You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As I said previously - enlighten me. I want decent well constructed fact based articles - not stuff you've plucked out of your arse because the thought of an indy Scotland terrifies you.
I want decent well constructed fact based article
I suggest that in future you ask nicely, trying using the word "please".
I don't provide a free enlightening service.
just free sarcasm services 😉
Wan...., go back and read what happened when Scotland was trying to readjust to a decline in its traditional manufacturing base and then faced the imoact if NS Oli in the exchange rate. A double whammy from which it never fully recovered, of course, the easy answer was to blame Thatcher and Co, but the reality was very different.
How's the reading in currency unions coming in?
As I said previously - enlighten me. I want decent well constructed fact based articles - not stuff you've plucked out of your arse because the thought of an indy Scotland terrifies you.
Scotland sells lots of stuff to the evil England. If the evil England suffers then Scotland sells less to the evil England. At which point Scotland suffers as it makes less money. This works the other way round too. The best result regardless of the referendum result is that both Scotland and the other nations of the Union/rUK is for both economies to prosper and grow.
You are proving a good reason for me to vote No.
I have no problem with the rUK's economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent.
I'd much rather that didn't happen, far better for both countries for the rUK not to suffer economically - they'd be our largest trading partner.
Of course it's possible that the policies of the Westminster government might impose economic suffering where it wasn't necessary - paying billions to relocate Trident, refusing a currency union, or even building a land border.
Of course it's possible that the policies of the Westminster government might impose economic suffering where it wasn't necessary - paying billions to relocate Trident, refusing a currency union, or even building a land border.
And you will not have any say in the future policy decisions of UK. Btw, any further forward on what Osborne's refusal of a CU will cost Scottish business.
Btw, any further forward on what Osborne's refusal of a CU will cost Scottish business.
Ed Miliband estimated it'd cost rUK businesses £100M-£200M - so about 1/10th of that? Though I have no idea where he pulled that figure from.
I'd imagine from his arse tbh
I thought SNP figure for rUK business was £500m?
You make it sound like having massive oil reserves is a bad thing.
it depends on the level of development in the economy. but in any case it's not really a dilemma Scotland needs to worry about (aboot). the oil and gas isn't that significant one way or the other. Scotland isn't Kuwait with haggis.
I thought SNP figure for rUK business was £500m?
I'm not sure how anyone got to their calculations. And what the comparison is with - if the comparison is with a separate Scottish currency then there will be transaction charges, but if Scotland uses the pound outside a currency union there won't be. It also depends on how the economies vary over time.
So impossible to calculate with any certainty I'd reckon.
As we've covered several times before, the Fiscal Commission dismissed the pound without CU approach.if the comparison is with a separate Scottish currency then there will be transaction charges, but if Scotland uses the pound outside a currency union there won't be
For those defending AS, fortunately he seems to have recognised he's been a bit short on detail:
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/salmond-i-should-have-done-better-on-currency-1-3512300 ]Salmond to clarfiy his position on currency[/url]
@oldbloke; Unless I've missed something, the fiscal commission hasn't discounted using the pound without union. It's stated that it's not likely to be a long term solution but that's not the same thing.
Northwind, it dismissed it in one paragraph and spent the rest of its report discussing 4 other currency options. You're right that it said it could only be a short term option, but in dismissing it so quickly it clearly discounted that approach as not being suitable.
I think if they wanted to dismiss it as not suitable, they're capable of saying so tbh. They consider currency union to be the better option, of course, based on their analysis of the situation- but then that analysis doesn't seem to be universally accepted 😉 The report says sterling-without-union has some of the advantages but additional disadvantages; but if sterling-with-union is a less good or less viable option than they believe, that naturally changes the desirability of other options.
Or to put it another way; if you don't accept their argument that currency union is the best for all concerned, then you have to look again at their conclusions.
Though
an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution.
That's the quote from the Fiscal Commission Northwind - pretty sure that means not suitable. Were they to consider it in any way suitable it is reasonable to expect they'd have suggested which of the other options were the preferred long term solution to follow it.
On the rest of what you say, this isn't about what I think. It is about the difficulty yS would have in proposing sterling without union as Plan B when the Fiscal Commission discounted it. Because AS made such a big deal about the independence of their advice and how he's just following it, he's got real trouble in disagreeing with any of it now.
If he says sterling without union, then as Fiscal Commission limited its worth to a transitional approach he's still got to say what follows transition. As the other options they considered were Euro and Scottish Currency, to mark either of those out as being the ultimate destination might make for a challenging proposal to the electorate this close to the vote.
oldbloke - MemberThat's the quote from the Fiscal Commission Northwind - pretty sure that means not suitable.
