[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

That looks like the final one rene59.

The New Stateman's article refers to the Primary Dealer facility, which was designed to replace the liquidity lost as a result of the failure of the tripartite repo market (essentially an inter bank collateralized loan market). Primary dealers are those who are entitled to bid in auctions of US Treasuries (US Government Debt Securities). The facility enabled banks to borrow against US dollar denominated securities that they owned and the British Banks being primary dealers were entitled to use this facility. Likewise they used some of the facilities offered by the European Central Bank. To the extent, these facilities (and other functioning market facilities) were insufficient to meet their liquidity requirements, then they would need to seek help from their home central bank.

15 to 25 billion barrels might not seem a lot in UK terms but in Scottish terms with a 5 million population... Well I let youse fill in the rest.

Is this before or after you add in the 8bn barrels recently discovered in the Clair field?

And we haven't even started on any fields to the West of a Scotland which were blocked by the MoD.

Basically there's a lot of oil left. Whether it's "a lot", "a huge lot", or "f*** me that's a lot" is pretty irrelevant - it'll be a very nice bonus to go into an oil fund for the future.

Yet again this is being spun as if somehow having all this oil is a bad thing for Scotland.

Yet again this is being spun as if somehow having all this oil is a bad thing for Scotland.

Yes, while at the same time the shale gas reserves in England which may be "a lot", "a huge lot", or "f*** me that's a lot" is simultaneously a good thing.

It is bizarre indeed.

I suggest you don't believe all these 'facts' being bounded around by the iS camp about the WOS. My mates dogs mum great aunty Nora said......
Also BTW, if it transpires any of this has been made up by a iS supporter who does work in/around Shetland then they will have broken the confidentially agreement and will need to update their CV.

oldbloke - Member

Are you sure you've not got a decimal wrong there? 404 million T at 7.5 barrels to T = 3030M barrels = 3.03billion barrels.

Hah, you're not wrong, I was working with the wrong dataset and got a number that looked right and just assumed it was right 😳 Correct DECC estimates are 11.1 to 21bn boe- which invalidates part of my argument, as I was wrong to say the DECC estimates are higher than the UKOG industry estimate used in the White Paper, which in reality is much the same as the DECC range.

However, this still leaves Sir Wood's new "likely best outcome" right at the lower limit of the DECC figures which he used in his review, (incorporating his expected 3-4bn "low side" increase). And of course doesn't affect the main point, which is that Sir Wood has presented us 2 wildly different figures.

So, we're left with the White Paper being consistent with UK Government figures, UK industry figures, and Sir Wood's published review. But Sir Wood's new figures being inconsistent with all of those including himself.

I liked my wrong numbers, they were conclusive and dramatic 😉 But the main points are much the same, and the credibility of these new numbers is still, being generous, dubious.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28085418

Add to that Scotland only has modest shale gas reserves... Not that I agree with fracking, but I'm sensing a theme here 😆

bencooper - Member

Is this before or after you add in the 8bn barrels recently discovered in the Clair field?

And we haven't even started on any fields to the West of a Scotland which were blocked by the MoD.

Basically there's a lot of oil left. Whether it's "a lot", "a huge lot", or "f*** me that's a lot" is pretty irrelevant - it'll be a very nice bonus to go into an oil fund for the future.

Yet again this is being spun as if somehow having all this oil is a bad thing for Scotland.

lots of natural resources is great for any country

doesn't explain why you want to tether your new economy to the pound

surely you need your own currency rather than being shackled to a poorer economy, the convergence requirement will surely hamstringyour new utopia?

Ian Wood has said that his comments were in response to the N-56 criticism of the OBR.

So basically he got the hump and decided to lower his own estimates 😉

doesn't explain why you want to tether your new economy to the pound

I don't, I think in the long run we should have either our own currency or the Euro. In the transition period, however, it makes sense for everyone that Scotland keeps using the pound.

The recently discovered Clair field that was discovered in 1977? Edit my bad missed the 'in.'

big_n_daft - Member
surely you need your own currency rather than being shackled to a poorer economy, the convergence requirement will surely hamstringyour new utopia?

That Clair field that's been producing since 2005 and discovered in 1970's, what new oil?

