently large, successful and a valuable contributor to Scotland’s GDP)

@ Garry Lager, lets say it is relevant to my work 😉 Your post seems based on an assumption that research funding would fall. Yes, Scotland’s share of UK government funding would stop, and people make much of that but of course Scotland would no longer be funding that either- so it’s not money “lost”,, it’s money no longer sent south so that it can come back north (and so that we can be told we should be grateful to have it)

In this case, it’s a fact that there’d need to be some reallocation of funds- as it stands, Scotland receives about 5% more than an equal share of uk research council funding. But that’s affordable- the funding “gap” resulting there is around £15m pa according to figures in THE, which I think are based on last year’s UK govt Science and Research report.

(I read the summary of that report, it also suggested that Scotland would lose all european research funding and all UK national charity research funding, which is odd- I think falling into the UK = Westminster trap)

Course, it is true that scientists can be a bit, er, reactionary. Uncertainty isn’t good here, there will be some damage regardless of outcome and it’s possible there will be some loss of funding. But it’s no doomsday.

Both figures are useful but GDP is the best tool for assessing the strength of a country’s economy. The multinational age innit, where a country’s based becomes less important than the affect they have locally

I agree to an extent, the jobs and resultant contribution to the local economy is important but my understanding is that a significant lump of Scotland GDP doesn’t end up in Scotland, so all of the references to an iScotland GDP per capita being higher than rUK are a little misleading.

As an example (accepted an extreme one, but it illustrates a point) Whisky; Contribution to the UK GDP = 3billion, monies retained by the UK = 400million. That’s 2.6billion that is claimed as GDP but ends up outside the UK economy; that equates to £40 per capita for the whole of the UK, or £500 per capita for an independent Scotland – a staggering difference, which is as a comparison almost 25% of the current government spending on health care (per capita). It’s all well and good claiming to have a high GDP per capita, but it is pound notes (possibly 😉 ) ending up in the treasury that pay for services.

I read the summary of that report, it also suggested that Scotland would lose all european research funding and all UK national charity research funding, which is odd- I think falling into the UK = Westminster trap

There’s no guarantee that Scotland would be able to remain in the EU, despite vast amounts of bluster from AS.

There’s no guarantee that Scotland would be able to remain in the EU, despite vast amounts of bluster from AS.

The opposite is true as well despite all the fearmongering from the No Campaign. I’d love for the UK Gov to relent and actually ask for the advice so a real debate with real numbers could be had.

oldnpastit – Member

There’s no guarantee that Scotland would be able to remain in the EU, despite vast amounts of bluster from AS.

There’s also no guarantee that the UK will be remaining in the EU. But apparently that’s a different sort of uncertainty that isn’t bad for the country 😉

Salmond being Salmond has made this issue a bit of a mess frankly. I don’t think there’s any serious doubt that Scotland would be welcomed by the EU. Whether it happens on the day of succession is a whole other question and claiming it will be so doesn’t make it so.

Post independence it has already been stated that the Scotland will stay part of the Research Councils, so that won’t change initially.

The bigger problem will be later down the line when the Research Councils start re-aligning their priority areas with those required for rUK. Also Scotland has to make up the short fall in funding between what they put in and get back from the Councils. It’s easy to say the money can be found, but will it when people will want it spent on hospitals, roads etc. not nebulous research done by already well off academics. Also the Scottish parliament might have very different research priorities so some groups could loose out big time.

One of the things he mentioned time and time again was Scotlands higher GDP per capita. I’m no economist, so could be very wrong about this but my understanding is that the majority of Scottish industry is owned by companies registered ‘abroad’ (circa 60% with up to 80% of ‘large’ companies AFAIK) so whilst the profits from these companies are included in the GDP figures, they wouldn’t be included in the GNP because the money doesn’t stay in Scotland – none of the SNP people I spoke to had any real insight into how this would affect the balance sheet, if I was in a position to vote I would want some idea of the affect.