I think that it probably means "Though an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution." tbh. If they thought it was unsuitable, they'd be more likely to say something like "it's not suitable". You're having to put words in their mouth don't you think?
[url= http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-voting-no-threatens-scotlands-nhs/?utm_content=buffer88d15&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer ]A very good analysis of how a No vote threatens NHS Scotland.[/url]
And also why everyone in England should be very, very angry about it.
No. I'm taking their words at face value.
I don't think you are tbh- I think you're reading something into it which just isn't there. They've not dismissed it, and they've also not limited it to a transitional option.
Now, clearly it's not an approach they like as much as currency union. But they also predicted correctly right from the start that politics could play a part in that. So I don't see that it undermines their viewpoint if an option is taken off the table for purely political reasons, as may be the case.
OTOH, if the reason for sidelining the option is because sterling-with-CU is similar but better, then taking that option away might make it a more desirable option. Now I'm not saying this is the case, but I think it's plausible.
I reckon they mean it is not suitable i also think this is true though
if you don't accept their argument that currency union is the best for all concerned, then you have to look again at their conclusions
if you reject their central conclusion then you have to reject the rest as well ;you are saying they reached the wrong MAJOR conclusion and are not competent IMHO.
Score draw so far
Ben no one can think the NHS is safe in Tory hands
remember they said they would not reform it and then reformed it massively with a top down reform...though of course we can trust the pledge braking lib dems and the deceitful cons on currency issues [ and labpur dossier holders] as only AS lies apparently 😉
Out of interest what percentage of the vote will be cast on considered benefit for the people of Scotland based on the outcome and what percentage on blind nationalism.
I would be sorry to see the union split but believe it is the choice of the Scottish people. But if it goes tits up would we have to prop up there economy. And also if that twit salmon starts changing too many laws say firearm laws for instance would that make border control a problem.
What happens if one countries health service surpasses the others, say with what cancer treatments it offers, would health tourism become an issue.
What if one has a softer benefit system would there be a migration of dole dossers.
And will STV being showing braveheart the night before the referendum.
Out of interest what percentage of the vote will be cast on considered benefit for the people of Scotland based on the outcome and what percentage on blind nationalism.
Bit of both on both sides - there are some blind nationalists on the Yes side, and quite a few on the No side - not just the Orange Order, but all those people who go on about "all the things we've achieved together".
And also if that twit salmon starts changing too many laws say firearm laws for instance would that make border control a problem.
Why on earth would Salmond (note spelling) change firearms laws? And how would he force it through the Scottish parliament if he wanted to? We remember Dunblane. Border control? No-one is seriously proposing a physical border.
What happens if one countries health service surpasses the others, say with what cancer treatments it offers, would health tourism become an issue.
Same as any EU country, we might get health tourists from south of the border wanting to use our free NHS, but it'd be charged back to their home country. Just like the EHIC system works at the moment.
What if one has a softer benefit system would there be a migration of dole dossers.
Same answer - besides, we want more immigrants.
And will STV being showing braveheart the night before the referendum.
It's funny, I've never heard a Yes person talk about Braveheart at all - obsessing about it is definitely a No thing. It's as if they can't comprehend the idea of a modern Scotland, they need to reduce it to stereotypes.
Border control? No-one is seriously proposing a physical border.
Not yet.
However, when you join the EU and have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement this may change.
Salmond wanted to ban airguns in Scotland as apparently scots can't be trusted with them.
However, when you join the EU and have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement this may change.
Just like there's a physical border between NI and Ireland? Would the Westminster government really want to spend many millions on building a new Hadrian's Wall? Would the rUK really want to seal itself off?
Salmond wanted to ban airguns in Scotland as apparently scots can't be trusted with them.
So how is that going to cause border control issues?
Just like there's a physical border between NI and Ireland?
Ireland has an opt out of the Schengen Agreement. They have Border Controls at Airports and Ferry Terminals. iScotland wouldn't.
Airguns perhaps not the best example but if things are made illegal in one country and not in the other you will get a black market. If you did not have the same drugs laws for instance.
Would the rUK really want to seal itself off?
😆
The 'Little Scotlanders' version of fog in the channel?
The 'Little Scotlanders' version of fog in the channel?
You'd be creating a land border with an EU country. You need to make up your mind, if the problem is that Scotland would be in Schengen then it'd be the rUK sealing itself off from the rest of Europe.
Airguns perhaps not the best example but if things are made illegal in one country and not in the other you will get a black market. If you did not have the same drugs laws for instance.
How do countries neighbouring Holland cope with that?