To some extent the amount of oil is irrelevant its the cost to extract and the margins that are important. It's why Chevron have put Rosenbank on hold and why majors like Shell and Chevron are selling assets and making people redundant.

Good grief Junkyard I think THM should take out a restraining order- you are embarrassing yourself.

THM is entirely correct re the role of the Fed, it's simply that you lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand the basic concepts of central banking. Obviously that's not unusual, it's just most people refrain from shouting their inanities on the subject like a monkey flinging his own excrement.

Also can you stop degrading any serious argument or discussion by reverting to the same argument that all politicians are liars, and everyone is biased hence can't be listened to. You do yourself no favours because it stops you from engaging in the actual issue - the bias of the individual ceases to be important when the message is provably or objectively valid i.e a currency union between two diverting economies is undesirable, and to make it work sovereignty has to be pooled.

Thank you Mefty, but I think the subtleties of what constitutes a primary dealer will still be lost. Odd to be reading this very section in Geithner's book this afternoon. I had forgotten the tri-partite repo stuff. The inside track on negotiations with Bob Diamond and Lehman was also interesting.

Oil can be a good and a bad thing as history has shown. The impact of rising oil prices on sterling just as Scotland was facing the decline in traditional manufacturing was a definite negative. Ditto volatility in oil prices can cause uncertainty for investment. So not always a good thing.

I don't, I think in the long run we should have either our own currency or the Euro. In the transition period, however, it makes sense for everyone that Scotland keeps using the pound.

maybe, maybe not. If a CU did prove hamstring to us. We could always switch anytime there after.

both of you have provided a very good reason why CU for rUK is a no-go, speculation on when iS will leave the pound will lead to currency uncertainty for rUK and will be negative for the rUK economy

please explain why CU has any long-term benefits for rUK when you take the divergence of the economies, the lopsided benefits for the financial sectors and the "when will they leave" currency uncertainty into account

BnD - no one (other than a complete fool) enters into (negotiations over) a currency union when one party has stated from the outset that it sees the union only as a temporary measure, History shows how and why that is a bad idea but yet again the DO is apparently able to re-write history and theory. He's a veritable magician. I missed the class when they taught that trick.

And that's not including the fact that CUs require monetary and fiscal integration. Just little points.....pffff, details, details....

bainbrge - Member
Good grief Junkyard I think THM should take out a restraining order- you are embarrassing yourself.

THM is entirely correct re the role of the Fed, it's simply that you lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand the basic concepts of central banking. Obviously that's not unusual, it's just most people refrain from shouting their inanities on the subject like a monkey flinging his own excrement.

Quite, but I put up with it on a daily basis despite ignoring it. You would think getting things wrong over and over again would be enough for someone to desist. But no.....yawn. Used to be funny, now just tiresome.

big_n_daft - Member
both of you have provided a very good reason why CU for rUK is a no-go, speculation on when iS will leave the pound will lead to currency uncertainty for rUK and will be negative for the rUK economy

please explain why CU has any long-term benefits for rUK when you take the divergence of the economies, the lopsided benefits for the financial sectors and the "when will they leave" currency uncertainty into account

Regarding the currency you'd hope sense would prevail after the vote and both would say right let's talk about this sensibly. I doubt a broken Scotland will help the markets south of the border all that much.

Regarding the currency you'd hope sense would prevail after the vote and both would say right let's talk about this sensibly. I doubt a broken Scotland will help the markets south of the border all that much

why would not having the pound break iScotland?

The English don't want a currency union [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-referendum-english-attitudes ]Link[/url]

big_n_daft - Member

why would not having the pound break iScotland?

I don't think its all that important which is used.

bainbrge - Member
Good grief Junkyard I think THM should take out a restraining order- you are embarrassing yourself.

bainbrge I am leaving the personal stuff as I am trying my best to not name call on here [ I dont always manage it but ouch my shins

Also can you stop degrading any serious argument or discussion by reverting to the same argument that all politicians are liars,

everyone is biased hence can't be listened to

You do yourself no favours because it stops you from engaging in the actual issue

]the bias of the individual ceases to be important when the message is provably or objectively valid i.e a currency union between two diverting economies is undesirable, and to make it work sovereignty has to be pooled.