You do yourself down as this is an important point. The main difference between GDP and GNP is how income paid and received abroad is handled. In GNP, this is netted out. In GDP it isn’t. Why is that important or relevant? Of course, a GDP calculation will show Scotland around 20% better off, a GNP calculation will not. So there is no reason why the SNP would want to use the GNP data (Plus its harder to calculate!!).

This may be slightly harsh on the SNP as it is perfectly standard practice to use GDP as the basic measure of national income. Neither is better or worse, they simply show different things and give different perspectives. However, the basic point about how it affects the standard of living for Scots doesnt change – it doesn’t as the GNP calculation shows. Only a minor fact though!!!

NW – leaving aside the fun and games on strating points and using stats to one’s own advantage. Scottish tax revenue is in proportion to its population share of the Uk which is not surprising given the fact that GDP per cap is slightly lower/broadly the same. But expenditure per head is more albeit much less so (by about a half compared with 60s/70s). So the better off argument from a fiscal standpoint needs some work IMO.

At some point Salmond would then have to be honest about his own fiscal stance particularly given the sensitivity to volatile oil prices. But either way, he has opened up an can of worms since in the case of a No vote, the debate has already thrown up issues relating to current levels of expenditure versus actual needs assessment. As always, the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head…..

Is it me or does Danny look like Beaker from the Muppets?

ha yes!

dragon – Member

Also Scotland has to make up the short fall in funding between what they put in and get back from the Councils. It’s easy to say the money can be found, but will it when people will want it spent on hospitals, roads etc. not nebulous research done by already well off academics. Also the Scottish parliament might have very different research priorities so some groups could loose out big time.

Yup. But best figures I can find for that is that the difference is £15m (open to alternatives incidentally, that’s from a UK govt source but some other parts of it are flaky. Though, flaky in a way designed to make things look bad for Scottish independence to be fair!) And in public finance terms, that’s a drop in the bucket and (to play a Salmond card) massively offset by savings on for example trident, without having to mention oil and gas.

<wandering off on a tangent>

Another way of approaching this… As discussed above, the projection is that all other things being equal, Scotland’s deficit would be lower than the UK’s. Which is good news! But, every time someone says “You’ll have to cut spending on X to pay for Y”, remember that’s only necessary to retain the current (im)balance of budgets. Scotland could instead increase public borrowing by (IIRC) several billion pounds, and yet still have a lower deficit than she has as part of the UK.

OK, raising your deficit isn’t good news, we’d rather retain our lower deficit. So turn that around…

Because we talk about Scotland maintaining current funding levels, but we don’t talk about the fact that the UK will not. Imagine the reaction if the Yes campaign said that in order to secure independence, we’d need to introduce cuts on the scale of Osborne’s austerity! A double standard is applied, UK government cuts are OK but scottish independence cuts are unthinkable.

If we want to achieve a deficit reduction, we only need one cut, 96 miles long 😉

teamhurtmore – Member

The main difference between GDP and GNP is how income paid and received abroad is handled. In GNP, this is netted out. In GDP it isn’t. Why is that important or relevant? Of course, a GDP calculation will show Scotland around 20% better off, a GNP calculation will not. So there is no reason why the SNP would want to use the GNP data (Plus its harder to calculate!!).

TBH this does bug me, I’d love to be able to see the same comparisons with GNP but the numbers don’t seem to be out there. Did find a CPPR briefing paper that stated that GNI is similiar for Scotland and England but not convinced. There’s got to be a historic impact of London being the UK capital and therefore the default “home” of companies regardless of where they actually do business- UK national companies will become effectively RUK companies in this light. So GNI is probably also skewed, in the other direction. I couldn’t guess which is fairer tbh.

But the standard metrics as you say are most often GDP, so it’s defensible, and probably the best we have… I just feel it might not be the truest picture. (in all sorts of ways)

NW – it’s neither true nor untrue. It measures what it is designed to measure. But the correct GNP calc would be interesting

Imagine the reaction if the Yes campaign said that in order to secure independence, we’d need to introduce cuts on the scale of Osborne’s austerity!

