You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Me too, actually.
I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn't have a currency union.
of course a CU is possible, and the terms and conditions would have to be agree, but why would the rUK agree to take such a risk on a new foreign economy without something in return?
and it's not exactly independence without your own bank, reserves, policy and governance - and that doesn't happen overnight (or in 18 months time) - it'd take over ten years to build up decent reserves to secure a new scottish currency, never mind all the SNP's spending promises and a potential deficit reduction programme
that is what is not being explained, and Alex keeps changing his mind over what currency he thinks is best - is it the euro, is it the pound, or something else?
of course a CU is possible, and the terms and conditions would have to be agree, but why would the rUK agree to take such a risk on a new foreign economy without something in return?
Because Scottish exports (including the oil) make a decent contribution to the strength of Sterling and the balance of payments. Because companies in the rest of the UK would benefit from having a seamless currency system with Scotland (to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, according to Ed Milliband). Because the rUK would get something in return - help with paying the massive national debt.
Because Scottish exports (including the oil) make a decent contribution to the strength of Sterling
That's a double edged sword though - it means that Sterling goes up in value and UK exports become relatively more expensive.
But of course if iScotland goes and uses Sterling anyway, but without full CU, the rUK gets this "benefit" anyway, whether we want it or not.
But of course if iScotland goes and uses Sterling anyway, but without full CU, the rUK gets this "benefit" anyway, whether we want it or not.
This is true. You're welcome 😉
from Moodys website
Overall, given the small size of Scotland's economy relative to that of the remainder of the UK and Scotland's likely investment-grade credit profile, any credit impact (negative or positive) from Scottish independence on UK sovereign creditworthiness is likely to be limited. In terms of credit positive elements, Moody's notes that Scottish independence would eliminate the current fiscal transfers between Scotland and the remaining regions of the UK, marginally improving fiscal dynamics for the remainder of the UK given higher Scottish per capita public expenditures and Scotland's older demographic profile. Any division of [b]revenues from North Sea oil would be largely credit neutral for the UK sovereign given that they are small, and declining, relative to the size the UK economy.[/b]
Potential risks to this assessment arise if Scotland refuses to assume a "fair and proportionate share" of its debt obligations, which would increase the UK's net debt burden and would be considered credit negative. [b]In addition, a potential currency union with the remainder of the UK would be credit negative if it were to materialise.[/b] However, cross-party opposition to such an outcome makes this unlikely. Scotland's adoption of an independent currency would be credit neutral for the UK.
It'd take over ten years to build up decent reserves to secure a new scottish currency, never mind all the SNP's spending promises and a potential deficit reduction programme
One wonders what new countries do in this scenario - how do they survive?
PS you forget they get their share of the assets which will include the reserves and the currency 😉
One wonders what new countries do in this scenario - how do they survive?
Australia was pegged to pound sterling for 56 years until they went their own way (edit: with the the australian dollar)
PS you forget they get their share of the assets which will include the reserves and the currency
guess that means a share of the debts as well then 😉
😳Either that or a fail by THM.
Oops, yep hands up to a big fail there. I am so used to yS arguing why independence is actually a bad idea, that I misread that one, even by yS standards it did seem a bit extreme. Too much speed reading before lunch!!
Almost right there Ben, lower transactions costs are the only benefit to the rUk but they are overshadowed by the disadvantages - hence thanks, but nae thanks.
piemonster - Member - Quote
Went out on the bikes with Scotroutes today.Good day out it was.
Tis true.
Here is [s]Cake[/s]Piemonster about to start inhaling the Pistachio and Custard Cake at Inshriach
[img] 
[/img]
guess that means a share of the debts as well then
I assume they will try a quid pro quo route tbh as will rUK
It is what negotiations are
neither side will come out with what they have said they will.
THM I think you mean main not only benefit.
There are a number of reasons why this would be the best arrangement, and there are a number of reasons why it would be to the benefit of both countries if such an arrangement was agreed.
It makes sense to retain Sterling as part of a formal monetary union. It will not only provide a workable currency from day one of independence but also a strong overarching framework for Scotland post-independence.
A commitment to retain Sterling would promote business certainty, reassuring businesses on both sides of the border that they would continue to trade in Sterling.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* A shared currency would help facilitate the orderly supervision and oversight of systemically important financial institutions which operate across both countries
Please ignore the troll of me disagreeing with you, without insults, and referencing my point.