A CU involves a strange fudge of independence that is not complete independence It cedes some independence and some fiscal sovereignty has to be pooled. AS argues for a strange sort of half way independence that is more like devo max IMHO. THM is correct in that claim

t I put up with it on a daily basis despite ignoring it. You would think getting things wrong over and over again would be enough for someone to desist

JY showed you the numbers and you've made no attempt to rebut. They simply don't say what you claimed. I could accept that as a mistake at the time but to maintain it now is clearly dishonest.

Northwind - Member - Block User - Quote
teamhurtmore - Member
TBF, didn't even bother to read, so not sure what was said to rebut anyway and have no interest.

I think I'll use that policy- anyone that provides hard facts that contradict my bullshit, I'll just declare a troll and not bother to read it and therefore I will be right. FFS.

EDIT: as someone claimed it was a multi from you - I doubt it but have they posted on this thread before? i dont recognise the name and my suspicions [ might just be paranoia] that they post late at night just before THM as if they had been out riding and chatting #paranoid but interested Seems strange to wade in and attack me given the grief was mainly from others

I like the way THM always thanks those who agree with him I would if I had time but it would be like an oscars speech and I would forget someone 😉

The English don't want a currency union

but most of the Yes voters are expecting to get it, the Yes campaign are making out the main parties no to CU is a bluff and that they'll get it and then drop it when it suits iS with rUK happy to take all the associated costs

I'm still waiting for a Yes supporter to state convincingly why CU is in the interest of rUK

I dunno ask the better together mob, they seem to think it will.

but you are the Yes voter who seemed worried by it

I don't think its all that important which is used

your back pedalling is louder than a Hope pro 2 freewheel 😉

Not back peddling in the slightest, if you're after logically reasons for why I'm voting yes, personally, good luck. Mines would all be ideological or emotional if I was to verbalise them, have been for about the 15/20 years I've known that I'm a separatist. Doesn't mean I can't spot nonsense when I see it. 😉

Why I think this thread is kinda dry, it's completely missing out on why people vote. And that's usually more to do with instinct than facts.

I'm still waiting for a Yes supporter to state convincingly why CU is in the interest of rUK

o Scotland and the UK engage in a significant amount of cross border trade. In 2011 an estimated £45.5 billion of Scottish exports were to the rest of the UK (with at least the same flow in the other direction). For both countries reciprocal trade represents a significant contribution to their respective economies.
o Scotland’s natural wealth would make a positive contribution to the Sterling Area economy. For example, Oil & Gas UK estimate that North Sea output, the large majority of which takes place within Scotland’s marine boundaries, boosted the UK’s balance of payments by £40 billion in 2011.
o Scotland’s economy represents a significant share of Sterling Area output -approximately 10% of current UK GDP or around the same size as the entire UK financial sector.
o A shared currency would help facilitate an orderly transition. For example, it would facilitate the orderly transfer of assets and liabilities which the Working Group highlighted “would seem to be a sensible and efficient solution”. This would be more transparent if the debts of both countries were denominated in the same currency.
o A shared currency would help facilitate the orderly supervision and oversight of systemically important financial institutions which operate across both countries

That is from the Scottish white paper so it may be biased [ if i am allowed to say this] but you are free to believe it or not

seosamh77 - Member

Not back peddling in the slightest if your after logically reasons for why I'm voting yes, good luck. Mines are all ideological.

enlighten please?

is it a celtic nationalism, pictish revivalism, hatred of the Westminister yoke, rebellion against the landowning classes, creation of a social democratic utopia? or something else?

Why I think this thread is kinda dry, its completely missing out why people vote. And that's usually more to do with instinct than facts.