This is the irony though. You will!!! By sticking with sterling and without having your own lender of last resort you will have to accept certain terms which will inevitably involve some form of stability pact. So like it or not, you will be tied to Osborne’s / Ball’s future spending cuts despite having no say on them. This is the reality of Salmond’s policy choice for an independent Scotland. And this is meant to be called “Indepndence.”????????

Had a pleasant 20 minutes reading through this-just want to say fair play to Northwind (and others) for hanging on in on this thread and giving calm and structured responses to some of the posts on here.
Good effort folks.

The majority of us Scots don’t want “independence” and are very happy within the UK. So this is all hypothetical and dull. It’s going to be a very tiresome 8 months…….

At least you have got the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup to look forward to……

teamhurtmore – Member

This is the irony though. You will!!! By sticking with sterling and without having your own lender of last resort you will have to accept certain terms which will inevitably involve some form of stability pact. So like it or not, you will be tied to Osborne’s / Ball’s future spending cuts despite having no say on them. This is the reality of Salmond’s policy choice for an independent Scotland. And this is meant to be called “Indepndence.”????????

Unlikely. Considering that the (alleged) point of the cuts is deficit reduction, and the RUK will have its work cut out post-independence just to close their deficit to match Scotland’s, I don’t think we’ve much to fear from convergence criteria. Certainly there is no prospect of a stability pact that says “you must match our financial policy exactly, cut for cut”- I’ll file that in the THM Predictions file along with “The Bank of England might pursue policy that is directly opposed to your needs”

And this is meant to be called “Indepndence.”????????

What’s the alternative though?

The Euro, in which case economic policy (or at least some of its levers) is controlled by Frankfurt or float our own currency?

Sterling is a no brainer. If independence goes ahead Scotland will need a transition currency anyway – this would naturally be Sterling – it would be crazy for it to be anything else. Holding on to this transition currency for a longer time frame to allow Scotland to choose the best course of action makes sense.

Political rhetoric at some point will have to give way to this reality.

Except the Natsis will try and hijack both and spoil the enjoyment of both. I’ll be too embarassed to wave a Scottish flag this year in case people think I’m a Natsi!!

And while I’m on a rant, it really pisses me off that normal people in Scotland can’t wear/show/wave a Union Jack without people assuming your a Rangers fan/Orangeman/religious bigot!!

Anyway, back to work….. 🙄

In all honesty its for the people of Scotland to decide for themselves all I hope for is that they get a balanced view of the facts so they can make an informed judgement for themselves. Scotland is a truly lovely place but its a big place that needs to be maintained & unfortunately that requires money, lets all hope that the politicians can use a calculator & do their sums correctly!!

lets all hope that the politicians can use a calculator & do their sums correctly

lol! snp have been hauled up over their ‘sums’ before.

As have most UK governments 😉

NW, well we will have to disagree on Scotlands deficit re the rUK. I hope that you are right, but fear that you are wrong. We shall see. (Oh including unfunded liabilities as well. That’s a pan-uk trend to hide that away). But explain why would the BOE agree to be a lender of last resort without assurances re Scotland’s fiscal policy. That would be absurd.

Please do keep it in that file. The BOE is already doing this by massive mispricing risk and repressing financial savers. And remember what happened with NS oil and the strength of sterling when we were young???? Crippled large parts of Scottish manufacturing. And now just look into Europe…

But rich, holding on is not a free option, nor is automatic. So come independence (if that happens) Scotland would have no control over monetary policy (see Scotland’s Future) and limited control over fiscal policy *. Again, is that really independence. At best the book of dreams is a manifesto for devo-max (it’s original intention???).

* wee eck has committed to maintaining a gap between Scottish and rUK corporation tax, so the ceiling is set where?

Robespierre is on a rant,good job I am not a counter revolutionary. 🙂

Scotland is a truly lovely place but its a big place that needs to be maintained & unfortunately that requires money

Agreed thats one good reason to support independence as current UK policy is not working, so maybe those who live in Scotland are better placed to govern it.

teamhurtmore – Member

But explain why would the BOE agree to be a lender of last resort without assurances re Scotland’s fiscal policy. That would be absurd.