You are Ole Gunnar solksjar and i claim my £5
[img] 
[/img]
I have seen Binners in the flesh and he is way more of a pie monster than you are
We'll have complete control of all taxes and all public spending. Complete control of immigration and defence. Complete control of everything.
Of course, like almost all countries, we'll give up some of that control via treaties and the like, but as an independent country we will have the ability to negotiate those treaties ourselves, instead of hoping that the UK government will act in our interests.
Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.
Except for all the things I pointed out before such as eu law, world trade agreements, big corporations. I live In Sweden and policies and laws seem pretty similar and drifting the same way so I would say don't expect too much from independence. The main difference between the UK and Sweden is that British people seem much more into self interest politics/ self reliance and somebody else's problem and the Nordics they want to do thing together, do not want to stand out from the herd and want a consensus.
Now you could see the yes side from both perspectives. That Scotland is more like the nordics in character or wanting to do their own thing is more like the British character. I would guess the yes voters would like to think they are more nordic in spirit but from my experience that's just not true.
Tis true.Here is CakePiemonster about to start inhaling the Pistachio and Custard Cake at Inshriach
****ing hell, if I'd have known I'd have turned to my good side. Somewhere behind that building, or some other camera proof object.
Still, if times get hard I can always turn my hand to advertising Tefal products.
PM - nice photo and cake, but Heinrich Himmler appearing on your knee is spooky 😉
So looks like the DO really is going jnto the final stretch with sterlingisation - 100 Cheapside anyone?
We'll have complete control of all taxes and all public spending. Complete control of immigration and defence. Complete control of everything.
Apart from control of interest rates or your currency !
...and fiscal policy and other peoples' nukes among other things
Anyone have any details on how/where [url= http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/scottish-independence-poll-shows-no-campaign-heading-for-lan ]THIS POLL[/url] was conducted?
No, but I enjoyed the article from the same site
Doubling up on a bad position is a classic way that traders go down in flames. Hopefully, the DOs latest tactics will have the same effect.
I wonder what sturgeon and Swinney are thinking now. Let his go down in flames so that they can pick up the pieces later. I guess they are more vocal in Scottish press, but very low key coverage elsewhere.
It has a link on your link to a sun link
I boycott that paper so cannot say what it says
you gov who say
YES at 35% (no change) and NO at 55% (+1)
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/latest-scottish-referendum-poll/
general
http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/scottish-independence/
Pie monster there is some info on Curtice's blog at whatscotlandthinks
Cheers Gordi/Junkyard, I'll have a mooch.
Of the various currency options available to an iS, the latest one is the one that the fiscal commission rejected almost immediately. One small paragraph in their report explaining why serious consideration need only be given to the other options. So the DO is even ignoring his own advice now. Amazing.
I did point that out to Ben a couple of pages ago but that didn't seem to matter.
Somebody in a village near me put up one of those big white Yes signs on their property next to the road. Local wag has already drawn pubic hair on the Y. This could get entertaining....
Vietnam already owns the dong
STOP TELLING SCOTLAND IT CAN'T USE THE DONG!
Typical "Better Together" scaremongering propaganda.
The Ding Dong is still available. It has a certain ring to it too.
Excellent !
I will try and get a pic - was driving and didn't have time to stop. Will take a can of spray paint just in case.
The Ding Dong is still available. It has a certain ring to it too.
The notes will need Prince Albert then?
Although in reflection, for maximum amusement he should really put up a series of Yes signs, as in Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Oh Yes, Yes etc.
Given how humorless most of the Yes folk are, I won't knock on the door and suggest it.
Just received this guff in the post:
"We believe that we can have the best of both worlds in Scotland as part of the UK. We can have a strong Scottish Parliament, with more powers guaranteed, and we can have the strength, security and stability that comes from being part of the bigger UK. We don't need to choose between the two.
Voting for separation would be a huge leap into the unknown. If we leave then we lose the strength of the pound. This would mean that we would pay more for our mortgages, credit cards and loans. If we leave we are putting our pensions at risk. If we leave we are risking big companies being forced to move south and Scottish jobs being lost.