EDIT I wrote than before seeing Big N daft post but that kinda demonstrates it

o Scotland and the UK engage in a significant amount of cross border trade. In 2011 an estimated £45.5 billion of Scottish exports were to the rest of the UK (with at least the same flow in the other direction). For both countries reciprocal trade represents a significant contribution to their respective economies.

but we trade more with others and currency isn't an issue and the net impact is negligible

o Scotland’s natural wealth would make a positive contribution to the Sterling Area economy. For example, Oil & Gas UK estimate that North Sea output, the large majority of which takes place within Scotland’s marine boundaries, boosted the UK’s balance of payments by £40 billion in 2011.

o Scotland’s economy represents a significant share of Sterling Area output -approximately 10% of current UK GDP or around the same size as the entire UK financial sector.

o A shared currency would help facilitate an orderly transition. For example, it would facilitate the orderly transfer of assets and liabilities which the Working Group highlighted “would seem to be a sensible and efficient solution”. This would be more transparent if the debts of both countries were denominated in the same currency.

o A shared currency would help facilitate the orderly supervision and oversight of systemically important financial institutions which operate across both countries

That is from the Scottish white paper so it may be [s]biased[/s][b]tripe[/b] [ if i am allowed to say this] but you are free to believe it or not

the NO , on here, are unwilling as they know the economics is their strongest card. - ie fear and uncertainty

EDIT I wrote than before seeing Big N daft post but that kinda demonstrates it

the economics are easiest issues to poke the holes in. Pointing out that we have a great country now (yes we could do better but point me at utopia) and that dissolving the Union will diminish both iS and rUK permanently is a bit less tangible.

also the Scots have been daft enough to respond surveys they ask "if you would be £x better off independent would you be more likely to vote Yes", it's your fellow countrymen who have monetised the argument.

for me the question is whether the "marriage" is over or do we just need counselling, but as with any separation, if it ends up with a divorce both parties will look to their own future

big_n_daft - Member
seosamh77 - Member
Not back peddling in the slightest if your after logically reasons for why I'm voting yes, good luck. Mines are all ideological.

enlighten please?

is it a celtic nationalism, pictish revivalism, hatred of the Westminister yoke, rebellion against the landowning classes, creation of a social democratic utopia? or something else?

That'd be the vague ideological reason(not explained particulay well. It's late!)

Emotionally that would come straight to to a dislike of the class system that britain represents.

I don't have all the answers, never will, and I'll never be a politician nor correctly be able to convey what I mean. I just instinctively think the break up of the union and more local control is correct.

seosamh77 - Member
a thm multi? :Sherlock:

So that's what is meant by a multi!! No need of that. No idea who BB actually is other than someone who talks a lot of sense and understands the topic of the thread (tends to stand out). But since I am not even in the UK (hence posting times) the "conspiracy theories" are about as far fetched as the DO's grasp of reality. Typical yS stuff though.

You cannot present a case for the rUK and CU as it's falls over at the first hurdles - as said earlier you have to commitment to a union to make it work not a temporary wish, you have to cede sovereignty and at least some sense of risk symmetry etc.....

Why I think this thread is kinda dry, it's completely missing out on why people vote. And that's usually more to do with....

...what Murdoch tells them.

And of course doesn't affect the main point, which is that Sir Wood has presented us 2 wildly different figures

You sound from the the rest of that post like you've dug into the issue, so presumably you've read his report? So you've seen his concerns about dropping extraction efficiency, the impact and recommendations to improve it?

So his argument makes sense - if there are 24Bn barrels, we're heading to extract much less, here's some ideas to get a bit more, but there's still going to be some of that we leave behind. Because of that, extrapolating future oil revenue on the basis of current revenue levels from a total of 24Bn barrels is false.

Working on current revenue generation from his mid teens Bn barrel numbers plus lower revenue from another slice assuming the recommended changes in fiscal environment from the Oil & Gas Commission Scot Govt ran (and containing the guy whose blog WML highlighted earlier) plus recognising no income from a slice we're going to get out might have been a more reasonable assumption to include.

I can see why the headlines don't aid understanding and the Wood Review and Oil & Gas Commission report are 140 pages between them which few are going to read.

also the Scots have been daft enough to respond surveys they ask "if you would be £x better off independent would you be more likely to vote Yes", it's your fellow countrymen who have monetised the argument.

+1. It saddens me that people think this way. I laugh when fellow Scots wish to end the class system, and I imagine wealth inequality by distributing oil wealth amongst a smaller percentage of the UK population. The more oil wealth that nationalists say there is, the more shallow their argument. In JY's own words, that is comedy gold.

