x-post – chats with local Economists (re corp tax) and experience of Europe. Plus despite what Salmond pretended yesterday, he does not hold the strings.

what does FUD mean? (edit – hmm, Scottish slang???)

And in addition to my chats, I quoted one of the experts on the tax issue above. He knows this much better than me. Plus AS has committed to keeping corp tax below the rate that others decide as noted above. So the tax rate is prescribed by Westminster, if allowed at all.

Awhiles you could equally say most people in the UK voted “not labour”
As Scotroutes said

Labour/LibDem/Tory – three cheeks of the same arse.

THM I am not an economist, so apologies if you’ve gone over this already.If there was a currency stability pact post referendum driven by the ruk govts need to reduce its debt, how would Scotlands lower debt at 62% gdp (northwind) affect BofE decision making?

😆

Nah – this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
(I’m showing my age/IT background)

Phew, I thought that (the other definition) was a bit rich Scotroutes!!!! 😀

Gordimhor – ok, lest leave the argument about the exact debt to GDP ratio aside and agree that some further fiscal discipline will be required in both economies (ie Scotland and rUK). On idependence there are two theortetical options re debt – split it (but this is arguably a technical default by UK) or rUK covers it all and Scotland compensates financially. This is in effect what yesterday was partially about. An independent Scotland would still be responsible for paying to service the debt (otherwise it would arguably be technically defaulting), therefore the behaviour of Scotland has a direct bearing on rUK debt servicing costs which is why I get pissed of when Salmond talks BS since it affects our borrowing costs as well as a potentially independent Scotland. From both perspectives he is irresponsible. Second, the BOE would have to play the role of lender of last resort in the absence of an independent Central Bank of Scotland. To do this, it would need to be happy with Scottish policy mixes.

Plus, I would assume that Scotland would want to be on good terms with Europe. Judging by Europe’s hostility to Ireland’s corp tax policy, it would be an “brave” step for a brand new nation with European intentions to start off with an aggressive corp tax rate policy. if anything Europe is moving towards tax harmonisation – the goolge, amazon debate.

Gordimhor – sorry on re-reading that is not that clear. Let me give a hopefully clearer example. Assume independence, Scottish banks will have to meet certain liquidity buffers. To do so they will have to hold a certain percentage of their assets in domestic (Scottish) government bonds. Ultimately, as lender of last resort, the BoE is at risk if the credit worthiness of Scotland deteriorates. Put simply, upon independence the BoE would be exposed to the credit risk of an independent Scotland. The BoE has already made it clear that, in order to manage this risk, the UK government would require limits on taxation and spending in Scotland.

If Scotland established its own Central Bank ( a requirement for European entry) then this issue would be avoided. But that is not the current proposal.

Thanks THM I hadnt picked up that there were 2 ways Scotland could continue to repay its debt. Given that the BofE is currently the whole of the UK central bank is it not in part Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish,if Scotland continued to pay the debt etc would Scotland not be entitled to a representative on the monetary policy committee? (An independent rep not a scottish govt rep).
Edit I suggest this might be a temporary situation, with currencies separating when Scotland joins the Euro

Quite possibly yes….again my understanding is that this is another issue for debate.

The two debt paths is very interesting actually and there is lots of debate on what constitutes default etc. Most assume that the debt would be split and Scotland would be responsible for x% and the rUK for Y%, Of course, that ignore what the bond holders would think and could in theory be classed as the Uk defaulting!!!! The more likely outcome was laid out yesterday but without the “representation” bit (unless I missed that) !!

edit for edit. Agreed (assuming the € still exists by then!)

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…….

Can I just remind folk that it isn’t the ‘Scots’ who are voting, but those of us who live in Scotland. And, AFAIK there is no such legal person as a ‘Scot’; just for this vote, it’s people who are residence in Scotland.

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

That makes no sense. The financial services sector could continue to so exactly what it does now. Switzerland has a big financial sector but there aren’t many internationally traded products denominated in Swiss francs. If anything, It would be more inefficient to start doing everything in groats.

how does a future Scotland plan to people its foreign and defense ministries? The embassies?

How would you imagine they’d be staffed?