If we leave the UK there would be no going back. In September we face a choice about our future. Let's say no thanks to all of the risks and uncertainties of independence. Lets say loud and clear that we want the best of both worlds for Scotland."
If we have more powers guaranteed why are the being kept secret until after the referendum? My reckoning is that the will be minimal at most - if they were anything to write home about Better Together would be singing them from the roof tops.
The UK doesn't strike me as being all that strong or secure and is about as stable as a wobble board.
The pound is weak. I like that they have a crystal ball which say that we will all pay more for debt products. I wonder if we might have fewer debt products in a prosperous independent Scotland.
Our pensions are not at risk - there is no pension pot for state pensions, they are paid for by current taxes, more prosperous Scotland equals more tax income which equals safer pensions.
As for big companies being forced to leave - most of our big companies were massive liabilities during the financial crash. Might well be a good thing for them to leave.
I'll be saying No to the risks and uncertainties of staying as part of the UK.
If only we could have a sensible fact and evidence driven debate instead of the absolute guff that has taken over.
If only we could have a sensible fact and evidence driven debate instead of the absolute guff that has taken over.
I do hope you're not holding your breath.
It'd be nice if folk stop "playing the man" too.
That goes for both sides, Boris is popping up quite a bit. And yesterday I listened to someone state "I was unsure but after listening to the (STV) debate I'm voting No" Not because of the case made by either side but because Salmond is "smarmy"
@wanman - "the pound is weak" so why is AS proposing you use it ? The counter to your argument is that an independent Scotland is much weaker and almost certainly less prosperous due to higher per capita overheads and the fact it lacks the scale to compete.
Anyway I respect the fact it's your choice and wish you the best in it.
"the fact it lacks the scale to compete"
do expand on this please.
Our pensions are not at risk - there is no pension pot for state pensions, they are paid for by current taxes, more prosperous Scotland equals more tax income which equals safer pensions.
I might well be confused on this (as on most things). Wasn't the argument about pensions that Scotland has a population that is aging more than the UK, so *because* they are paid by current taxes, currently Scotland gets quite a good deal, but independence would remove this, meaning pensions would have to be decreased, or contributions increased?
they are paid by current taxes, currently Scotland gets quite a good deal, but independence would remove this, meaning pensions would have to be decreased, or contributions increased
Life expectancy in Scotland is less that other parts of the UK. So per person there is on average less spent on pensions.
An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London.
Plus we'd have the opportunity to explore the Atlantic coast for oil and gas....
It'd be nice if folk stop "playing the man" too
Yes it would indeed both on here and in the wider debate
I dont know quite what AS does to engender so much ill feeling tbh.
he is the same as any other politician ie no one should believe what they say though it is just possible he might
As he notes scotlands master plan on pensions is to let everyone die young - about 2 weeks after stopping work would be ideal.
FWIW it will be a mess to sort out the burden for say someone who is now 55 and has "paid into " the UK
I might well be confused on this (as on most things). Wasn't the argument about pensions that Scotland has a population that is aging more than the UK, so *because* they are paid by current taxes, currently Scotland gets quite a good deal, but independence would remove this, meaning pensions would have to be decreased, or contributions increased?
Yes we have an aging population. One of the arguments from Better Together is that due to this we need the support from rest of UK to keep pensions secure.
My argument would be that we need our own policy on immigration and stop sending away non-EU graduates after university so they can live and work here, pay taxes etc which would help.
We need to address the aging population, our young people are leaving to go down south in droves for work. Better Together have put out nothing to suggest a fix for this if we vote No, they seem to be happy with the current situation.
Yes campaign could be doing more to promote what they would be doing.
Of course the £ is weak, it a deliberate policy choice.
Anyone would think there was a pension pot to talk about. If only....
An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London.
how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?
do expand on this please.
@wanman - it's been one of my points/themes throughout this thread. Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn't have the scale required in today's world. The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.
Plus we'd have the opportunity to explore the Atlantic coast for oil and gas....
❓ 28th licensing round this year had hundreds of Atlantic frontier blocks
I dont know quite what AS does to engender so much ill feeling tbh.