You can not blame the scots for monetising the argument when the default position in society/politics is to monetise arguments! 😆

oldbloke - Member

You sound from the the rest of that post like you've dug into the issue, so presumably you've read his report? So you've seen his concerns about dropping extraction efficiency, the impact and recommendations to improve it?

Yes, and that's all built into the report's figures of course, and is what leads to the 12-24bn basic, with 3-4bn (low side) potential for increase from the review. The 12-24 is the current position without improvement.

I wonder if there is any measure of how effectively the various Westminster governments shared oil wealth among the whole UK population?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund ]Oil oney frittered away according to The Guardian[/url]
The key part is in this paragraph

So where did our billions go? Hawksworth writes: "The logical answer is that the oil money enabled non-oil taxes to be kept lower." In other words: tax cuts. When the North Sea was providing maximum income, Thatcher's chancellor, Nigel Lawson slashed income and other direct taxes, especially for the rich. The top rate of tax came down from 60p in the pound to just 40p by 1988. He also reduced the basic rate of income tax; but the poor wouldn't have seen much of those pounds in their pockets, as, thanks to the Tories, they were paying more VAT.

The original report quoted in the article is Dude Wheres my Oil Money by John Hawksworth of PriceWaterhouseCooper and came out in 2008 but I cant find it online

FWIW the folk I know in the oil business don't give a lot of weight to Wood's opinions or reports given that they're a services company and not a drilling or exploration company. They reckon he's mostly just in it for himself and the figures and numbers used are chosen to further what ever the company is seeking to do at that point in time.

y. I laugh when fellow Scots wish to end the class system, and I imagine wealth inequality by distributing oil wealth amongst a smaller percentage of the UK population

At the end of the day we're too small an amount of people with not enough influence to make changes to the rest of the UK so might as well start with Scotland. I would the rUK follows suit but there's not a lot we can do about it up here.

If, as expected the Scots return a NO vote, then all this will have achieved is to sour relations (even more?) between Scotland and England & possibly even sour relations between Scotland & Wales/N.I.

Not a happy state of affairs really.

Well you know who to blame.....

...the real negativity has come from yS all along with the scare stories on the NHS being the final salvo. So Alex what has happened to NHS spending this decade in real terms? How has this been affected by "austerity" (sic)? How much autonomy over health policies are already devolved? How many Scots eat their five a day? Which UK parties are promoting the end of free at the point of use? Hmmmm.......

Can't see where the various reports on Scottish health point the finger at English Tories, but it's a suitably deceitful tag line to finish with. Blame Thatcher for the lack of cauliflower in Cowdenbeath.

the real negativity has come from yS all along

A quick list of headlines, just running from April 2014:

“Yes vote risks foreign aid”
“Yes vote is threat to freedom”
“Scots would lose access to BBC shows after independence”
“Independent Scotland’s viewers must pay extra for BBC”
“Alex Salmond’s currency Plan A would collapse within a year”
“Independent Scotland’s economy would crash if it tried to use sterling”
“Go-it-alone Scotland ‘defenceless’: Nation will be left without weapons”
“Mortgages up £1600 if Yes”
“Scottish yes vote could lead to currency limbo, say MPs”
“Postal costs in Scotland could rise after independence, say MPs”
“Scotland and the UK will separate geographically, as well as politically”
“Yes could be catalyst for sterling crisis”
“Yes will send shares crashing”
“Labour claim 1m may lose jobs after independence”
“Darling: Independence could cost Scotland £8bn”
“700,000 to Leave if Union is Broken”
“Yes vote would lead to economic crisis worse than the crash”
“UK split to set back cure for cancer”
“Gordon Brown raises organ-transplant fears ahead of referendum”
“Alex Salmond Is A ‘Prototype Dictator’ And ‘Master Of The Borg’”
“Juncker Ends Salmond’s European Dream”
“Scotland’s tourism industry is threatened by independence”
“Split ‘may cost Scots £400m for welfare IT’
“Yes vote pension cost warning“
“Vulnerable people could lose benefits in an independent Scotland“
“Bank bailout doubt if Scots vote to quit UK“
“Independent Scotland Could Suffer Iceland-Style Financial Collapse“
“Consumers would snub separate Scotland’s brands“
“Scottish independence ‘would harm world’s poorest’”
“Go-alone Scotland faces threats from space”
“Scottish Independence Will Lead to Soaring Energy Bills”
“Scotland faces £143bn debt after independence”
“Fears for fishing in breakaway Scotland”
“Thousands of defence jobs will be at risk if Scotland votes Yes”
“Scottish independence will cause civil war in Africa”
“Scottish independence would be cataclysmic for the world”