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……

I’m unsure. Certainly the polling shows that at the moment, the majority of scots will not vote Yes. But that’s not quite the same as being anti-independence. There’s a lot of people who’re basically unconvinced by the current arguments- they’re open to the idea, but not sure it’s the right choice.

I certainly wouldn’t agree that not wanting independence means you’re happy within the UK! I think a lot of No voters are pretty fed up within the UK, but still consider it the better or safer option from the 2 on offer.

I suspect that people who are against independence full stop are in the minority, along with those who want it at all costs. Anyone seen any decent polls of that? It’s all very referendum focused rather than principle focused.

When we changed the name of our shop it cost a fortune with new signs, business cards and stationery.
How much will it cost to rebrand not only Scotland but also Ruk?

How much will it cost to rebrand not only Scotland but also Ruk?

More or less than Trident or endless foreign wars?

(PS stationery costs peanuts. Signage has a price, true. How much did you spend?)

Scotland is already pretty much branded as Scotland, what do you envisage it being rebranded as?

Everything costs.
No doubt we will have to have think tanks,focus groups and some beardy creative bloke to come up with a multi million pound design for the logo on your driving licence.
Never underestimate the ability of governments(regardless of nationality)to piss our money up the wall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=clanadonia&client=ms-android-samsung&hl=en-GB&source=android-browser-type&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BsjVUrU_05LsBq-DgaAH&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=640&bih=335&rlz=1Y1XIUG_enGB551GB551#biv=i%7C29%3Bd%7CxrvNjls8zEGdSM%3A
there you are a beardy creative type

No doubt we will have to have think tanks,focus groups and some beardy creative bloke to come up with a multi million pound design for the logo on your driving licence.
Never underestimate the ability of governments(regardless of nationality)to piss our money up the wall.

You’re taking your life in your hands by describing graphic design fees as pissing money up the wall around here 😉

Never underestimate the ability of governments(regardless of nationality)to piss our money up the wall.

This.

Negotiations could have started years ago- but the UK government has declined. Almost as though they don’t want you to know the answers, eh? Ask who gains from the uncertainty.

Why?

For all those thinking that the UK government should make it more clear on where Scotland stands prior to a vote then you seem to have forgotten the very first rule of negotiation – i.e. he who reveals his hand first enters the negotiation in the far weaker position.

Salmond naively has already revealed his hand in the form of his ‘letter to Santa’ and as a result, despite all the ‘Braveheart Bluster’ Scotland is in a pretty weak position right now. So I suspect the UK government will simply sit tight until after the result of the vote.

Rightly so too. Don’t see why the rest of the UK should be wasting our time right now debating this until the ‘chip on the shoulder’ Scots can first sort out their own identity issues.

until the Scots can first sort out their own identity issues.

And what would those be then?

For all those thinking that the UK government should make it more clear on where Scotland stands prior to a vote then you seem to have forgotten the very first rule of negotiation – i.e. he who reveals his hand first enters the negotiation in the far weaker position.

Indeed, but surely it shouldn’t be for the UK Government to try and dictate the debate, it should be the Yes and No Campaigns. The UK Gov represents everyone in the UK as it stands, that includes everyone in Scotland, most of whom would like more concrete information.

until the Scots can first sort out their own identity issues.

And what would those be then?

Err, there would seem to be plenty of issues judging by the debate on this.

For all those thinking that the UK government should make it more clear on where Scotland stands prior to a vote then you seem to have forgotten the very first rule of negotiation – i.e. he who reveals his hand first enters the negotiation in the far weaker position.

Indeed, but surely it shouldn’t be for the UK Government to try and dictate the debate, it should be the Yes and No Campaigns. The UK Gov represents everyone in the UK as it stands, that includes everyone in Scotland, most of whom would like more concrete information.

It’s up to Salmond and his band of Braveheart wannabees to make a strong case for independance. The fact that he hasn’t so far does not mean that the UK government should step in and make up a YES/NO case on his behalf.

And anyway it seems like quite a few Anti English Scots simply want FREEDOOOOOOOMMMM! from the oppressors regardless of how the rational facts stack up, so detailed information would likely just fall on deaf ears in these cases.

Anti-English Scots like Mike Russell or Christian Allard for instance?