@Junkyard - are you serious, he's the most objectionable SOB ? I do my up most to try and see beyond individuals in politics but he is right up there with GWB in my book. Perhaps you think he's standing up for Scotland but to me he's a massive PITA for no great benefit to anyone other than himself, a huge ego, obstinate and someone who cannot back up his grand proclamations with any substance.
The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.
This might very well be correct, but for me, it would be easier to be worried about this (if I even lived in Scotland) if there was any evidence for it.
It's certainly true that Westminster has a quite staggering ability to lose money on vast IT projects. I'd like to think though that canny Scotspeople in this day and age of computerification could achieve something just as good without having to splurge hundreds of millions of pounds on Capita and Accenture.
I might offer my services actually.
EDIT: putting my cynic's hat on though, AS might just pay vast amounts to those same consultants out of sheer laziness.
So is Tolkein's "Silmarillion". That has no basis in reality either.
Okay, which bits are incorrect? Please provide sources.
It's an interesting read
I clicked on the link and my enthusiasm waned almost immediately, I don;t have the strength
Ben - the summary is 5 opinion pieces which have been done to death on here already. It is all supposition based on a favourable interpretation of data and the range of outcomes from it. No facts about how Scotland can be guaranteed to be as it all depends on negotiations. So, nothing new then.
If that's the best iS has, credibility on the world stage does not beckon.
C'mon Ben. Find something sensible to read. If yS is based in this and the BoD then you really are doomed. The opening para in currencies is gobbledigook. Misrepresentation at best, and God knows what at worst.
Still as said before, brilliant to see who know loves the Adam Smith Insitute's stuff!!!
[quote=The Flying Ox said]So is Tolkein's "Silmarillion". That has no basis in reality either.
its shit FACT
It is all supposition based on a favourable interpretation of data and the range of outcomes from it. No facts about how Scotland can be guaranteed to be as it all depends on negotiations. So, nothing new then.If that's the best iS has, credibility on the world stage does not beckon.
The debate would hardly be worth it if we all gave a galic shrug admitted we did not know and said it would all come out in the wash [ negotiations]
FWIW if they promised x, y amd z i get the feelign you would object somewhat to the fanciful flights of fancy
The opening para in currencies is gobbledigook
many of struggle with economics but it is science and therefore complicated 😉
FWIW i understood it we can use the pound whatever westminster says. that would be best described as use rather than keep though.
It is amusing to see the lengths folk will go to drag out tenuous quotes to support their positions and ignore everything that contradicts it
there is no balance to this debate at all.
It always makes me giggle to see Stu Campbell's name outside of anything to do with Amiga Power.
it's been one of my points/themes throughout this thread. Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn't have the scale required in today's world. The per capita cost of the government infra-strucure will hamper Scotland and at 5m people it will not have a strong domestic market to rely upon. A population of 5m is just a rounding error these days.
And there are absolutely no countries in the world with a population of 5m or less which are successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.
Looks like a lot of small countries at the top of that list....
"Scotland is a country of 5m, it doesn't have the scale required in today's world."
I think you've got it completely backward, actually. Scale (esp for an EU country) has never been less important. it's not the 19th century any more. think of the savings resulting from not engaging in grand neoimperial military adventures, for a start...
Just wondered why "the pound is weak" given its position at present, anybody?
Need to know as we are now writing our Freeeeeedoooom for Yorkshire wish list or white paper as I believe it's called in some shires. Anyway if pounds weak it'll be no good as currency in "gods country" (I quote Christian Prudhomme there), so have decided that Ben Shaws bottle tops would be currency of choice. If tha needs more money exchange your weak pounds for a Bottle of Ben Shaw dandelion and burdock, a bottle top comes free.
I notice the future president were commentating on cricket. Gone all that way to Lancashire just for radio 4. Now that's a proper future leader, can be trusted to commentate without staying anything controversial.
You nut jobs in the YLA (Yorkshire Liberation Army) don't need to worry about the strength of the pound.
Currency is irrelevant if you're all to tight to spend any on owt.
And there are absolutely no countries in the world with a population of 5m or less which are successful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.Looks like a lot of small countries at the top of that list....
That is rather missing the point. None of those countries have gained their independence [i]in today's world[/i]. And none of the countries that have gained their independence [i]in today's world[/i] even make the top 50. The closest is Latvia, at #58. Massive GDP growth rate, you may argue, but that is a statistical quirk caused by the recovery of their consumption-led economy from a colossal GDP contraction in 2009, and the shoring up of their finances by a number of bailouts. Is this the company you want Scotland to keep and emulate?