Only THM in this thread could argue that "scare stories on the NHS" are just scare stories. Everyone I know, where ever they are from, is worried about how the NHS will be in 10-20 years time after the changes kicked off by the current government and the increasing role of private healthcare companies. To think think changes to the NHS in England wouldn't have any sort of knock on effect is naive as well.

Quoting headlines from the Weekly World News isn't adding a lot of authority to your argument !

Adn you missed the one about how we would all have to drive on the right hand side of the road, under an Independent Scotland.

Adn you missed the one about how we would all have to drive on the right hand side of the road, under an Independent Scotland.

Apparently that one was meant to be a joke. I don't think the rest of these were meant as jokes.

“Alex Salmond Is A ‘Prototype Dictator’ And ‘Master Of The Borg’

Scottish independence will cause civil war in Africa”.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this - but Star Trek was just a TV show - it wasn't real. And the White Paper is just a book of ideas.

So how will Scotland be immune from the same pressures WNB? Which rUK party is talking about the end to free at the point of use?

In the meantime, forget the actual reasons behind Scoltand's poor health record and blame the English. Do we stop all fruit at Carlisle? Did John Major insist that you eat more takeaways and drink more alcohol than France? Has CMD ruled that more Scots should skip breakfast?

So is Scotland unable to manage its own health policy or does it have to follow the rUK one (perceived or otherwise)?

Ben you forget the central theme of portraying one of the most successful examples on economic and political union are almost entirely negative for one party. That is (unfounded) negativity of the highest order and a little bit more relevant than lists of headlines (designed to sell papers).

I wonder if there is any measure of how effectively the various Westminster governments shared oil wealth among the whole UK population?

On specific rates we have had lower VAT for many years than say France (17.5 VAT vs 19.6 TVA) and also much lower taxes for average working people. So you could argue if you wished that the oil revenue has been distributed evenly particularly in reference to VAT

@ben, its easy to throw rocks at the No campaign for being "negative" as the primary argument is that Scotland will be worse off

o Scotland’s economy represents a significant share of Sterling Area output -approximately 10% of current UK GDP or around the same size as the entire UK financial sector.

“Alex Salmond Is A ‘Prototype Dictator’ And ‘Master Of The Borg’

That was Scotland's only UKIP MEP, and he's a fruitcake, but they've not disowned him yet: https://archive.today/ZDrT6

Scottish independence will cause civil war in Africa”.

That was an Oxford professor writing in the FT: http://archive.today/ojIXJ

keeping this on topic

I'm still waiting for a Yes supporter to state convincingly why CU is in the interest of rUK

That'd be the vague ideological reason(not explained particulay well. It's late!)

In the meantime, forget the actual reasons behind Scoltand's poor health record and blame the English.

I stopped reading at this petty jibe. No one is doing that.

So how will Scotland be immune from the same pressures WNB? Which rUK party is talking about the end to free at the point of use?

As for this, the fact that we're unlikely to vote in a party that favours the privatisation of public services is a decent start. And of course the Tories aren't admitting that's their plan, but there's a whole host of things they said they wouldn't do, but did anyway.

You can apply "so what" to many such points kona!

They are not designed for the discerning audience as the book of dreams illustrated.

It's not a jibe WNB it's the sad reality. I can't see let's blame the Tories in many of the reports commissioned by the DO. They tend to focus in the real threats to Scottish health not the made up ones.

As for this, the fact that we're unlikely to vote in a party that favours the privatisation of public services

Apart from the one you have voted in which has increase expenditure on NHS use of private health care year on year since gaining power.