Err, there would seem to be plenty of issues judging by the debate on this.

Have seen plenty of issues discussed, but not any ‘identity’ issues?

Salmond and his band of Braveheart wannabees

quite a few Anti English Scots simply want FREEDOOOOOOOMMMM! from the oppressors

Comments like this, and who ever it was who described nationalists as Natsis don’t really do much to help the debate, do they. It’s just a bit childish.

The fact that he hasn’t so far does not mean that the UK government should step in and make up a YES/NO case on his behalf.

No, of course it shouldnt, but if they’re asked to go and get figures or ask for advice they should do it as they represent the people asking instead of taking sides and refusing to play ball. If everything is as they say it is then it would help the No Campaign anyway.

Reform EU or Britain quits – George Osborne lays down ultimatum

So, in the event of a Yes vote Scotland may or may not be in the EU. In the event of a No vote, Scotland may or may not be in the EU. Great.

The fact that he hasn’t so far does not mean that the UK government should step in and make up a YES/NO case on his behalf.

No, of course it shouldnt, but if they’re asked to go and get figures or ask for advice they should do it as they represent the people asking instead of taking sides and refusing to play ball. If everything is as they say it is then it would help the No Campaign anyway.

Yes but the people in Scotland you are talking about do not know themselves yet who they want to be represented by, whether the UK Government or the SNP. So whom should the UK government represent right now when the Scots can’t even make up their own minds?

The UK government has publicly declared that they are pro-union since it’s clearly in the best interests of both parties (including the many Scots who will vote to stay in the Union). Do you have a problem with this?

Yes but the people in Scotland you are talking about do not know themselves yet who they want to be represented by, whether the UK Government or the SNP. So whom should the UK government represent right now when the Scots can’t even make up their own minds?

The UK government has publicly declared that they are pro-union since it’s clearly in the best interests of both parties (including the many Scots who will vote to stay in the Union). Do you have a problem with this?

The Scottish people voted in a majority SNP Government in Scotland. Part of their manifesto was to hold the referendum. Now, obviously not everyone who voted for the SNP wants independence, but the mandate is there for them to liaise with the Scottish Government. They should work with both sides to provide the data that both sides are asking for. I don’t have a problem with Westminster stating they are pro-union, but working against the process favours one side more than the other. I have a problem with that.

rene59 – Member

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.

If you look at democracies around the world – virtually no-one is happy with their current government or their current economic position. I have posted elsewhere that we need to get away from the “Things can only get better” mentality of politics/democracy. Things can always, and often do, get worse. Promising “change” is the easiest, laziest form of politics. Oh, apart from nationalism of course!
The UK government has been dominated by Scots for (most of) the last 20 years, so what reason is there to believe that things will be better run in an independent Scotland? Apart from promises/lies from another (even worse) politician.

The Scottish people voted in a majority SNP Government in Scotland. Part of their manifesto was to hold the referendum. Now, obviously not everyone who voted for the SNP wants independence, but the mandate is there for them to liaise with the Scottish Government. They should work with both sides to provide the data that both sides are asking for. I don’t have a problem with Westminster stating they are pro-union, but working against the process favours one side more than the other. I have a problem with that.

That may be the case but as we all know statistics can be spun in whatever way a politician want’s. I don’t see why the UK government should waste their time and funds entering into a costly and potentially damaging debate prior to a referendum result being in place. Like I said before it is up to Alex Salmond as the protragonist in this situation to supply the data for his pro-independence agenda, not the other way round.

It seems from the Moray survey posted before that Scottish support for independence is much higher in the most deprived areas and much less in the more affluent areas. Unfortunately if that’s the case I can see a lot of movement of the affluent or most highly qualified people out of Scotland and into the rest of the UK if independence does go ahead. Perhaps a similar kind of ‘brain drain’ as has happened in Irelend?

I can see a lot of movement of the affluent or most highly qualified people out of Scotland and into the rest of the UK if independence does go ahead.

Why?

Really? How many of the government MPs have, at any one time, been Scottish?

Ah – so you don’t approve of UK Civil Servants being used to provide reports rubbishing the Scottish Government’s claims or providing any alternative answers?