The small countries at the top of the GDP list have been around for many years, and their state instruments either built with the riches of exploration (back when that was a lucrative undertaking), or provided in return for assistance in some war or other, or even by plain and simple slave labour. To compare their success in the GDP per capita stakes with the potential of Scotland's is to ignore some very salient facts.
Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and [i]in today's world[/i] that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.
Why in today's world? I don't understand - bureaucracies were pretty big 100 years ago too. Why is it so much more expensive to start up a new country now?
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you struggling to see the difference between the cost of things in the past and the cost of things now?
For example, how much did a house cost 25 years ago. How much was that figure as a percentage of a person's wages? How much does a house cost [i]in today's world[/i]? Do you think governments are somehow immune from the effects of inflation?
I'm not deliberately obtuse, it just comes naturally.
House prices as a factor of wages have gone up, yes. Home computer prices as a factor of wages have come down a lot. If you're going to be more general, the cost of most things has come down quite a bit, but we buy more stuff.
What has this got to do with the startup costs of a new country? Is a new country going to be buying houses or new IT systems?
Yes, it cost only £2M to build the Houses of Parliament (3x over budget though) but back then £2M was a much larger amount of money. That's how inflation works.
Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today's world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.
But we already have all of the things we need, when we leave we will be taking the part we paid for with us. Do you English think of Scotland as a partner or as a colonial possession?
How about an actual example?
Sheffield Supertram, built in the mid-90s, cost roughly £240 million. Although much gnashing of teeth happened at the time, and quite rightly given the unfair way in which it was funded, it still ended up being a reasonable alternative to the bus service the Sheffield had. Total line length = 60km. Cost per km = £4 million/km
Edinburgh Tram project, an 18.5km tramline, is projected to cost £1.1 billion by the time it's finished. £54 million/km. That's from an original estimated cost of just shy of £500 million. Even if you remove all the dilly-dallying and general incompetence from the Council, it's projected costs still indicates a 100% rise in cost of public spending projects. Factor in the delays, overspend and interest payments, you've got a four-fold increase in the cost of a project that is 1/3 the size.
But you see, that's number fudging, a tactic used by both sides in the independence debate. Firstly, you need to take inflation into account between the years involved. Sheffield's Supertram was completed in 1995, at a cost of £240 million. Edinburgh's Tram Project had an estimated cost of £498 million in 2003. Between 1995 and 2003 we saw inflation of ~22%, so 1995's £240 million would be the equivalent of just under £300 million in 2003. So the budget for a smaller network was at least £200 million greater than inflation would suggest was required. Greater forces at work in the wide, wide world than inflation it seems, and serves as a real world example that certain things that Scotland will need to build/provide/develop are going to be very, very expensive.
But we already have all of the things we need, when we leave we will be taking the part we paid for with us. Do you English think of Scotland as a partner or as a colonial possession?
Interesting use of "English" there. This "Englishman" thinks of Scotland as home, thank you very much. Just an example, but how is Scotland proposing to deal with driver and vehicle licensing? Renting some office space in Swansea? How will Scotland take its "fair share" of the DVLA? And HMRC. One of the major incentives for independence is the freedom to set tax rates as and how Scotland sees fit. You think HMRC are going to just automagically be able to deal with two tax regimes? That ICAS report - misused by the "Better Together" campaign and flat-out ignored by the Indys - lays out how changes to New Zealand's tax system which are less involved than those that will be required for an independent Scotland, cost £750 million. How's that fit in with Dunleavey's £200 million?
The point is, things cost a lot of money. Those things cost less money 100 years, 50 years, 20 years ago, even taking inflation into account. To use the GDP-per-capita of small, dissimilar countries that have been around for years as an example of why Scotland, with all the necessary hoops it will have to jump through, is going to hit the ground running just doesn't make sense.
And just to clarify, I've never said Scotland couldn't be a successful independent country. I believe it could. I just think that it will be a torrid few years before that happens, especially if Salmond's ego has anything to do with it, and I'm just not willing to chance my family's future in Scotland (I love the place, and I'd be sad to move away) on the reality of independence being drastically different from the promises in the SNP's white paper.