Ben, In case you hadn't noticed, England can reach all its neighbouring countries without passing through Scotland - having taken the Rosyth ferry once, I reckon we've got the better side of this dilemma 🙂
You'd be creating a land border with an EU country.
Big deal, Brazil have got a land border with the EU, I don't reckon its cut them off too much 😉
rUK sealing itself off from the rest of Europe.
No it isn't. It will be exactly the same as what the UK has at the moment, Border Controls and an Opt Out from Schengen.
The UK isn't "sealed off from the rest of Europe". I frequently travel within the EU and I simply use a passport.
Airguns perhaps not the best example but if things are made illegal in one country and not in the other you will get a black market. If you did not have the same drugs laws for instance.
You mean like the Netherlands and it's neighbours or Portugal and Spain?
I can't work out why things that have been worked out in other European countries with very little drama keep being held up as insurmountable obstacles in relation to Scotland.
If Scotland vote to be Independent, I wish them well and hope they prosper, I really do.
And I think they have the right to vote in or out the same as we do with Europe.
I am just thinking off the top of my head about any problems that may arise.
when you join the EU and have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement this may change
The schengen agreement is to create borderless areas within the EU - it does not demand there are borders
I am not sure what you mean to cite but it is not this.
Ironically the UK and the Ireland are the only two non signers who have had a[ largely] borderless border for a rather long period of time.
They have Border Controls at Airports and Ferry Terminals. iScotland wouldn't.
??? Still not sure what you mean - you mean for within the EU
You do not need a passport to go there from the UK though and it seems highly unlikely there would be one between iS and England
PS they could be obliged to join but not join just like the Euro
KEY
BLUE = EU member states participating
YELLOW = EU member states not participating but obliged to join
RED EU member states with an opt-out
GREEN non-EU member states participating
ORANGE non-EU member states de facto participating
PURPLE non-EU member states with an open border
[img] 
[/img]
No-one want to comment on the NHS article I posted earlier?
http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-voting-no-threatens-scotlands-nhs/
How are people in England not furious about this?
The schengen agreement is to create borderless areas within the EU - it does not demand there are borders
Junkyard - WTF are you on about?
The rUK has an opt out of Schengen.
iScotland will not if it joins the EU.
Therefore, there will be no controls for movement from Continental Europe to iScotland.
This would mean rUK would have to put some kind of physical border in place between rUK and iScotland, if it is to control the movement of people from Continental Europe.
On the subject of Schengen, it seems to be another of those EU-bodges where we'd have to commit to join Schengen but could choose to fail to meet the accession criteria, and so be ineligible indefinitely. Not a big fan of those tbh but in the absence of a formal exemption it'll do the job. Unless there's something else I'm not aware of?
But yes, as 2 EU nations outwith Schengen (or as an EU Scotland and ex-EU rUK), the rUK could choose to impose strict border controls, which I'm sure will go splendidly.
The UK (including Scotland) has an opt-out of Schengen in favour of the CTA - the EU agreed to that. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the opt-out and CTA would continue with an independent Scotland.
But even if it isn't, there are countries in the EU which have yet to fully adopt Schengen - Cyprus, Romania and a couple of others I think. No big deal.
But even if we have to adopt and implement Schengen, it's not such a problem - if the notoriously paranoid Swiss can cope with being in Schengen when they're not even in the EU, it can't be all that big a worry.
And even if we do get lots of Eastern European immigrants (and no-one thinks this is likely) then we need more immigrants anyway.
But yes, as 2 EU nations outwith Schengen (or as an EU Scotland and ex-EU rUK), the rUK could choose to impose strict border controls, which I'm sure will go splendidly.
The English border would be barbed-wire fences, no-go areas, dog patrols, border posts, guards and security searches.
The Scottish border would be a big sign saying "Welcome to Scotland" 😀
So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the opt-out and CTA would continue with an independent Scotland.
No it isn't. This has been done to death on here, iScotland will be a new state, it won't just inherit stuff it wants from the UK.
Now that the Schengen Agreement is part of the acquis communautaire, the Agreement has, for its EU members, lost the status of a treaty,
New EU member states do not sign the Schengen Agreement as such; instead, they are bound to implement the Schengen rules as part of the pre-existing body of EU law, which every new entrant is required to accept.
No it isn't. This has been done to death on here, iScotland will be a new state, it won't just inherit stuff it wants from the UK.
iScotland will be a new state, but the EU is pragmatic and sensible - as with EU membership it makes most sense to maintain the status quo.
but the EU is pragmatic and sensible
It really isn't! They couldn't even agree on where the key offices would be physically located. 🙄
You can't assume we'll receive an opt-out. Just, it doesn't really seem to matter. Having an open border with the UK prevents us from joining schengen in itself, it's nicely self-fulfilling.