It would- but that’s not what I’m saying. You said “So like it or not, you will be tied to Osborne’s / Ball’s future spending cuts despite having no say on them.”, remember?

There’s a long country mile between agreeing a stability pact and “you will have to accept our future cuts”.

There’s a long country mile between agreeing a stability pact and “you will have to accept our future cuts”.

Not sure the Greeks, Portuguese, Irish and Spanish would agree with that! Of course, without the details of any hypothetical stability pact it’s impossible to say.

Changing the subject slightly, I’ve not read the “book of dreams”, but how does a future Scotland plan to people its foreign and defense ministries? The embassies?

Why would the BOE allow Scotland to run a loser fiscal policy than the rUK? Ditto as McCrone pointed out it is also highly unlikely to allow salmond to undercut corporation tax v rUK. There lunches and there are (no) free lunches

Professor Gavin McCrone said the SNP policy of requesting a eurozone-style currency union with the remainder of the UK would mean Scotland having “little freedom” over its tax and spend.
Instead, he said Scotland would have to give up control over its fiscal policy to Westminster, agree a limit to its budget deficit and would be barred from undercutting the UK’s corporation tax rates.

McCrone’s language is a little tighter than mine TBF NW!!! But the basic points remain, who has control over monetary and fiscal policy in an independent Scotland with sterling as a currency and BOE as the lender of last resort?

The majority of us Scots don’t want “independence” and are very happy within the UK. So this is all hypothetical and dull. It’s going to be a very tiresome 8 months…….

About a third of us do though and a majority may be willing to stay within the UK but whenever polled they want change in the form of much more devolved powers to be happy to do so. This currently is not on the table and from what I have seen there is no vision from Better Together as to what this would look like, probably because there would be three different versions.

To me that makes a no vote much more of an uncertainty than a yes vote. To suggest people are happy with things as they are is a joke.

A no vote which leads to the status quo remaining in the longer term would be disastrous for Scotland. You can’t have a country where the democratic wishes of the majority are ignored.

To me that makes a no vote much more of an uncertainty than a yes vote.

That’s quite a feat of mental gymnastics there. Chapeau!

NW, out of interest is Prof Bell a colleague/friend of yours?

( edit: ignore he’s at Stirling, sorry)

You can’t have a country where the democratic wishes of the majority are ignored.

China?

rene59 – Member

…You can’t have a country where the democratic wishes of the majority are ignored…

most people in the uk voted ‘not tory’ at the last GE.

just saying….

*happy country

teamhurtmore – Member

Why would the BOE allow Scotland to run a loser fiscal policy than the rUK?

It’s not so much a question of “looser”, but of different approaches to the same result. Perfectly reasonable to set expectations and measurements. Nondivergence criteria is probably the term we want here. But that doesn’t equate to deciding exactly how those should be met.

Gavin McCrone’s an interesting if biased speculator but let’s not get carried away, he’s not making policy for the Bank of England just yet 😉

teamhurtmore – Member

Please do keep it in that file. The BOE is already doing this by massive mispricing risk and repressing financial savers. And remember what happened with NS oil and the strength of sterling when we were young???? Crippled large parts of Scottish manufacturing.

Ah, this is that thing where you remind us how bad things can be in the union, then say “It might not be better under independence” I like that one, arguments for independence are better when they come from the mouths of people who oppose it.

Northwind – Member
But that doesn’t equate to deciding how those should be met.

Well yes and no. Corporation tax being a specific case in point. It is perfectly possible, indeed probable, that you would be prescribed exactly what to do.

Is it? It’s certainly something that could be discussed. What makes you conclude it’s probable?

NW- sorry I am a little lost with your final point. But thanks for the counter arguments anyway. All very interesting (and civil). All my Scottish mates are in the No camp, so much better to hear the other side on here! And you arguments are always good and interesting (hope that doesnt sound wrong!!) and make me think.

sorry for the McCrone overdose, 😉 but I still find his book the best (so far) at presenting different sides of the debate in a reasonably open way. Much better info to base decisions on than the book of dreams IMO.