Ahhhh back to "English"
We're all the same don't you know!!!
ninfan - Member
"An indy Scotland would not have to pay for HS2, Crossrail, the Olympics and any other vanity project that Westminster dreams up for London."
how do you think most of the tourists get so Scotland? Do they fly in direct to Glasgow or come in via Heathrow and pesky English road and rail links? What reward would there be for England to dual the A1 from Newcastle, or the East coast main line?
Why would we leave things as they are, and be reliant on an another country's services for any longer than necessary?
Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?
FWIW HMRC will have to be set up to deal with multiple tax rates regardless as those powers have been "promised" to Holyrood already. The cost of doing so is already well understood.
After a little peer review from colleagues at his own institution, Dunleavy raised the number. £200M was the start with the range he eventually quoted getting to the number the Treasury suggested and which Yes campaign ridiculed.How's that fit in with Dunleavey's £200 million?
FWIW HMRC will have to be set up to deal with multiple tax rates regardless as those powers have been "promised" to Holyrood already. The cost of doing so is already well understood.
Not quite true. One of the reasons Holyrood's tax varying powers have not been used is that the cost of altering systems to cope consumes most of the benefit.
Another is that the capacity to set different tax rates refers only to taxes already operated by UK. If iS really wants to be independent and make the social change being talked about then it needs to have the capacity to have not just different tax rates, but different tax structures and regimes. For that it needs its own systems.
Scotland is going to have to start from scratch in some cases, and in today's world that is going to be a very, very expensive undertaking.
I am with Flying Ox and have said so repeatedly. Scotland will have a small population and a low tax base so big projects are going to be very expensive on a per head basis. Add to this the fact that inevitably (IMO) Scotland will have to cut corporate taxes to encourage business to stay/attract new companies (ala Ireland) and from what we hear Scotland will be fairer (so that's lower taxes on low incomes and more public spending). This means the sums are going to be very stretched and over just 5m people. What you will see is a big uptick in the amount of state/government employees as Scotland replicates the various departments/organizations required to run a country. These will have to be paid for by private sector taxes and I suppose all those oil revenues assuming the oil price stays high.
Scotland is going to be more Greece than Norway.
Scotland's fare share of assets. I don't see Scotland as owning a share of HMRC, DVLA, the military etc. What Scotland is currently doing is renting/leasing them based upon the taxes it contributes. As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.
I'm very strongly in the No camp, but I don't think you can say that. All these services have a mix of assets which exist and operating costs to continue them. Your point is valid for the latter but not for the former.As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only
jambalaya - do you not think your view comes close to viewing Scotland as a colony rather than a partner in a union?
scotroutes - Member
jambalaya - do you not think your view comes close to viewing Scotland as a colony rather than a partner in a union?
Hold on, they never conquered us, it was our king who took over their throne, so maybe England is the colony.
Do you think we should let them keep the pound? 🙂
Yeah, it was a Scot who founded the Bank of England too 😉
As soon as Scotland stops paying taxes these facilities revert to being for the UK only.
How do you propose this would work for all the infrastructure that's located in Scotland? Will the rUK come up (i.e. invade) and remove everything owned by the UK government piece by piece?
We paid for a share of them, a share of them is ours.
[i]If only we could have a sensible fact and evidence driven debate instead of the absolute guff that has taken over.[/i]
Is really at the heart of the matter, but slightly misses the point. Being "your own boss" isn't just about the facts and figures, and in many ways its the least important part of the whole debate. It should be about the emotive, this whole argument pretty much solely comes down to " do we want to be our own country" and the answer is pretty straightforward for most folk, and doesn't need a great deal of time or thought, its pretty instinctive.
If the majority say "yeah **** it lets give it a go" then all of this guff ( and its mostly guff) WILL get worked out, might be a compromise might be a little gained here and a little lost here, but it will be managed.
The majority of scots seem to think "no" at the minute, I can't see it radically changing. It's pretty much been decided already
"Do you really think we are not going to compete for hub traffic and have a suitable international hub in Scotland to meet our needs?"
that's a terrible idea. Europe is filled with potential hubs away from places you actually want to fly to. why spew away millions more quid to compete with them in some sort of vanity project?