Sorry if I am stating the bleedin obvious or being very thick.
But is there not a country on this earth that we will not let its people into this country.
And if so what if Scotland is happy to allow them in .
How would when then stop them crossing into England.
By the look of it, the North of England will benefit from an independent Scotland.
Think of the job opportunities! That border is going to need a lot of machine gun psychopaths, barbed wire knitters, and qualified rubber stamp bastards.
Much more economic activity than the piddling one off job painting the Welcome to Scotland sign.
Seems to be a lot of hoop jumping being done to avoid the assumption that the sensible thing will be done.
30 days to go...
iScotland will be a new state, but the EU is pragmatic and sensible - as with EU membership it makes most sense to maintain the status quo.
The status quo is that the UK is an EU member state and Scotland is neither a state nor a member state of the EU.
So you'll be voting No then, Ben?
Junkyard - WTF are you on about?
Sorry i was just trying to add some facts to your view
The rUK has an opt out of Schengen.
You mean the Uk and I know, it is in my post.
iScotland will not if it joins the EU.
Did you see the map of EU countries not in the area? Did you?
Therefore, there will be no controls for movement from Continental Europe to iScotland.
See above supposition.
This would mean rUK would have to put some kind of physical border in place between rUK and iScotland, if it is to control the movement of people from Continental Europe
Ah right i get your argument now ah well that will cost you and smart a bit.
No it isn't. This has been done to death on here, iScotland will be a new state, it won't just inherit stuff it wants from the UK.
The only possible /sensible agreement we could make is that no one can predict what the EU will do
As noted there are technical opt outs and criteria to meet so it can sign up to it but never implement.
You overstate your case somewhat.
the new member is also debatable as iS would be "new" but all its citizens wont. Plenty of fudge room for the EU who, as far as i am aware, have no explicit rules for this scenario [ nor did they for german unification]
You cannot give opinion as if it is fact. No one knows what iS would get from the EU with opinions ranging from **** off to welcome aboard just as you are.
The status quo is that the UK is an EU member state and Scotland is neither a state nor a member state of the EU.
I think we have done this to death and the problem is the people of that area are in the EU as is that area. This means it is an internal applicant [ it will be in the EU when it asks but under the UK] and this is unique. By virtue of the Union it is in the EU
I think we have done that point to death tbh.
it will be in the EU when it asks but under the UK
iScotland doesn't exist and won't exist until it leaves the UK. There's no such thing as an "internal applicant". You're very confused. 😆
Still done to death and I dont think mockery will help the debate , make sus change out mind or help us predict the outcome
the iS application will be unique and unlike others for reasons that dont need stating [ and have been stated many times when we debate this point]
NW - from a few posts back, the FC writes many pages on currency options in which there is one para on sterlingisation - and that isn't dismissing the option. Fortunately they are a bit more sensible than your interpretation suggests.
The status quo is that the UK is an EU member state and Scotland is neither a state nor a member state of the EU
The status quo is that I am an EU citizen and also able to travel to the rest of the UK and Ireland under the CTA. The EU doesn't want the bureaucratic hassle of renouncing the EU citizenship of 5 million people, only to admit us almost immediately, not to mention all the other hassles if Scotland were to leave the EU.
But while we're discussing the EU (and since no-one seems interested in the future of the NHS) how about the story that big US banks are making contingency plans to move to Ireland in the event of the UK leaving the EU?
The status quo is that I am an EU citizen
I'm actually very interested in the NHS.
Oh, and from what I've just seen. The Yes/No roadside billboard war is about to step up a gear.
Interested, but given it is a devolved issue so Scotland can vary funding if it wishes. Even if Barnett changes. What is a bigger deal is that [url= http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/history-nhs-spending-uk ]NHS funding[/url] has been rising pretty much since it was born and at some point we have to have some sensible debate about what we want from it and what we want to pay. Treating all aspects of it as sacred doesn't help us get the best from it.since no-one seems interested in the future of the NHS
Your story about US banks is interesting. But as the EU is supposed to be getting its financial transaction tax proposal back on the rails, they might later find reasons for that not to be appealing.
That's addressed in great detail in the link I posted - twice - but here it is again:
http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/why-voting-no-threatens-scotlands-nhs/
Summary: The NHS in Scotland is devolved, but the purse strings are not.
Read it, though - if I was in England I'd be furious about what was happening.
In other news, No voters are scared of spiders:
😀
The NHS in Scotland is devolved, but the purse strings are not.