Robespierre The simple reason to vote yes is that people living in Scotland are better placed to make decisions about Scotland. the no campaign has the backing of Westminster govt which is the only body that has access to the information about Scotland joining the EU in the event of a yes vote. The EU can only pass on its position to the current existing member state. The no campaign then asks Yes Scotland to provide information that it knows Yes Scotland can’t get. Their tactics are to keep the people of Scotland on the mushroom diet.

Yes but the people in Scotland you are talking about do not know themselves yet who they want to be represented by, whether the UK Government or the SNP

You mean we don’t get to vote on who leads us post independence? Gosh, I though an independent Scotland would be a democracy with voting and everything.
Or are just giving us the benefit of your lack of knowledge of the subject? Still at least it demonstrates the value of the rest of your uninformed opinions

rebel12 – Member

Like I said before it is up to Alex Salmond as the protragonist in this situation to supply the data for his pro-independence agenda, not the other way round.

And when it’s data that the UK government holds, and won’t provide? Or a point where only discussion between the two can provide the data, but the UK government refuses to engage? They’ve been criticised by the Electoral Commission for exactly this, incidentally, not just our word for it.

What rankles, though, isn’t so much that they’ve not engaged- it’s that from day one they’ve demanded answers from the Yes campaign, while simultaneously working to make it impossible to give those answers. So not merely refusing to contribute honestly to the debate, but blaming the other party for their own machinations. The democratic process is founded on the capability to make informed decisions, so when your government is actively working to make it harder for you to do so, that’s a problem that goes far beyond this vote.

(hilariously, when challenged for information on what the future holds for Scotland within the UK, they refuse to answer)

So as the debate’s gone on, and this has become a constant theme, people ask- why don’t they want us to know? Now it could be simply tactical- playing the “tell us this thing, oh, you can’t, because of something we did” game for cheap points. Unsporting 😉 But, you know, dishonest and anti-democratic too.

But it reaches a point where you have to suspect there is more to it. Why won’t the UK government seek clarity from the EU on the status of an independent Scotland? They insist our membership won’t be automatic, will be difficult, might take years. But if that’s the case, then they have nothing to lose by getting the clarification we want. In fact, it’d be a devastating blow to the Yes campaign if they were to get the answer they insist is correct. Yet the Yes campaign asks for it, and the UK government declines.

So what is it that makes them hold back? Draw your own conclusions. You can learn a lot about a situation by what people won’t tell you.

Oh, and again, apparently Yes campaign uncertainty on EU membership is immensely damaging to businesses in Scotland. But UK uncertainty on EU membership because of the referendum? That’s absolutely fine.

I don’t see why the UK government should waste their time and funds entering into a costly and potentially damaging debate prior to a referendum result being in place. Like I said before it is up to Alex Salmond as the protragonist in this situation to supply the data for his pro-independence agenda, not the other way round.

A debate with Westminster is exactly what I don’t want. All I want is for them to get the legal advice asked for by the Scottish Government and the Yes Campaign.

As has been pointed out, the No Campaign ask questions knowing full well that the Yes Campaign cant give a definitive answer as that can only come from the EU who will only deal with Westminster. It’s definitely too much to hope for when politics on this scare are involved but a little impartiality and straight questions/legal answers would go along way.

So what is it that makes them hold back?

It’s still hypothetical at this point?

But UK uncertainty on EU membership because of the referendum? That’s absolutely fine.

Like it or not, there’s no real uncertainty over rUK membership of the EU. If there was, then we would also be getting a referendum.

Unsporting

Which is good news for Scotland, all things considered.

But it reaches a point where you have to suspect there is more to it. Why won’t the UK government seek clarity from the EU on the status of an independent Scotland? They insist our membership won’t be automatic, will be difficult, might take years. But if that’s the case, then they have nothing to lose by getting the clarification we want.

I don’t doubt the UK government is doing as little as possible to cooperate with the Yes campaign, but on this point at least the answer is clear – the Spanish government explicitly asked the EU about this point a couple of months back (regarding Catalonia) and there is no automatic EU membership.

and there is no automatic EU membership.

I can’t quite remember the article/news in question, but did they not also so that they couldn’t see any difficult in making a smooth transition to being a full member?