The whole NHS argument is a an attempt by the yS to raise the tensions. The UK Government is aiming to reduce public spending. Regardless of which mainstream political party you support, they are all committed to it it. As Scotland's block grant is worked out from Government spending, then any reduction will also impact money handed to the Scottish Government. How the Scottish Government spends that money is upto them, in fact they could increase Income Tax in Scotland with powers already granted to them if they wanted more money.

The current funding model for the NHS is probably unworkable in the long term, and compared to some social models used in other European countries, quite inefficient. No party (including mainstream Tories) is advocating a move to the US model of private healthcare - for slightly better results in outcomes it spends as vast amount more.

And just to point out (in the name of fairness) NHS Scotland spent about £1 Bn last year on private healthcare.

Jambalaya VAT is a regressive tax and under the coalition the standard rate has risen to 20%. Whilst the higher rate of tax has fallen 43 % from 83% to 40% since Thatcher became pm and the basic rate has fallen by 13% from 33% to 20% over the same period.(HMRC) When you combine this with increases in national insurance (see the guardian article) and the regressive nature vat it means that the already well off have benefited disproportionately from tax cuts funded partly by north sea oil revenue.

The whole NHS argument is a an attempt by the yS to raise the tensions. The UK Government is aiming to reduce public spending. Regardless of which mainstream political party you support, they are all committed to it it.

big_n_daft - Member

I think it's refreshingly honest and nothing wrong with it, you just need to settle with the fact that a large proportion of the Yes vote is based on keeping the oil wealth for a smaller group of people

The whole NHS argument is a an attempt by the yS to raise the tensions.

gordimhor - Member

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.

Quoting yourself ....is never a good look 😳

I wonder if there is any measure of how effectively the various Westminster governments shared oil wealth among the whole UK population?

Quite badly I imagine gordimhor. I am not here to defend all the actions of the UK government, also spreading the oil wealth over so many means the effect is smaller, but I think it is still worth trying. Wealth inequality will still be an issue in an independent Scotland.

And just to point out (in the name of fairness) NHS Scotland spent about £1 Bn last year on private healthcare.

Rubbish:

Recent figures showed NHS spending in Scotland for independent healthcare in 2012/13 was about £28m, which is 0.8% of the overall budget.

I've seen slightly different figures elsewhere, but it's still a lot, lot less than £1bn:

The amount spent by NHS Scotland on private sector involvement in 2012/13 was £80 million – that’s less than 1% of the total amount spent in Scotland on front line NHS services. To put it in a slightly different context, that £80 million is much less than the £220 million a year in charges the Scottish Government has to shell out for PFI contracts. If anyone has allowed the private sector into our NHS in Scotland it’s been Labour – the Scottish Government is locked into these contracts and has no choice about paying out these funds, thanks to Labour bringing private firms into our health service. The accumulated £400 million spend over six years quoted by the No campaign has been massaged to include the use of locum doctors and agency nurses – temporary staff brought in to cover shortages, holiday periods and the like.

There's also a fundamental difference in how private companies are used in Scotland. They're not contract holders. Private companies are not bidding for health services. They're only brought in for specific issues in some healthcare regions.

Jambalaya VAT is a regressive tax and under the coalition the standard rate has risen to 20%. Whilst the higher rate of tax has fallen 43 % from 83% to 40% since Thatcher became pm and the basic rate has fallen by 13% from 33% to 20% over the same period.(HMRC) When you combine this with increases in national insurance (see the guardian article) and the regressive nature vat it means that the already well off have benefited disproportionately from tax cuts funded partly by north sea oil revenue.

If we do see an independent Scotland or at least one with tax setting powers then you can observe what AS/SNP do to make the country "more fair"

big_n_daft - Member
...the question is whether the "marriage" is over or do we just need counselling, but as with any separation, if it ends up with a divorce both parties will look to their own future

Sadly it's now too late. Even if there is a No vote there is a very large percentage of Scots unhappy.

So unless Westminster changes its spots, that will keep festering away. I don't know where that will lead.

We needed a renewal of the vows of marriage after the '79 referendum, an adjustment of the govt structure.

I'll happily admit to being a Scottish nationalist (NB small "n"), but I also think that it's possible to be that in a United Kingdom, just as there is room for English, Welsh and Northern Irish nationalists, with an overall pride in British nationality.