Yes they are - Scotland already has the power to vary income tax rates by up to 3p, but has chosen not to do so, and the Scotland act 2012 gave them further tax raising powers that will come into force regardless of the referendum result, so those purse strings are already devolved into Scottish control!
Read the article.
Much use of the Daily Mail Sad Face (TM):
😉
I did, although I found it quite a contrived argument on the funding impact for Scotland.Read it, though - if I was in England I'd be furious about what was happening
The status quo is that I am an EU citizen
Nope, you are not an EU citizen. You are a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. the UK is a member of the EU and as such it has agreed that certain travel rights with other nations. If Scotland leaves the UK then there is no certainty that any existing rights will be maintained.
From a purely practical point of view, I would suspect that Scotland would be allowed to join the EU from the date that they left the UK. However it is unlikely that they would inherit all the same terms as the UK has (and will continue to have).
While the EU may require you to join Schengen agreement, I suspect that Scotland will be allowed to opt out and be part of the CTA with the UK and Eire.
But (and it is a big but) we don't know and until the Scottish Government has been given the mandate to discuss the terms of Independence no one knows what the conclusions will be. It won't be the 'perfect' solution as envisaged by Salmon since he is making the assumption that Scotland will get everything it wants. Equally it won't be the doomsday settlement as some on the extreme end of the No are saying that it will be.
Remember that this will all take time. The existing timescales was put forward with consultations with any other parties. There us the UK, EU, UN, NATO, WTO, IMF, .... and many, many other organisations to talk to and reach agreement. And if any party drags their feet, because they can't be bothered then this will have an impact on Scotland.
With a month to go, it appears to me that both sides of the argument have fought themselves to a standstill.
There seems to be a desperate rush now to find any story or article that may have a tenuous link should the outcome go one way or another and putting it out as relevant.
if Scotland raised taxes would it just not go into the UK pot?ninfan - Member
The NHS in Scotland is devolved, but the purse strings are not.
Yes they are - Scotland already has the power to vary income tax rates by up to 3p, but has chosen not to do so,
No, its a devolved issue - they get to keep it and would be able to add to the block grant they receive from Westminster to supplement Scottish government spending (or obviously would have to fund it out of their block grant if they decided on a lower tax rate)
Nope, you are not an EU citizen. You are a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. the UK is a member of the EU and as such it has agreed that certain travel rights with other nations. If
Wrong. Individuals are citizens of the EU. Hence the great difficulty in throwing ~4.5m citizens out of the EU when there is no mechanism for it.
If the yes vote wins, how long will take Scotland to become completely independent of the rest of the uk.
Hence the great difficulty in throwing ~4.5m citizens out of the EU when there is no mechanism for it.
There's also no mechanism for allowing a newly independent state automagic membership of the EU, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.
Make your mind up.
ninfan - Member
No, its a devolved issue - they get to keep it and would be able to add to the block grant they receive from Westminster to supplement Scottish government spending (or obviously would have to fund it out of their block grant if they decided on a lower tax rate)
Interesting take on it.
http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-uselessness-of-the-scottish-variable-rate/
Last year the Scottish Govt spent 11.9 billion on the NHS and brought in 10.8 billion in income tax. The current power allowing tax variance of upto +/-3% would be ineffective for at least a year as the cost of setting up a system and collection would be greater than the amount raised. Even with the powers from the 2012 act the Scottish Government could only raise less than 10%of it's spend on the NHS through raising income tax. That's assuming that Westminster doesn't change the tax thresholds as that power remains with Westminster. The Barnett formula is that any variation in public spending in England is automatically matched on a % of the UK population basis in Scotland Wales or Northern Ireland meaning that spending cuts in England could largely wipe out budget increases through an income tax rise in Scotland Sources for Scottish govt income Business for Scotland and for spending on the NHS The Scotsman
There's also no mechanism for allowing a newly independent state automagic membership of the EU, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.
Who said anything about a newly independent Scotland getting automatic membership of the EU? My feeling is that Scotland's membership will be negotiated from within in the period between a Yes vote and Independence Day.
In 2011-12, total tax revenue generated in Scotland (onshore and offshore) was £56.9 billion
From http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/06/9241/4
So enough to pay for a few NHSs.
Agreed Wanmankylung it's just that the tax varying powers are completely ineffective as Westminster still controls 85% of the tax take in Scotland
Wrong. Individuals are citizens of the EU
Are you sure? The EU explanation makes a very strong link with citizenship of a member state. So, by implication, those in a state ceasing to be a member state would cease to have EU citizenship. Academic point if / when Scotland gets in, but not something to be taken for granted.
[url= http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/ ]http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/[/url]