However for that to work there needed to be a fairer distribution of power and resources, and a more federated structure. It's been left too late.

It's not just Scotland that thinks it is not getting a fair go, there's also rumblings in the rest of the country. Our govt has become too centralised and top heavy with unelected "representatives" who stay in power regardless of who we have voted for. The city state of London looks like a black hole sucking up resources.

I can't speak for England (obviously) but I believe real power needs to be delegated to regions, and a new capital city in the north of England to reduce the London bias.

Most of the Yes voters I know would have voted for more devolution rather than a separation, but we were not offered that. There is no choice for us now but to vote Yes.

This is made more necessary because English politicians are lining up to say how much the Scottish budget needs to be cut - if we vote NO, we are going to be punished for our temerity, not rewarded for saving the Union. Ironically this has converted the last No voter in my immediate family.

And really, if you think we are sucking up your taxes and getting more than our share, you should be delighted to see us go.

^ What he said.

I'd also add that it's odd to see so much complaint about higher public spending in Scotland, when the public spending per person is even higher in London. Why isn't there more complaint about that?

This is made more necessary because English politicians are lining up to say how much the Scottish budget needs to be cut

- if we vote NO, we are going to be punished for our temerity, not rewarded for saving the Union. Ironically this has converted the last No voter in my immediate family

is this not the Yes campaign version of project fear?

the three main parties agree on more devolution, there is no momentum for a "punishment" of the Scots in fact the reverse to build on what has already been done, the welsh want it the NI probably want it and other than idiots in the SE bubble I believe England wants more devolved power

If we do see an independent Scotland [s]or at least one with tax setting powers[/s] then you can observe what[s] AS/SNP[/s]future Scottish Governments do to make the country "more fair"

big_n_daft - Member
t's just the usual London idiots who think the rest of the country freeload off the centre of the universe given air time by London based media outlets because it gets headlines
"- if we vote NO, we are going to be punished for our temerity, not rewarded for saving the Union. Ironically this has converted the last No voter in my immediate family"
is this not the Yes campaign version of project fear?

No it's not the Yes campaign version of Project Fear.

We have no control over the press, hence the almost 100% support of the press for the No position.

Indeed if Alex Salmond is controlling the English press to that extent, he should be PM of the entire country. 🙂

We do not believe the 3 parties about further devolution - they have lied to us before about this. If they hadn't, that "promise" would be more believable.

it's just the usual London idiots who think the rest of the country freeload off the centre of the universe given air time by London based media outlets because it gets headlines

If only that were true - sadly the Future of England survey showed that it's ordinary English people who want to punish the Scots for even trying to get independence:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/leader-comment-english-opinion-on-independence-1-3514693

I'd also add that it's odd to see so much complaint about higher public spending in Scotland, when the public spending per person is even higher in London. Why isn't there more complaint about that?

Because you've just made that ‘fact’ up? (Public spending per capita Scotland £10152, London £9435)

the three main parties agree on more devolution

What they agree on is "more powers" for Scotland. Those powers come down to greater control over income tax, but a corresponding reduction in the block grant.

This will mean a huge reduction in the Scottish budget. At the moment Scotland gets a contribution back via the block grant, but we contribute even more because of the oil revenues. But if we lose the block grant we'll only have the income tax to make up the shortfall - we won't have control of the oil revenues to do that, they'll stay with Westminster.

So that extra £1400 per year that every Scot gets will be gone.

"So that extra £1400 per year that every Scot gets will be gone."

Yes but Ben it's not about money and economics is it?!?! 😉

Because you've just made that ‘fact’ up? (Public spending per capita Scotland £10152, London £9435)

Those aren't the figures I've seen. The killer is infrastructure - infrastructure spending per head in London is around £5000, and that's not quoted in the normal public spending figures.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

Yes but Ben it's not about money and economics is it?!?!

No it isn't, but it's worth countering the lie that what the three main parties propose is a good thing for Scotland - it isn't.

So the three main parties are proposing greater devolution (essentially what most people want) and that is a bad thing. There is some real confusion up north of the border. We want what the no camp are offering but we can't vote for them because they are not the yes camp. Too much irn bru and vodka....